A complex and tense legal chess game continued in Alpine on Tuesday over the fate of a development that the entire city opposes, according to elected officials.

Developers threw a curve ball by essentially proposing to start over on the controversial Vista Meadows subdivision -- and everything hangs on this next part -- without legally starting over at all.

This decision, said developers, was a direct result of intense public outcry at a meeting two weeks ago. They want to vastly redesign the development, but they will do so only if they do not lose the rights to their existing proposal, and only if they have assurance from the city that they are not wasting large sums of money to draw up a plan that eventually is going to be sunk by a council vote.

Essentially, the developer is asking the city to tacitly approve certain legal exceptions before knowing any details, said elected officials, who balked at the plan.

"We can't consider exceptions for something we don't know the design for," Councilman Thomas Whitchurch said.

In the end, council members said they would do nothing. The developer is taking a risk, they said, and the city will do nothing to mitigate that risk.

A mountainside development, Vista Meadows had proposed to build 50-foot retaining walls in order to cut a road the subdivision needs to be legal. This is something that residents who live below said would be a recipe for a disastrous landslip. But on Tuesday developers said they will forgo two years of work on that plan if the city will step outside its ordinances to allow a cul-de-sac quadruple the length now allowed by law, and also allow more homes.

Interestingly, residents who have been vehement in their opposition to the retaining walls came out strongly in favor of the retaining wall plan -- not the walls -- on Tuesday, a move calculated on their belief that supporting the developer's right to the walls is the best way to get rid of them.

Confused?

Since the controversy over the development began, the city has passed a new ordinance making the retaining walls illegal. At least some elected officials on Tuesday wanted the developer to know that if the new plan goes forward, the old plan would be out and could not be brought back.

Not so fast, said James Dunn, attorney for the developer. If that's true, the developer would consider dropping the new plan, which has no retaining walls, because it could be months before the city decides whether to approve exceptions for the lengthy cul-de-sac and higher number of homes. The original plan must continue to be valid, as a fall-back position.

Not wanting the developer to drop the new plan, which residents said repeatedly on Tuesday that they strongly support over the retaining wall plan, residents told council members that the city should guarantee the developer will retain rights to the original plan, no matter what.

Not a chance, several council members said. If the case does end up in court, the city is making no comment now on whether the original plan is valid or not.

After two motions failed during hot debate, council members eventually agreed that they would do nothing. The developer, they said, could simply submit the new retaining wall-free plan to the Planning Commission and see what the outcome is.

Dunn angered some in the audience when he said nearby residents may not be happy with any kind of development because they have 'not in my backyard' syndrome. Residents protested, saying it is a matter of safety and wanting the city developed correctly. That led Councilwoman Kim Bryant and Councilman Tom Whitchurch to declare that "the entire city" opposes the retaining wall plan, not just nearby residents.

Related

• Vista Meadows debate in Alpine at a standstill
• Planning Commission recommends against Alpine development
• Council approves retaining wall