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
Ms. Mohr asked if a developer meets all obligations when it gives to the City a fully <br /> developed park, regardless of what the cost of the park, is there some way of translating the <br /> dedication requirement to the cost of delivering the product. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bengtson indicated there is a relationship and in some cases the cost of the park is <br /> greater than the sum of the land cost and park development cost. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the developer builds the park, is the City getting a good deal? <br /> Ms. Bengtson said yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the City had sometimes negotiated for more than the standard amount <br /> of parkland required for development and that sometimes the developer constructs the park. In <br /> the Stoneridge Specific Plan areas when the individual tract maps were processed, the developers <br /> were not required to pay in lieu park dedication fees, because they had already met and exceeded <br /> the requirements for parks. The same thing is true of many PUDs. Neighborhood parks have <br /> routinely been in excess of the five acre per thousand residents and have included improved <br /> parks, such as in the Laguna Oaks project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if in addition to the neighborhood park requirement, were any fees <br /> provided for community parks? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan includes a community park, so <br /> in that case the answer is yes. In a case like Laguna Oaks, no community park fees were <br /> collected, but the park was greater than the city standard. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt the only time this ordinance would apply would be in regard to a <br /> gated community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said there had been a number of requests for possible credit when a townhouse <br /> or similar small lot residential project had small parks of less than five acres. The City has <br /> never granted a credit for those types of project amenities. As an example, other Signature <br /> Properties' projects have three small parks that have a pool and grassy area and those were not <br /> considered for park credit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver totally disagreed with the concept of giving credit for private open space. <br /> He felt it was an exclusive amenity offered by the developer to enhance the project' s value. The <br /> concept of giving away $1.5 million to Ruby Hill for parkland is incredible to him. He did not <br /> feel it was appropriate to be giving public funds for a private park. He was absolutely opposed <br /> to that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated the City was obligated to provide neighborhood park facilities to the <br />" residents of Ruby Hill. If the City had taken a five acre dedication outside of Ruby Hill and <br /> <br /> 09/17/96 <br /> -5- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.