Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Dennis believed that what is proposed could be done, but people would have <br />to say they really want this. We are not there yet. We need to be honest with the Happy <br />Valley residents and say we have secured some of what they wanted, but not all; we will <br />continue to try. Summerhill has done a great job in giving something feasible, but not <br />acceptable. She is not prepared to say there will never be a bypass road. <br /> <br /> Mark Armstrong said there have been several comments made tonight that <br />without a project on the Spotomo being approved, the likelihood of a bypass road is <br />remote. It is very likely it will require an amendment to the Specific Plan and the <br />General Plan to be consistent. Council will be hard pressed to approve a golf course with <br />no bypass road. Approving a PUD for the golf course is inconsistent with the Specific <br />Plan without some kind of roadway connection. If an annexation agreement with <br />Spotomo is not approved then you are faced with a requirement that the Spotorno Ranch <br />project go to a vote. There is no evidence that suggests the Spotorno Ranch project with <br />all these hurdles will move forward, having the requirement of voter approval of an <br />separate project without any benefit other than helping a few residents in Happy Valley <br />avoid having traffic on their road is very unlikely. The only way to protect the most <br />reasonable possibility for the Spotornos to come back with an alternative plan and work <br />with the City staff is to provide for annexation agreement that protects the City, Happy <br />Valley residents, and Spotorno from the extra hurdle of voter approval. He did not see <br />how you can approve a golf course project with any reasonable expectation of a bypass <br />road. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said this was the first application processed in a short order of time <br />and we have not spent enough time finding out if there is another developer that will <br />present a more acceptable project for this site. He still had hope the bypass road will <br />come about. He felt people will approve a good plan. He was concemed about <br />infrastructure and when those are taken care of, then voters will approve more houses. <br />He supported approving staff option 3 or 4. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt if we change the specific plan, then it has to go to a vote if <br />CAPP was adopted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that after a development agreement is adopted and if the City <br />wants to change the General Plan, the change would have to go to a vote, but only if it <br />met the criteria in CAPP and increased the number of units by ten or more. If the number <br />of units were the same, he did not think it would require a vote. The Development <br />Agreement would not protect it; it depends on the nature of the General Plan amendment. <br />If it relocates units and does not trigger any of the election requirements, then there <br />would be no election. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti asked if a preannexation agreement would do the same thing? <br /> <br /> Ms. Seto said this preannexation agreement is both a preannexation and <br />development agreement which provides for development under the current General Plan <br />and current Specific Plan. If a subsequent General Plan amendment were being <br /> <br /> 25 10/19/99 <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />