CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

excess of the standards for those residents, with no maintenance cost to the City. The ordinance allowing the credit was in the Code many years before Ruby Hill was a concept. The City could have received ten acres of unimproved park land outside Ruby Hill. The City would have to have paid for its improvement and maintenance. Ms. Michelotti indicated she had moved in to a development of 150 units with a linear park and it took ten years to develop it through the City. For the most part it is the community around it that uses that park. The Ruby Hill development is not in the middle of town and she did not believe there would be that many people who would go that far to use it. She feels there is a 12.5 acre facility for those residents, totally improved, maintained by them, with no $50,000 annual cost to the City for maintenance, and the City receives $1.4 million to use elsewhere in the community. She believes there will be friendships with the people in Ruby Hill and there will be access to the park in that manner; there will be additional fields for practice and a swim facility. She carefully considered this and believed that if someone is told to meet standards and they will get a credit, in fairness the credit should be given. Like it or not, gated communities are part of Pleasanton too. It is not fair to say to someone who may live where she cannot afford, that they must pay extra because others want access. Ms. Mohr indicated the issue of credit was first brought up with regard to an apartment complex in the 1980's. The apartment developer wanted recreational facilities for its residents and felt a credit should be given. This did not arise from an "elitist community". She realizes that Council is not happy about the way this project came to the City, and in the process there were tradeoffs and compromises. In life, one often does not get things the way one wants. She referred to the point that somehow "those people" are not citizens of Pleasanton. These future residents have the same entitlement to a neighborhood park that any other neighborhood has. The project could have dedicated ten acres and then instead of $300,000 from the CIP, the City would have had well over a million dollars obligated to develop that park at some point in the future. There are many parks in town that have taken many years to develop. It would be nice if it were not behind a gate, but this is one of those compromises that came with a development like Ruby Hill. She referred to Ms. Michelotti's remarks about not being able to afford to live in Ruby Hill and felt there was reverse snobbery going on here as it has against other developments in town. The comment was made that because this park is behind a gate, other residents in the Vineyard Corridor will not have access. There were speakers at the beginning of the meeting who suggested there may not be any other new residents in the Corridor because of the General Plan Committee recommendations. Regardless of that, if the property develops, there will be the same obligation to dedicate land and commit park fees to serve that area. The fact that Ruby Hill residents have many advantages does not mean they are not entitled to the same benefits of being Pleasanton citizens that the rest of us are. With regard to the suggestion that the park fees be paid in advance, there are tradeoffs for that as well. If the park fees go up in the future, when the fees would normally be paid, the City might have gotten more money. On the other hand, inflation counteracts that. Economic principles encourage getting funds early and investing rather than receiving inflated dollars later. She believed that if Signature was willing to pay up front, she was happy to accept that. There are many park needs and Ruby Hill fees will not solve all of them. She believes this is an excellent compromise for the City. It 04/04/95 o14-