The 4-1 decision, with Councilman Michael Maciel dissenting, followed two hours of debate. Surland CEO Les Serpa and several residents asked for action, and attorney Mark Connolly and several others urged caution.
The council majority gave its OK to tentative terms with Surland, though the council must give its approval several more times before any developer agreement would be finalized.
In exchange for 16 acres and $10 million disbursed over three years to help build a swim center, the developer would be granted 2,250 residential growth allotments that could be used only within Ellis, which is slated for land now outside city limits on the northwest corner of Linne and Corral Hollow roads. The city would set aside at least 150 but no more than 225 allotments a year for 25 years specifically for Surland.
Each RGA allows one house to be built.
The developer would be required to install recycled water systems in the Ellis development. Surland would also obtain rights to sewage capacity and treatment for 800 homes, which would save the developer $6.5 million, according to a city staff report.
That 800 is an increase of 300 from an earlier developer agreement between the city and Surland that was struck down by Superior Court Judge Lesley Holland when challenged by Connolly in a lawsuit. The ruling is under appeal.
Serpa said some of the changes, such as spreading out payment of the promised $10 million, were necessary to make any agreement pencil out.
“We’re trying to hold the commitment, even though it’s very tough economic times,” he said, adding that delays in the project were costing his company hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Every month we leave this open is very, very expensive.”
But Celeste Garamendi, who is married to Connolly, said the city was opting for a worse deal by continuing negotiations.
“You’re regressively negotiating against yourself,” she said.
Others also questioned the prudence of acting while the original agreement was under court review. Attorney Steve Nicolaou said it made no sense for the city to argue in court that the old developer agreement should stand while also working on a new agreement to address its flaws.
“It’s just a full employment act for attorneys,” he said.
Several residents spoke in favor of quick action, however, and lamented the legal challenges and other delays that had pushed back construction of a Tracy swim center for years.
Changes to the city’s Growth Management Ordinance would be needed to accommodate terms of the proposed agreement, according to city staff members. That work would coincide with the drafting of a specific plan and an environmental review, which are standard steps in the development process.
Maciel, who voted against the motion, had sought a two- or four-week pause so other developers potentially affected by changes in the ordinance would have time to examine the issue.
Also at the council meeting
• The City Council received the first report from the Measure E citizens oversight committee.
Arch Bakerink delivered the report, a synthesis of the individual thoughts of the five committee members.
Bakerink said the Measure E money had been spent appropriately so far, but he urged the city to take more aggressive action to balance its general fund budget.
• The council unanimously decided to make the Northeast Industrial Area a specific plan, which staff members said would simplify development of commercial and industrial projects there.
No longer would every part of the process in that area require planning commission and council approval, senior planner Victoria Lombardo said. Instead, city employees could handle many of the steps, cutting 30 to 60 days off project time.
Development Services Director Andrew Malik said the time savings could mean the difference between landing and not landing a project.
The runway was one item and the houses were another. Both affecting the airport. Jets referred to were business jets, not 747's.
The runway construction was another item.
The 4000 foot runway goes east to west. There is a shorter runway tilting to the north-west.
If you wanted to land a business jet it would require the east-west runway.
Are there any homes builtis in the path of the longer runway?
In your earlier comment you said the issue was reducing the viability of the airport.
What reduces the viability of the airport is existing businesses at the end of the shorter runway.
And a canal at the end of the longer runway.
Please describe what you mean by "viability of the airport"?
He could have one on one front, but definitely not on both.
http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/6589082/article-Council-rejects-attorney--picks-land-surveyor-for-planning-commission
It's been the same cast of charachters in this battle for years. We just need to get rid of measure A and bring Tracy out of the cow pasture.
LoveNLetLive'ism #1: I am one who considered purchasing one of those homes, near the park at that corner of Linne & CH. Yes we bought one in the same neighborhood. Must admit that we really enjoy watching the hot air ballons. And besides the noise from the airobatic box is over by Tracy boulevard not CH road.
Sneaky wrote: We already have endless whinerism from the folks in houses that are currently near the airport. Why put more there? If houses are put there the city should make every buyer sign a form acknowledging that the airport was there long before them and signing away any right to whine or complain.
LoveNLetLive'ism #2: Not everybody is complaining. But yes the few that complain are endless complainers. It gets to the point where you ask them if they want to move and be happy or stay and complain. When you tell them you plan to stay and be happy they just stare at you with a blank look on their face.
Look at what they did to the San Francisco airport with all the flight patterns problem. Let Surland (Serpa) build his #$%^% houses somewhere else. Leave the airport area alone.
And I don't understand why the Council is leaving the runway UNDER 4,000 feet and having the same contractor that did the improper runway doing it again...and leaving it shorter than it was so larger jets can't land and use services.
I think less of our Council after every meeting !!!
I thought you had a good question, so I looked it up on Maps online. What I discovered is the airport runway would not be restricted at all.
Apparently there is a canal at the end of the runway, where someone drove a car off the end of the airport runway, through the fence, and into the Delta-Mendota canal.
There are also several businesses there and a business park there, which I suspected the opponents of the swim center wanted to shut down to increase the length of the runway. But I really doubt that will ever happen.
Think about it. Close good businesses just so you can say you landed a 747 in Tracy. It may never happen in our lifetime.
Fact check this please.
Is it me, or did she once make up a a story of him of being "flat broke"?
Fact check this please.
Is it me, or did she once make up a a story of him of being "flat broke"?