Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brozosky pointed out that the school district had stated that the 23-acre site <br />was not enough property to construct a high school, and in addition, it will need the <br />Hansen property. He did not know if the Hansen property would be available and <br />believed the five-year term with the developer was too short. At the end of the five years, <br />he did not believe the School District would have an option on the other piece of <br />property, and agreed that there were still issues that warrant discussion. <br /> <br /> In response to Mr. Brozosky's comments, Mayor Pieo noted the existence of an <br />agreement between the School District and the developer. He did not believe it was the <br />Council's position to force the School District to renegotiate when it had not indicated <br />any desire to do so. He believed Council should be focusing its attention on the credits. It <br />would appropriate to delay a decision on the issuance of the credits to allow Council the <br />time to review the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. He did not believe it would be <br />appropriate to defer a decision on the issuance of the credits to force the developer to <br />renegotiate an agreement with the School District. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala indicated again this was not her intent. She pointed out that the <br />developer was not shy in asking Council to reconsider the matter based on its position <br />changing. She reminded Council that Ponderosa did represent to the public its intent to <br />have market rate units for rent on the Busch property, which is now down to 34 units for <br />rent. She was not in favor of putting any other type of use on that property that was more <br />intrusive than a high school. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky believed a time frame was missing from the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. HostcLman believed the motion should be made clear that Council is not <br />stating to Ponderosa that its value on the Busch property has evaporated. The intent is to <br />allow Council an opportunity to continue to understand what this proposal means in the <br />long term and, at the same time, allow Council the oppommity to review the Inclusionary <br />Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br /> In response to Ms. Hosterman's comments, Ms. Ayla indicated that the only <br />matter missing from her motion was the review of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. <br />She was willing to amend her motion to include this discussion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell stated that the reason he wanted to bring up the matter of the <br />Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was not in relation to the credits. It was related to what <br />Council could do in terms of providing affordable income housing to certain categories of <br />people. He strongly indicated that he had no desire to continue this matter again, and <br />believed it was a sophisticated way to delay the project. Council is aware of the impacts <br />and what will occur. He was amazed at how Council continued to encroach upon the <br />School District's business when the District has already negotiated the matter and has had <br />discussions with Ponderosa and the neighbors. He concurred with Ms. Steiner's <br />comment and wanted Council to give the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance an opportunity <br />to work. He strongly believed that the credit ratio should be given one to one for <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 11/4/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />