CCMIN030795 - Laserfiche WebLink

discussion between City and County staff and the plans were altered to fulfill City objectives. Mr. Flynn believes the project benefitted from the dialogue between the City and County staffs and there were significant changes. He is familiar with the history of water service in the area and is comfortable that water service is appropriate without annexation. He urged adoption of the staff recommendation. Mr. Tarver indicated he has significant problems with developments in the County when the County cannot provide services. He understood the staff position, but wants to say in the clearest terms, that coinpetition must stop for development of land within the City's sphere of influence, for which it has to provide services. Mr. Tarver appreciated the position of the developer, but the County should be responsible for providing fire, police, water, sewer, and the like. Mr. Pico concurred with those comments. He believes that the developer went to the County because he did not agree with City standards. The project violates the Foothill Overlay District requirements. The impacts on City services are far reaching and if he could vote against this, he would. Mr. Pico believed the City should fight these development methods. Ms. Michelotti indicated the Council is probably required to approve this request for water service. She agreed the development should have come through the City and concurs in opposing County development within the City's sphere of influence. Ms. Dennis concurred with Mr. Tarver and Mr. Pico. She agreed development should be City-centered, but did not want to single out this developer. The City needs to frame its approval process in such a way that it is not forced to approve a request it does not agree with. A strong message needs to be sent to the County Board of Supervisors and she requested staff to convey the Council position, perhaps by sending thein the minutes of the meeting. Ms. Mohr indicated this reminds her of an earlier incident in 1981. A gravel quarry was proposed to reopen on the other side of Foothill Road, outside the City. The trucks would have used City streets and she was opposed to that because there were no mitigations. It was a short-lived situation and the dreaded impacts did not occur. What it illustrated was the only way the City can protect itself against County development is to take control by annexation. Ultimately, we would have to annex everything with the sphere of influence. Life is not that simple, however. The staff report clearly indicates the Council is probably obligated to approve this request and it would be irresponsible to vote no and lead the City to a lawsuit. 03/07/95 - 17-