CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico objected to not having seen the letter describing this proposal. Mr. McKeehan indicated there was no letter from Signature. He had a meeting with Dolores Bengtson who then drafted a memo to Becky Dennis outlining the proposal. Mr. Pico asked if Signature would be willing to open the gates and grant access to the neighborhood park to anyone? Mr. McKeehan indicated that was inappropriate. One of the primary reasons people want to live in Ruby Hill is for security purposes. He would not jeopardize that sense of security. Mr. Pico asked if Mr. McKeehan would amend his request to ask for less than the 50% maximum? Mr. McKeehan referred to the continual reference to 50 % and believed that if any kind of study were done, it would find that the residents of Ruby Hill will use the park at Ruby Hill much more than any community facility, perhaps 90% Ruby Hill and 10% use of other community parks. Notwithstanding that conclusion, because of the ordinance, Signature can only get a 50% credit. So instead of applying for less, he believed Signature should be allowed to apply for more. He also referred to children participating in programs. He believed that if 100 of the total number of children generated by Ruby Hill (about 156 children) were involved in sports, that would mean Signature Properties is paying $1.4 million for 1130 children to play sports. That appears to be a pretty generous donation. Mr. Tarver was particularly concerned that $300,000 of General Fund money is being diverted to the CIP to cover the loss of fees from Signature. If he had his wish, he would eliminate that part of the ordinance allowing a credit for private park facilities. He does not like the concept of private, gated parks and agreed that this has a negative impact on the community. Mr. Tarver believed the 850 houses will generate many children who will participate in organized group sports, swimming in the proposed 50 meter pool, play on City tennis courts, etc. He feels it was appropriate to give a credit, but not 50%. When the original discussion occurred about the CIP, he wanted to put all $400,000 in an undesignated reserve to be allocated through the budget process to whatever was appropriate. Staff said not to do that because $300,000 was needed for the CIP commitments. Mr. Tarver believed that $300,000 could be spent in many ways to benefit the community including Ruby Hill residents. He was distressed about the name calling, no matter by whom. Mr. Pico indicated there is much information in the staff report stating this is in the public interest, but he believed there were many arguments which have been stated at this meeting, that it is not in the public interest. There are a substantial number of community park needs that are inadequate. Granting of a credit will have a negative impact on the 1994-99 capital improvement plan. He also felt this credit does not contribute to a neighborhood park _ in the Vineyard Corridor area with public access, which he believes is required. Regarding the claim this is not public money, it is costing at least $300,000, plus more because the General 04/04/95 -12-