CCMIN010593 - Laserfiche WebLink

representation first before the council decides the relatively minor question of whether to rescind approval of Kottinger Hills or send the project to the voters. Mr. Tarvet inquired if it were possible to delay a decision. Mr. Roush indicated that unlike the situation with respect to the Council vacancy, where there is a specific 30 day statute in which to call for a special election or appoint to fill the vacancy, there is not a similar kind of time limit here. Therefore, there is an argument both ways. One argument is because there is no time'limit, you must take action tonight. There is also the argument that because there is none, you could properly defer it until you have a full council. Mr. Roush did not believe there was a right or wrong answer. He did know that the developer's representative has indicated that the developer feels Council should take action tonight. If Council does not act, the developer will seek appropriate relief in court. Sharrell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, stated the last time she addressed Council was when it voted to go ahead with the election in March. At that time, she asked Council to get its priorities straight and do what is best for the City of Pleasanton. She was appalled that anyone would consider making one issue the basis for electing a City Councilmember. The job of the Councilmember is to address what is best for the entire City, which includes many items, including regional representation. She indicated this is not an easy job and to narrow it down to one item to decide who should represent the citizens is approaching things in the wrong order. She did not like to think that the person elected in March will be based on whether a single development goes forward. She charged Council to make its decision for the right reasons. The options are to rescind the ordinance or put it to the voters. Martin Inderbitzen, 5000 Hopyard Road, represented the property owner of the development that is the subject of the referendum. He asked that Council place the issue on the ballot for the voters decision as prescribed by Section 4055 of the Elections Code. He recalls that Mr. Tarver indicated he wanted to hear from the community. He thinks Council has heard from part of the community and Mr. Inderbitzen assumed Council meant to hear from all of the community, not just part. Mr. Inderbitzen wants to hear from the entire community for several reasons. He believes this is a great project with unique benefits to offer to the entire city. It offers opportunities for active and passive open space that are remarkable for a project of this size and compares to Ruby Hill, which has ten times the housing and commercial opportunities on less than two times the acreage. He further stated he wants to know what kind of a town he lives in. If it is one where NIMBYism now says a truly great 1/5/93 22