CCMIN050404 - Laserfiche WebLink

developer ought to be given another opportunity for the Planning Commission to review the matter. Ms. Ayala pointed out that staffdid not recommend that the developer be given the opportunity for another review of the in-lieu park dedication fees with the Planning Commission. Mr. Brozosky was not opposed to postponing the in-lieu park dedication fees until January 2005. He did not see the purpose in bringing this issue back to the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions. He believed the Parks and Recreation Commission was clear in what it wanted. The Planning Commission never concerns itself with fees. He believed it made sense to bring this issue back to Council sometime before the project is completed. While he understood Ms. Ayala's position in the matter, he saw this project as an amenity to Pleasanton for having subsidized housing. He was not agreeing to lower the fees for these units and increase the fees for other houses. If the community wants to subsidize more of these types of units, it should be paid for out of the General Fund. If Council was to consider a partial waiver of the in-lieu park dedication fees, it ought to come back to the Council. It was moved by Ms. Ayala to postpone the $1,360,668 of in-lieu park dedication fees for the Ponderosa/Busch affordable senior apartment project until January 2005 with the understanding that the developer will pay the City for lost interest earnings estimated at $19,097. Ms. Hosterman asked Ms. Ayala if she would consider making a motion only related to the postponement of the entire fees? She thought Council could discuss further whether the developer could come back to the Planning Commission or Council for a partial waiver. Ms. Ayala said that her motion was for the postponement of the entire in-lieu park dedication fees. Mayor Pico noted that staff's recommendation was that the developer pay the full fees that are in effect at the time the building permits are issued. Mr. Brozosky indicated he would like to have further discussion on the actual fee. The motion died due to lack of a second. It was moved by Ms. Hosterman to support staff's recommendation with the caveat that if the developer so chooses, it may either come back to Council with a discussion regarding payment of the furl amount and/or go back to the Planning Commission with that same discussion, sometime within the next six months. Ms. Ayala asked if this motion was for Council to reconsider what it had already approved? Pleasanton City Council 13 05/04/04 Minutes