CCMIN011706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Sullivan believed the applicant worked hard with the neighbors in an attempt to try and resolve the issues. He believed the Jones family did not believe all of its issues have been resolved. If staff became involved again to try and clearly identify and resolve the issues, he asked Mr. Jansen if that would be a process he would be willing to go through prior to the approval of the project? Mr. Jansen said he would be open regardless of the outcome this evening and he would do whatever he could reasonably do to reach satisfaction with the Jones family. He stressed there has been five months of postponements due to meetings and there has not been much progress recently. Ms. McGovern pointed out that Mr. David Jones made reference to a July 2003 letter from the Jones's attorney to Mr. Jansen. She asked Mr. Jansen if he had received the letter and if he had responded to it? Mr. Jansen said there was no July 2003 letter. Prior to the agreement with Mr. Jones, there was a November 2004 letter from Mr. Jones's attorney, which incorporated a letter from Mr. Jones's engineer, which he responded to. Mayor Hosterman believed Council was close to entering into discussion regarding a disagreement between the parties over an agreement that belonged in court and not before the Council. She was more interested in addressing this project on its merits. She asked legal staff to define the parameters of this item and how Council should proceed. If Council decides to proceed and act on the project and because there is litigation, Mr. Roush noted the project would not be built until the matter was resolved. If as part of the litigation, through settlement or through some court proceeding the project changed in some respect the Council's conditions, it would have to be reflected in some PUD modification in order to comply with whatever the settlement or court order would be. Council can decide the case on its merits or it could refer the matter back to staff, the applicant and the owners to see if additional issues could be resolved. Mayor Hosterman asked if a complaint had been filed with the court? Mr. Roush said the matter is beginning and he believed only a complaint had been filed. Mr. Ernest Jones, Jr. noted that it was stated the Jones family delayed the process with the Planning Department and as a matter of record, he clarified that the Jones family had not delayed this process. He clarified that his father was the only person involved from the Jones family in the negotiations, and the first time he and his brother became involved was when they became aware the item was being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. He clarified that upon his mother's death, he and his brother became trustees. Written information was provided to Council from James Schwartz, a Pleasanton resident, who believed the Roselyn Lane project, was the type of project that Council should support based on its location and it would unquestionably be a benefit to the City, both now and in the future. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 13 01/17/06