CCMIN011706 - Laserfiche WebLink

every plan to Mr. Jones from before the design to during the design and after the design. He encouraged and facilitated all of their contacts with the help of staff's assistance so that there could be no doubt as to his validity and honesty and comprehensiveness. He believed there was misinformation presented. He assured Council that staff in all steps of this project was fully informed and fully engaged. He believed he and staff did everything above and beyond the call in making this agreement valid, comprehensive, and accurate and well communicated, which included several drafts where Mr. Jones refined it based on greater specificity. He respected Mr. Jones' use of the easement through his property and has done everything he could to improve it, which included changing it to a fully paved, improved, landscape and tree-lined road. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the legal owner of the Jones' property and who had the authority to sign the agreement? According to his infonmation, Mr. Jansen said when Mr. Jones' sons disputed the agreement they alleged that their father did not have the legal authority to sign the agreement. He researched the matter further, which showed the ownership of land at that particular point was the Jones Family Trust and the trustees were Mr. Jones and his deceased wife. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Michael Roush, City Attorney, said Council should not concern itself whether the agreement is enforceable. When this issue of ownership surfaced, the Assistant City Attorney reviewed and researched the matter and concluded that Mr. Jones was the sole surviving trustee of the family trust. The issue as to whether Mr. Jones, Sr. had the authority to sign the agreement will be a part of the legal debate, which is to be settled in court. Council should review the planning merits of this project and decide without resolving whether or not Mr. Jones, Sr. had the authority to sign the agreement. Mr. Jansen believed he had a challenge in trying to answer the concerns of the actual owner, Mr. Jones, Sr. versus his sons. He mentioned that he met with Mr. Jones' sons to address their issues and went through with specificity and clarity any further issues they wished clarification on, whether it be to the existing agreement or additional items. He has and will continue to try and make every effort to reach accord with not only Mr. Jones, Sr. but also with his sons, regardless of whether or not this matter is denied. staff? Mr. Sullivan asked if the recent meeting Mr. Jansen had with the Jones family included Mr. Jansen said Mr. Ernest Jones, Jr. contacted him in early December 2005 wishing to hold a meeting, which would have included all parties involved and City staff; this meeting did not occur. He subsequently met with Mr. David Jones who did not want City staff involved. He believed an agreement was close but he never heard anything further from the Jones family. Throughout this period of time, Mr. Sullivan asked if the involvement in the discussions was limited to Mr. Jansen and Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr.? Mr. Jansen said in the last two years in the process of interacting with Mr. Jones, Sr., there was involvement of legal and engineering expertise, including David Jones. He and Mr. Jones, Sr. incorporated the items he wished to have incorporated into the agreement, which are now incorporated into the conditions of approval. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 12 01/17/06