CCMIN032001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti said there were also contributions for the permitting process. Ms. McKeehan indicated New Cities has not participated in sharing the costs for the permitting process. Mayor Pico asked about the overall status of the project and the alternative annexation options. How would that affect the New Cities development? He understood there were three alternative annexation options. If Happy Valley decides not to annex, he believed there were two other alternatives available to annexing the golf course property. If we have to move to one of the other alternatives, how would that impact the New Cities development? He felt there could be a change to the access to the golf course or the project. Are those issues we should be concerned about if the tentative map is approved at this meeting? Mr. Swift did not believe there would be significant issues. The New Cities property is already within the city limits. The role of New Cities is the ability to provide part of the infrastructure, which is designed to work with the greater Happy Valley area and the golf course. The bypass road for the golf course goes through the New Cities project and then through the Spotorno property (which is currently in the county). The Spotorno property does not have an approved plan so access to the golf course at this time would be via Sycamore/Alisal or Happy Valley/Alisal Streets. That street plan works with whatever happens on this project so long as this project has the east/west bypass road that can be extended into the Spotomo property. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. Fred Bates, principal of New Cities Development Group and the applicant, explained his application and the appeal to eliminate the condition requiring annexation in order to allow the project to proceed. He reviewed the prior approval and indicated he accepted all conditions except Condition #3, requiring voter approval of the annexation. He believed there was an absence ora nexus between the condition and the affects on the project and the annexation is unrelated to the development of his property. The need for support of a City-sponsored annexation is solely for the city's golf course. The City failed to proceed with annexation election. As a separate action, he requested Council to amend final conditions of PUD-91-12 by deleting Condition #99, providing for the PUD approval to lapse if annexation is not approved. He believed the condition was no longer applicable because the City has not allowed the annexation election to proceed. New Cities felt the election was going to take place in November 1999 and it has not consented to repeated delays of the election. New Cities does not feel the annexation is related to the development of the project. Condition #99 is not in conformity with the state zoning law, the subdivision map act, the General Plan or the North Sycamore Valley Specific Plan. He asked Council to look for 48 growth management allocations for 2001 and 2002. Council has said his project would have major project status. Council reserved 175 growth management allocations in 2001/2002 for the Bernal property. He is asking for equity and fairness. He felt New Cities has been treated differently than other Pleasanton City Council 13 03/20/01 Minutes