Laserfiche WebLink
that was changed. Technically this project should have lapsed when the annexation failed. He <br />believed it was an error to change the growth management. The only way he would consider that <br />was if there was a project that would bring a more affordable product with smaller lots. By <br />agreeing to this project, he felt Council was setting a precedent that says when the maximum is <br />set for growth management, it can be modified by accepting a token payment. He did not feel <br />that was the right process. If Council is making modifications to the growth management <br />allocations, it should only be done for products that provide more affordable housing with <br />smaller lots. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mayor Pico, seconded by Ms. Hosterman, similar <br />to the one of Ms. Ayala but increasing the amount in the Funding Agreement from <br />$500,000 to $2 million. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt the developer would not pay the $2 million and this would delay the <br />bypass road. There is an obligation to the residents for the bypass road and he did not want any <br />more stumbling blocks. He did not like the large houses, but he wanted to make certain the road <br />goes in. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico did not believe the bypass road would be built until there is a project on the <br />Spotomo property and until the City raises the necessary funding. The bypass road will be <br />extremely expensive. He did not feel his motion would cause a delay. If the New Cities <br />developer does not want to pay the $2 million, then it can present another proposal. It is <br />important to ask for additional amenities, especially when there is a request to modify the growth <br />management allocation. He felt the developer has had ample time to meet the final map <br />conditions. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked staff if we went over the growth management limit last year? <br /> <br />Mr. Swirl said no, the number of units was under the limit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala felt there was a time when growth management was an issue, but the reality is <br />the economy has taken care of the growth management problems. She felt the City was trying to <br />pull money out ora developer for the wrong reasons. This development already has a lot of <br />infrastructure costs built into it. If that were not so, she could agree to ask for $2 million, but she <br />cannot justify that now. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt this developer was already paying quite a bit, including $4.5 million to <br />Greenbriar for infrastructure in addition to the $500,000 going to the City. He did not see how <br />much better it could get. If they had smaller units with more density, the numbers might work <br />out, but he did not think it could get better because of the infrastructure problems out there. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell said the $4.5 million is required to be paid by the developer. What is <br />negotiable is the $500,000. He indicated staff has been party to prior conversations and asked <br />how realistic is it to think the developer will pay more money. To go from $500,000 to $2 <br />million is a significant leap. He believed the substitute motion is a way to kill this project. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 03/18/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />