Laserfiche WebLink
or whether there could be contamination to the septic tanks. If there is a public health and <br />safety issue which requires the City to serve the properties, it is possible the City could not <br />do it because the infrastructure would not be there and it could be infeasible. The core <br />property owners would have no agreement with the City and would not get any benefit from <br />their property. Basically, no one wins. Mayor Tarver conveyed his opinion of this to the <br />developers. There was some evidence in terms of the numbers of protests received, that <br />even a delay in the vote on annexation would have significant effect on the finances of the <br />golf course. He believes the developers saw the benefit of putting together a package that <br />would encourage the people of Happy Valley to vote for annexation so we can proceed. <br />This is a Herculean task and he was not confident it could be accomplished by September <br />18th, the LAFCo deadline for annexation. It takes time to review an application. In terms <br />of the Lund Ranch, this project has enough baggage and doesn't need to add another eighty <br />units of development in order to make this a reality. The staff has spent two years on this <br />with numerous public hearings and task force meetings and no one has spoken in <br />opposition, except those people directly affected by the traffic and annexation. Therefore, <br />Mayor Tarver thought Council could agree to process these specific projects in order to <br />insure the golf course and have a deal before November. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti believed there had to be some trade-offin order for the developers to <br />agree to this. She asked if Mr. Tarver was in favor of pursuing the development agreement. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said he was in favor of the development agreement, but still wanted <br />normal review of the plans and conditions of approval. Both parties have to be satisfied. <br />The city has to know what will be developed and it has to be agreeable to the community. <br />The Spotornos have to be assured they will be able to build their development in order to <br />build the bypass road and agree to the infrastructure costs sharing. He was unsure all this <br />could be done before November. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti clarified that the CAPP initiative was a factor in all this. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver agreed it was. If the initiative is approved by the voters, there is no <br />certainty there will be a bypass road or PUD approval or anything else. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala was concemed that this would add fuel to the fire of the CAPP initiative. <br />The golf course properties were left out of the CAPP initiative and she asked if the <br />proponents would be comfortable that this is the way to get the golf course. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said there is a process to address the community's concerns regardless <br />of CAPP. If the community disagrees with Council's decisions, it has a way to set them <br />aside. The community has been involved in this golf course proposal for years and he has <br />heard no opposition except from the people in Happy Valley who are directly affected. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico disagreed with the statement that no one has opposed the project. There is <br />one part of this that is being slipped through and that is the New Cities project, which he <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 07/29/99 <br />Special Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />