CCMIN072999 - Laserfiche WebLink

without the date. The key is to have a pre-annexation agreement that binds them to build the bypass road and allows the density Summerhill is seeking. Ms. Michelotti clarified that Summerhill wanted a completed development agreement that vests something in exchange for the bypass road and escapes the CAPP initiative. Mr. Champion agreed. Without that assurance they could not commitment to build the bypass road and put in all the off-site sewer improvements. If there is a provision that gives them exemption from the CAPP initiative, then the October 1 st date is unnecessary. The proposal (unsigned) is agreed to by all three developers, Summerhill, TTK Partnership, and New Cities. There was a break so the proposal could be copied for Council and for staff to clarify the proposal. Mr. Roush clarified that the only way a project could be exempt from the CAPP initiative is for there to be a document that vests the project. The only thing that can do that is a development agreement which is adopted before the November election. There was a break at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Ms. Acosta indicated this proposal was received by staff, but it was not clear that it superseded the previous proposal. It was assumed it was a summary of the proposal prepared for the property owners. It appears to be similar to the previous proposal and staff would like to know if Council wishes them to pursue it. Ms. Dennis asked how the concept of the development agreement with these developers came about and why the Lund property was not included. Have the proponents o f the CAPP initiative been informed of thi s? Mr. Tarver explained that he had conversations with representatives of New Cities, Summerhill and the developer of the core properties of the golf course. He gave them his opinions and this is the developers' proposal. He had encouraged the developers to speak with other Councilmembers, but he did not speak with other Councilmembers. He believed the City was on the verge of losing the golf course. The financing of the golf course is becoming more difficult and development of the area needs to be resolved in a way to assure the Happy Valley residents so the annexation is not killed. That would cause a year or more in delays and he was unsure where this process would go. The City has invested almost $2 million and that will be lost along with the golf course, all the work of the task force and the staff. The people in the Happy Valley could loose sewer and water connections. There is a moratorium in that area on development because of sewer and water problems. It is unknown if the groundwater basin can continue to serve existing wells Pleasanton City Council 9 07/29/99 Special Meeting