CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti indicated Council had received the phone calls and she had tried to explain the current situation. She reiterated the Fair Board has said it will keep the City advised. It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Mr. Pieo, to have a closed session to consider litlgation eoneernlng the goff course drlvlng range ff an application is not reeelved by the City of Pleasanton regarding the !and use. · Ms. Mohr asked whether the motion should be expanded. She indicated the driving range is the issue at hand, but it is only representative of the real issue. She was concerned that if the motion stays narrowly phrased, if the golf range operator comes in with an application, then the issue goes away and the broader issue is not addressed. Mr. Tarvet indicated he did not want something to happen on the Fairgrounds that is ignored by the City Council because he felt it would be used as a precedent for the Fair Board to decline to submit future applications. He wants the City to exercise land use control over non-fair activities. Ms. Michelotti indicated the Fair Liaison Committee has indicated it will take such a request to the Fair Board and there has not been time for a response. She was not in favor of taking action on a lawsuit before the Board has responded to the request. The operator has been cooperative and indicated he would voluntarily comply with Council's requests. There was discussion with the City Attorney about whether Council could address in closed session the particular and general issues of land use on the Fairgrounds. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that in order to discuss the general issue, it is first necessary to start with particular items. Ms. Michelotti indicated she would be more comfortable discussing this if a representative from the Fair Board were present. She wanted clarification that the closed session would only be necessary if an application did not come forward from the Fair Board. There was discussion on the timing of the closed session. The City Attorney felt it could be on the next agenda or on May 7, 1996. Ms. Michelotti was concerned that there be enough time given to allow the Fair Board to meet. Ms. Mohr preferred discussion to be in open session so the public can be informed of what the City's legal position is, so Councilmembers don't have to answer those questions one by one. Ms. Acosta indicated it was possible to discuss the matter in open and closed sessions. Ms. Michelotti was in favor of discussion in open session and did not want to make the issue over the driving range, because the applicant has been very cooperative. 04/02/96 -6-