PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

in order for the neighborhood to bring the project to where it believed the plan was in substantial conformance. Ms. Harryman replied that the Pleasanton Municipal Code states that with the parties' consent, the appeal period could be extended. She noted that Mr. Dolan stated that he had spoken with the applicants earlier in the day. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether a mediator would be selected rather than an arbitrator, Ms. Harryman confirmed that was correct. Chair Blank noted that the American Arbitration Association was a professional body that certified arbitrators and inquired whether a similar body exists for mediators. Mr. Dolan noted that staff did not have a preconceived notion on how that would proceed. He added that staff would like someone to the satisfaction of both parties. Chair Blank requested clarification of the language in Mr. Dolan's memo, "The participants from the neighborhood would agree not to oppose a determination of substantial conformance." He inquired whether it referred to the four individuals and whether the rest of the neighborhood or other individuals could oppose the determination of substantial conformance. Mr. Dolan confirmed he believed other neighbors who did not participate in the mediation could still oppose the determination of substantial conformance. Mr. Dolan continued that the four neighbors would be representative of the neighborhood, and anyone who did not agree with the result at the end could appeal the decision to the City Council. He stated that should a particular person who was not a part of the represented group bring such opposition individually to the City Council, it was conceivable that the Council would be inclined to agree with what the neighborhood representative had negotiated in good faith with the applicant. Chair Blank noted that he had experience with other groups where the members could not agree not to oppose unless they individually signed a legal document stating that they agreed not to oppose. Ms. Harryman stated that was a good point and noted that it would be possible for someone who disagreed with the decision to file an appeal; the matter would go to Council at an earlier time. Commissioner Fox suggested that this item be turned into a workshop so that the Planning Commission may give feedback as to whether the project was in substantial conformance or not, go through the mediation process, and then brought back to the Planning Commission after the mediation in order to make the formal finding of whether it was in substantial conformance or not. She expressed concern that if the mediation method recommended that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 7 of 28