CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Fund is supplementing the capital improvement funds by $1.5 million each year to support unfunded capital projects to achieve the City goals. That is money that could be used for other services, such youth, social services, police services, etc. He did not believe there was a basis for the concept that 50% of park fees was for neighborhood parks and 50% was for community facilities. He agreed there was some credit due, but he did not believe it was in the public interest to give a 50% credit. Mr. Tarver referred to the process of approval for this project and the jurisdiction the City had, the mitigations of its impacts on everything, not just parks, police, fire, traffic, etc. It was approved as a package and should stay as a package. Ms. Dennis asked, based on Mr. Tarver's comments and the fact that the ordinance will not be changed now, what specifically has Signature Properties not done to qualify for the maximum credit? She relies on the law as written and believes that Signature has met or exceeded City standards. The willingness to open the park to the public in addition to everything else they have done clearly warrants the credit. The ordinance does not state the credit will be given only if there is no use for the money elsewhere. The ordinance defines the public interest by the standards it sets for the parks, not by anything outside that. The most common complaint is the park is not open to the public. Signature has addressed that concern, even though it is not required to do that by the ordinance. She did not agree that there is a basis for a reduction in the credit. Mr. Tarver responded that "discretion" is the key. Council had no discretion in approving the PUD, because the County approved it. He believed Council has discretion in granting a credit, because the ordinance says the Council must find it is in the public interest and it meets the standards. The ordinance does not say, if you meet the standards, you get the 50% credit. He believes it is not in the public interest to take $300,00 from the General Fund for the CIP. It is not in the public interest to have unfunded facilities in the Master Plan. Mr. Pico did not believe the ordinance says if you meet the standard you automatically get 50%. He believed it should be interpreted that if the standards are met, a credit could be given from zero to up to 50%. He felt Signature should grant access to the park for all citizens. Ms. Dennis stated then it would be a public park and Signature would not pay any park fees° Ms. Michelotti believed the ordinance grants the credit of up to 50% if a developer does not meet every single standard. If a developer met nine out of ten for example, Council would have discretion to give some credit, but not 50%. The County requirement was $500 of park fees per unit. The City would not accept that. She believed the people in Ruby Hill were the future residents of Pleasanton and they were being treated as if they were outside the City. Some of them already live in Pleasanton and are merely moving to a new location in the community. Ms. Michelotti viewed this in an optimistic manner and believed it is not taking something away from the City, but rather the City is gaining a 12.5 acre improved park far in 04/04/95 -13-