CCMIN091482 - Laserfiche WebLink

The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None " It was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, that Resolution No. 82-362, approving the agreement for Engineering Services for the proposed grade separation and track consolidation involving Southern Pacific Trans- portation Company and the Western Pacific Railroad Company Tracks between Niles and Pleasanton, and authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, ~ercer, Mohr, l.~ood, and ~.~ayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None ~'~ Park and Recreation Commission recommendation to deny request of ~alley Plaza F~' ~partments (Orloff) to waive portion of Park Dedication Fees ~D ~{r. Harris presented his report (SR 82:364) dated September 14, 1982, regarding. [] this matter. [] Mr. Duncan M~tteson, representing Valley Plaza Apartments, reviewed the various ~ recreational facilities that are proposed for this complex. tie stated that there will be 300 tenants using these facilities as well as their invited guests. Mr. Matteson requested that a portion of the park dedication fees be waivered, explain- ing that this would lower the cost of the dwelling unit prices for the tenants and adding that many of the tenants will be senior citizens. He stated the recreation room can be used by neighborhood groups for meetings on a scheduled basis. Mr. ~atteson stated he recognized that tenants of the complex will be using other City _ recreational facilities but for the most part they would be using the facilities at the complex. He respectfully requested that park dedication fees in the approximate amount of $112,000.00 be waived. It was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Brandes, to deny the waiver of park dedication fees for the Valley Plaza Apartments. Councilmember Mohr asked if the waiver request met the requirements of the ordinance under Article 10, and the four criteria related thereto. The City Attorney stated he felt he should have time to look at this before Council makes a decision because he had not seen the draft covenants, conditions, and restrictions. After discussion, Councilmember Wood withdrew his motion, and Councilmember Brandes withdrew his second. Mrs. Evelyn King, Vice Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission, urged Council not to waive any park dedication fees. She stated that with the cost to develop park land now, the City cannot afford to give away fees for this purpose. Mrs. Joyce Getty, 925 Kottinger, representing the Planning Commission, stated that the Planning Commission concurs with the developer. She stated she felt the Park and Recreation Commission had "tunnelvision", looking only at the concern for parks, while the Planning Commission looked at the total concerns of the City as a whole. She stated she did not feel approval of this request would be setting a precedent; that the project is providing more recreational facilities than required; and that Council should waive fees when apartment owners come up with complete re- creational facilities as an enticement for construction of this type of needed housing in Pleasanton. 17. 9/14/82