CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McKeehan said the answer to that question cannot be known until one enters into the discussions. No one willingly provides that amount of money. Staff has long negotiations with every developer over what they are willing to pay. Oftentimes, the deciding factor is what the developer believes Council is serious about what it really wants. Over the years, developers have tried to meet Council's wishes because that is how they get approvals. There have been times when those wishes have caused a project not to occur, but those times have been rare. Mr. Brozosky asked if there were a way to not let this project lapse, but to allow more time for negotiations on the agreements? Mr. Roush explained that the original motion had tied the vesting tentative map and PUD extension to the funding agreement. That was acceptable because there was an executed funding agreement. However, if there is to be further negotiations on the funding agreement, he preferred to have a separate motion for the $2 million, or whatever number is decided upon, and to continue the decision on the vesting tentative map and PUD until there has been an oppommity to discuss this with the developer. He did not want Council to approve the PUD and tentative map extension without having a finn funding agreement. Mayor Pico said his intent was that the extension was contingent on the funding agreement being for $2 million. If that agreement is not approved, then the extensions are moot. Mr. Roush indicated if the substitute motion continues to have the two issues tied together, he would like to have a closed session before the vote. Mayor Pico clarified that the request was to separate the motion to see if there is a desire on Council to ask for a $2 million contribution for infrastructure. He would be willing to bifurcate it. If it fails, then Council can go back to the original motion. A substitute motion was made by Mayor Pico, seconded by Ms. Hosterman, to require a contribution of $2 million for infrastructure as a condition of approving the growth management modification. The roll call vote on Mayor Pico's substitute motion was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmember Hosterman and Mayor Pico Councilmembers Ayala, Brozosky, and Campbell None None A substitute motion was made by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Mayor Pieo, to direct staff to open negotiations with New Cities to obtain a contribution greater than $500,000 and to continue the decision on the growth management modification and PUD/tentative map extension. Pleasanton City Council 15 03/18/03 Minutes