CC Min 1994-12-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Joe Pella, 1288 Garden Street, E. Palo Alto, representing the Arias property owner of 603 Stambaugh, in answer to City Attorney's questions regarding the continuance ofthis matter, advised that the owners of 603 Stambaugh did want to work with Mr. O'Brien but he did not want to meet with them. Mr. Pella advised they supported the continuance to allow them to work out an agreement, as long as the property owners are accommodated. Don Gonzalez, 706 Cowper, Palo Alto, representing the Barragans, the other owners of the property at 603 Stambaugh, advised they would like to attempt to reach agreement with Mr. O'Brien and would like to pursue mediation resolution; they supported staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to January 30, 1995; and stated that PCRC would be very helpful. Mike O'Brien, 601 Cedar, Redwood City, stated there had been four years of delays due to the failure of the people involved to abide by their agreements. Mr. O'Brien stated that the new owners of 603 Stambaugh had no right to the fee possession of any part of the street; the right had been sold to him before the property had been sold to them. Mr. O'Brien stated the terms and conditions of the sale to the new owners specifically excluded possession of the street, and they have a 20' by 70' easement over the property to get to their drive ways. He stated that the new property owners wanted to force him to give them a piece of this property when they had no right to it. Mr. O'Brien stated he spent four years and over $30,000 on the project. Mr. O'Brien stated he was against continuing the Public Hearing, that four years had been wasted already. Mr. O'Brien stated nothing could be done with the new property owners concerns until he gained title to the property; when he had title to the street then he would have something to give them. The new owners are not objecting to the vacation of the street, they just want a piece of it, to which they have no right. In response to Council questions, Mr. O'Brien stated he was willing to go to PCRC but there is nothing that can be done until he has title to the property - "I can't give them something I don't have." In response to Council questions, Mr. O'Brien stated he purchased both rights to that property for over $25,000 to date. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker stated agreements can be made based on contingencies, and those kinds of issues could be addressed by the PCRC process. Once the street is vacated then Mr. O'Brien could convey any interest he might have, but the resolution before the Council is whether the public interest calls for vacation of the street. Part of that determination will be based on what kind of arrangement or agreement might be made between the owners, what will happen to the street once it is vacated, and the Council will not know that until an agreement or plans are brought before the Council. To make a knowledgeable decision on that, the parties ought to bring the Council a plan as to what is going to happen to the stub end of that street. An agreement can be reached based on the contingency that the City will indeed vacate the street. City Manager Everett stated that if an agreement cannot be reached the public hearing on January 30, 1995 will go forward. MINUTE BOOK NO. 52 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 469 December 19, 1994 Page 6 - ---""---~----_._-,.~".------,-----------.------_.,--,---._.-----'.------'--'--'