CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

which have been raised in public session, that the effect of that would narrow a judgment in favor of the City, would nevertheless confirm that the Specific Plan would allow commercial development in the area. Accordingly, with the dispute between the parties, there are legal contentions on both sides, and when you have that situation, there are two ways of resolving it. One is to go to court and allow a judge or jury to make a determination. As most litigants know, that involves dealing with probabilities. Our function as attorneys is to advise our respective clients as to the probabilities of the outcome. In this context, it is not at all unusual to resolve a dispute of this nature through a settlement agreement, provided the parties can agree." City Attorney Sehrieker explained that, "What is before you is a proposed agreement to resolve this dispute. Essentially what the agreement provides is a revised proposed development which, in lieu of the 4-story building of 150,000 square feet with a parking structure, the developer agrees to develop the project commercially with two separate 2- story buildings with an aggregate usable area of 89,000 square feet with surface parking. Additionally, and this has some historic background because we entered into a tentative agreement some weeks ago before the lawsuit. The agreement includes the traffic mitigation measures, which were consistent with those agreed to before, landscape mitigation measures increasing the planting sizes and screening features of the project and a contribution towards pedestrian safety features which include a sidewalk or signals or whatever the City may require as related to the development, contributions in the amount of $34,000 which is based upon the 89,000 square foot development. The agreement has a sliding scale in that regard because if a lesser size development is actually proposed, something less than 89,000, then the amount of reduction in facility fees that would result from that smaller project would be added to the contribution for pedestrian safety features up to a maximum of $50,000. The agreement resolves the litigation, in other words, the parties agree not to pursue further litigation. The City is released of all claims with respect to the litigation and to the incident arising from it, which is to say the denial of the 4-story project. The City is indemnified against third party claims arising out of the action of entering into the agreement of the modified project. Those are the major points of the agreement, and you have had an opportunity to review them, and the resolution includes findings which are consistent with them." City Attorney Sehrieker also stated, "Included in the obligations of the parties and the City's, the City will submit the revised project to the Design Review Advisory Committee for review with respect to design, color, landscaping and outside building features. As you know, the function of the Design Advisory Cornmittee is to advise the Zoning Administrator in the issuance of an Architectural Permit. As long as the revised architectural review is substantially consistent with the proposed revised project, then the Architectural Permit would be issued. That summarizes the salient provisions of the agreement. It is proposed to be entered into in avoidance oflitigation." City Attorney Sehrieker referred to Item 8B.2, PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE INTRODUCED ON November 17,1997: ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18,1997 MINUTES Page No. 112 PAGE 7