CCMIN020696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti asked to bc sure thc continuance would not affect the offer. Ms. Acosta indicated the offer was open until April 1st. Mr. Pico asked for information on how much the park dedication fec would have been if the fee were based on $520,000/acre rather than the $220,000 that the ordinance is based on. He was conccrned that not enough money was bcing collected and fclt that should bc considered bcforc approving more residential development in Hacienda Business Park. Ms. Acosta indicated the information could be provided; however, when the city-wide park dedication fee is set, it cannot bc based on thc cost of a particular parcel. Mr. Tarvet felt the underlying question is whether housing should have been approved in the Business Park; or if houses were approved, whcthcr Council should havc required thc park land dedication, because the fees would not be enough to pay for the property. Mr. Pico reiterated that he wanted to know what the park fees would be if they were based on the true value of the land. He felt the value of the land was a critical pan of the equation in the computation of in-lieu park fees and hc wanted that information in order to make a decision on the Spanos property. He wanted to consider modifying the formula. Ms. Acosta wanted to be sure there was no expectation that that would be allowable under the ordinance. Ms. Michelotti felt there were two issues: to take park land dedication or to take in-lieu park fees. Council opted to take fees for Hacienda Business Park. She did not think future in- lieu park fees should be based on the price of land in Hacienda Business Park. The Tri-Vallcy Business Council, the Economic Development Advisory Committee, etc. have opposed use of commercial land for park land. There was a good deal for land in Hacienda Business Park which Council did not take and now we arc trying to find a community park elsewhere. Ms. Dennis felt Mr. Pieo's point was that when we calculate in-lieu park fees, we need to take into account the price of all residential land. Mr. Tarver said Council had the opportunity when it approved residential development in Hacienda Business Park to approve whatever conditions necessary to provide for the park needs of the area. Council failed to do that and chose to try and develop a thirty acre community park, which was not successful. That opportunity is gone now. Does the Council now want to pay $500,000 an acre for a park? Angelina Summers, 4750 Sutter Gate Avenue, wanted to bc placed on the mailing list for -- notice on this item. The item was continued to 2/20/96. 02/06/96 8