Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Thorne asked staff if it believed it could become involved in the facilitated <br />discussions without getting involved in the litigation? He believed the major argument was <br />related to the specifics of the agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Fialho said he could not answer the question with all certainty. What staff has done <br />in the past is to layout the parameters for discussion and if Council had staff embark on a <br />different process as part of the facilitation, one of the ground rules would be to stay clear from <br />the legal issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush did not see how a facilitated discussion concerning the conditions of approval <br />could take place without getting somewhat into the merits of the lawsuit. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern was trying to gain an understanding as to whether the easement and the <br />road that would be provided by Lot Nine was of equal width to what currently existed. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said it was equal or slightly greater to what currently exists and the road <br />would be paved as opposed to unpaved. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky believed the main problem associated with this project related to the <br />agreement between the applicant and the Jones family which Council and the City would not be <br />able to resolve. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorne appreciated Mr. Sullivan's' attempts as on other projects a staff facilitated <br />process has been a successful methodology that has been used numerous times. He believed <br />Council was attempting to move outside of the scope of what it ought to be doing when it <br />becomes involved in legal issues that should be settled in court, not necessarily by negotiations <br />between staff, the applicant and the Jones family. Based upon that, he could not support Mr. <br />Sullivan's proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan believed the lawsuit was a direct result of the Jones family feeling like its <br />issues had not been addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky believed the actual problems were directly related to the agreement and <br />not the merits of this development. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman believed this was an adequate project and based upon the merits of <br />the project, it should be approved. The project meets all of the constraints that the City has <br />requested the applicant to meet over the years. While she appreciated Mr. Sullivan's proposal <br />to move in the direction of asking staff to try again to negotiate something with all parties <br />involved, she had requested the Jones family to speak to the merits of the project and they have <br />repeatedly spoken about their issues pertaining to the pending lawsuit. She believed Council <br />was becoming involved in something it should not be getting involved in. She was not certain <br />that the same facilitation process as used in the past was necessarily a good idea in this <br />particular situation. She asked staff if there was an opportunity for Council to conditionally <br />approve the project based upon the applicant's ongoing discussions? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said as a practical matter, if the project were approved, it would not be able to <br />proceed until the litigation matter is resolved. As a result of the litigation, if the entire project is <br />revised or if certain conditions of approval need to be modified, the applicant would need to <br />return to Council and seek those changes. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />01/17/06 <br />