My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/08/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 09/08/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:16 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 1:57:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/8/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/08/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PLANNING COMD,~sSION MI..JTES September ts, 1982 <br />REQUEST OF VALLEY PLAZA APAR~'MENTS FOR A WAIVER OF A PORTION OF THEIR PARK <br />DEDICATION FEES <br />Mr. Harris presented thQ staff report. He explained City Council <br />can waive all or a port~.on of the fees if they make certain findings. <br />He indicated that Dolores Bengtson, Director of Parks and Recreation <br />is in the audience and perhaps could address the issue and opinion <br />of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Harris further stated <br />that the Ordinance requires that a recommendation be made on the <br />application of fee waiver by the Parks and Recreation Commission as <br />well as the Planning Commission. <br />Duncan Matteson of PalolAlto and John Ferreri, Pleasanton, the <br />proponents addressed the Commission.. <br />Mr. Matteson made a presentation reviewing the total cost of the <br />development. He further; stated that the Minutes of the Park and <br />Recreation meeting of Autgust 18, 1982 incorrectly show $197,580 <br />inclusive of the land w~aile it is exclusive of the land with regard <br />to the cost of the investment in recreation facilities. He <br />indicated that when their made their presentation to the Park and <br />Recreation Commission tY~ey did not indicate the total dollar amount <br />for which they would life credit and have now arrived at such a <br />figure. Mr. Matteson cited many rental units in town which have <br />no tennis courts. He indicated that some of the units mentioned <br />did have a very small recreation room. He stated that their units <br />provide barbeque pits, ttables, benches and other amenities. He <br />said they know from their experience in other apartment complexes <br />that their tenants will',be staying on site and using the facilities <br />rather than public ones He said they will have a large number <br />of senior citizens who dill not be using the parks. A similar <br />project in Los Altos shcDws that their tenants will be using their <br />facilities and they wil]~ not even have to go to off the premises <br />to get to the Safeway SY~opping Center as they plan a gate to enter <br />the shopping center. H~ stated he doesn't believe the granting <br />of their request will be precedent setting because the ordinance <br />does allow for this wailer and it hasn't been used only because <br />no apartment complexes Y~ave been built in years. <br />Commissioner Getty asked staff how they felt about park dedication <br />fees and whether or not 'waiving such fees would encourage developers <br />to build rental units irk the area. Mr. Harris stated he did not <br />know . <br />Commissioner Lindsey as}~ed if the applicant didn't feel. the tenants <br />would take advantage of !the park located right behind the complex. <br />Mr. Matteson conceded thlat Chairperson Lindsey did have a point <br />but they are only asking for a credit of $112,000 against a <br />$240,000 expenditure. He said he can honestly say that when people <br />come home from work they don't leave to go out again to a park <br />especially when they have a beautifully landscaped area, barbeque <br />pits, pool, tennis courts, etc. in their complex. <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.