01 REGULAR MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan questioned the downside legally if the PUD is subject to a referendum and the development agreement is still in effect. City Attorney Roush said there may be a difference in the practical effect and the legal effect. The legal effect would be that you could still have a development agreement in place which it currently provides such as benefits and burdens, but the PUD plan that is specifically referenced in the development agreement would be set aside. So, the option open to the developer would be to come back with a new or different PUD plan to see if that plan could be approved by the City Council. Because that plan may look different, this might bear on changes to the development agreement. Motion: It was m/s by McGoverNSullivan to include the self-termination language in Section 5 of both ordinances. Marty Inderbidson, Project/Owner representative, said the right of referendum is part of the process; it is an exceptional part of the process and not to be taken lightly and not used on a regular basis. Property owners have rights also and the process set up helps to protect both sides of a transaction. One thing required to referendum a project is to make sure the entire ordinance is presented to the citizens so they can judge whether or not it is appropriate to sign and vote on the referendum. The ordinances for the PUD and development agreement go hand in hand with the project. He felt it was important for citizens when looking at the ordinance to understand the obligations they have committed to by contract in order to implement that ordinance in determining whether or not they should sign the referendum and vote on it. Council discussion ensued concerning the additional "poison pill" language. Withdrawal of Second on the Motion: Councilmember Sullivan withdrew his second on the motion. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Motion: Councilmember Sullivan made a motion that the self-termination language be included in Section 5 of the PUD Ordinance 1961, which if subject to referendum the proponents of the would have a petition that includes both the PUD conditions and development agreement conditions together. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Motion: It was m/s Hosterman/Sullivan that the self-termination language be placed in both ordinances. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: Councilmember Cook-Kallio Absent: None Abstain: None Motion: It was m/s Sullivan/Cook-Kallio to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1961 approving the application of James Tong, Charter Properties (Oak Grove Development), for PUD Development Plan approval, as filed under Case PUD 33; and waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1962 approving a Development Agreement between the City Of Pleasanton and Jennifer Lin and Frederic Lin regarding the Oak Grove Development. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: Councilmember McGovern Absent: None Abstain: None City Council Minutes 13 November 6, 2007