My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050404
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCMIN050404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:39 AM
Creation date
4/29/2004 8:01:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/4/2004
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN050404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Hosterman said that her motion was to approve the postponement of the fees <br />and to allow the developer, in its discretion, the opportunity to discuss the actual anaount <br />of the fees. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if her motion included the request for modification of the fees to <br />go back to the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions.9 <br /> <br /> Ms. Hostcm~an said that she would like for the developer, at its discretion, to be <br />able to seek additional input from Council so that Council can allow the in-lien park <br />dedication fees to be postponed, and to leave room for the question on exactly what the <br />appropriate mount is to pay, whether it is $606,000, $1.3 million or something in <br />between. This could be reviewed either by the Council and/or the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky believed Council should make its decision now and not delay it. <br /> <br />The motion died due to lack of a second. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brozosky to allow the delay of the in-lieu park <br />dedication fees for the Ponderosa/Busch affordable senior apartment project until <br />January 2005 and split the difference of the fees between the $606,128 and the <br />$1,370,668. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala noted that Council does not have all of the financial facts available and <br />in order to make this determination she would think that Council would require more <br />information on all the concessions that it has already provided to the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman indicated that this was the direction she was going in. While she <br />would like to consider a different mount for the fees, she did not have enough <br />information to do so. If Council allowed the applicant the opportunity to either come <br />back to Council and/or the Planning Commission for additional discussion on that <br />particular part of staff's recommendation, it would allow her the oppommity to have <br />more information in order to make that kind of a decision. She believed Mr. Sweeney <br />raised some interesting questions. She was not clear as to whether the $1.3 million was <br />an appropriate amount for the developer to pay. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked staff how long it would take to get this information to <br />Council? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan asked if the information that Council was requesting involved the <br />process? <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky said the information would contain the financing that was involved <br />with this project. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 05/04/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.