My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091796
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN091796
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:55 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 11:14:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Mr. Roush believed the only drawback to that is that if you strictly require dedication of <br />land from development, the land may not be the most desirable place to construct a park. There <br />may be advantages to getting a higher fee as suggested by Mr. Pico and buy property in another <br />location that would be better suited. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to adopt Resolution No. <br />96-106, approving the criteria on which the in-lieu park dedication fee will be based on the <br />recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commition as set forth in the staff report, <br />with an amendment that the land value and analysis study will be based on land sales <br />within the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet did not support the motion, because he felt Mr. Pico's suggestion had merit <br />and should be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for review and he did not agree <br />with the membership of the ad hoe committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt the Park and Recreation Commission could review Mr. Pieo's suggestion <br />and a formula could be developed later. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico wanted to make sure that approving the current recommendation does not <br />preclude reviewing other options. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver requested an amendment to the motion to change the ad hoe committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt if the matter was to be reviewed again, it should go back to the same <br />people and did not support the amendment. She did support a review of Mr Pieo's proposal by <br />the Park and Recreation Commission and Ms. Dennis' proposal regarding the urban growth <br />boundary. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr suggested keeping the current ad hoc committee members and adding two <br />citizens at-large. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis agreed to amend her motion to add the citizens at large. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to adopt Resolution No. <br />96-106, approving the criteria on which the in-lieu park dedication fee will be based on the <br />recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission as set forth in the staff report, <br />with an amendment that the land value and analysis study will be based on land sales <br />within the urban growth boundary, and adding two citizens at large to the ad hoc <br />committee. <br /> <br /> 09/17/96 <br /> -11- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.