01a - Laserfiche WebLink

There being no additional speakers, Mayor Hosterman invited Mr. Inderbitzen make additional comments. Mr. Inderbitzen offered his thanks to his design team, the City Manager and staff. He was happy to have designed a project that makes sense for the community, cited the leadership of the Council and community in making clear what its goals and objectives were and thanked the Lin family for their confidence in him, through Jim Tong, to be able to be able to provide the gift of open space. He appreciated the process which he felt worked and which led to the project's improvement over time. Mayor Hosterman said when the Council returns in four weeks, additional public comment will be taken and she asked and hoped for only new information to be presented. Councilmember McGovern referred to the Planning Commission minutes, said three commissioners repeatedly asked for scoping sessions to come up with alternatives other than those which were being worked out, and she questioned why this has not happened. Mr. Iserson said there were a number of alternatives generated in the EIR and they felt those provided different scenarios for development of the site. Principal Planner Decker said there were two different processes regarding the opportunity to develop alternatives through the EIR process; the PUD process, as the preferred alternative, and in working with the homeowner associations. During the Planning Commission hearing and review process, they declined to certify the EIR and therefore, no action was taken other than recommendations and moving forward, should it be appealed, and the PUD analysis was the best opportunity to take a look at a different alternative that was not necessarily based on environmental impacts. City Manager Fialho said the Council retains its discretionary authority in approving the PUD so if it is something less than the preferred alternative this could be part of the dialogue when the Council reconvenes on October 2, 2007. Councilmember McGovern felt process was lacking or missed when the City does not allow its Planning Commission to go through the PUD and development agreement and it is sent directly to the Council. She also questioned if the Council also had to agree to the developer fee agreement, as it looked like the project would not be referendable. City Attorney Roush said a PUD plan and development agreement are legislative acts subject to referendum. The development agreement does provide that if the agreement and PUD are not set aside during the referendum period, then it cannot be changed subsequently. So it vests, but this does not mean that the actual development agreement or PUD were not subject to referendum. The Council does not have to approve the development agreement, although the reason the City was able to get a dedication of nearly 500 acres and the reason $1 million in traffic impact fees are paid is because of the development agreement and the City could not legally impose those types of mitigations on this development in the absence of a development agreement. Councilmember McGovern referred to Section 606, Initiatives and Referenda; "If any City law is enacted or imposed by Initiative or Referendum or by City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed Initiative or Referendum which City law would conflict with applicable law or this agreement or reduce development rights provided by this agreement, such law shall not apply to the project." City Attorney Roush said once the development agreement takes effect and is not referended, then the agreement is in effect City Council Minutes 16 September 4, 2007