CCMIN032001 - Laserfiche WebLink

was a false statement and no specifics were given. If the applicant had compromised on density, it may have been approved at the Planning Commission level a long time ago. It is ironic the applicant now accuses the City of failing to proceed diligently with annexation. This is an insult to City staff who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to move the annexation forward. The applicant also accuses the City of applying this condition solely in its own self-interest as a developer of the golf course. This is also a false statement and fails to understand the local and regional issues related to additional development in the North Sycamore and Happy Valley Areas. Do we want to do business with developer like this? Mr. Mehlman believed the condition regarding Happy Valley annexation is an integral part of the development. This appeal should be denied by Council. Mayor Pico asked staffto comment on the legality of the agenda item. Mr. Roush said it was a PUD condition and the applicant is entitled to ask that the condition be modified. It is within the applicant's right to ask for a modification. Mr. Pico asked if this triggered the referendum process. Mr. Roush said yes. This is a referendable action. Mr. Bates was surprised the Ventana neighbors were here opposing this because the map you see was a result of their requests. The setbacks behind Mr. Mehlman's house, the Butlers and others were at their request. At the Planning Commission, this plan was unanimously approved for a Vesting Tentative Map. The neighbors were asked if they were satisfied and they said yes. At the end of the meeting, when we objected to Condition 3, Mr. Mehlman suggested that it not be removed. The Planning Commission said they did not require condition #3; that was a Council requirement. There were no further speakers and Mayor Pico closed the public hearing. Ms. Ayala said she had been involved in this area since 1993. Because of the Brown Act, the Council can only talk to one other member of Council until the public Council meeting. When a meeting is televised, politicians tend to go to the audience rather than to each other. She urged Councilmembers to talk to each other about this before voting. She then asked for a short break. There was a break at 8:32 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:37 p.m. Ms. Ayala felt the applicant was before Council because of the new member, Mr. Campbell. This has happened before but she personally had difficulty overturning a prior Council's decision. She felt it might be difficult for Councilmember Campbell to digest all of the history of this project. She had really strong feelings on overturning a previous Council's decision. She was happy to see all these people here. She said there were Pleasanton City Council 18 03/20/01 Minutes