Laserfiche WebLink
gets an 850 unit project with its fair share of park land at a fraction of what it would cost the <br />city to develop and $1.4 million for community park needs. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis appreciated the opinion that there should be no private park and the <br />developer should not receive a credit. However, that is the law that was there before Ruby Hill <br />and it was required to abide by it. She has worked hard to get some public access to this area <br />to address concerns. Ms. Dennis did not believe there were adequate findings to deny a credit. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Mr. Tarver, to rescind the prior approval of the <br />maximum 50% credit and authorize in its place a 25% credit. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmember Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti, and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> The motion failed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to approve a 50% credit for <br />park fees, with additional conditions regarding park access as described by Mr. McKeehan and <br />set forth in the memo by Ms. Bengtson, and that the 100% of the required park fee be paid up <br />to 425 units. <br />Th~ roll Call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, and Mohr <br />NOES: Councilmember Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta wanted to make it clear that there will be continued contributions from the <br />General Fund to the CIP because of the limits of AB 1600. The fewer developments there are, <br />the more General Fund money will be required. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis suggested adding questions to the community survey about park use by the <br />residents, such as how much use and at which parks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated the point was made in discussion of the business park, that residents <br />pay a fee whether they use the park or not. He thought Ms. Dennis was asking for a question <br />about the principle of granting a credit for private parks. That is what he would like to hear a <br />response concerning. He wanted to clarify the interpretation of the ordinance so that it does not <br />need to be in the public interest to grant a credit, but that merely meeting the standards would <br />qualify a project for a credit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti believed that would be a difficult question to formulate. <br /> <br />04/04/95 -15- <br /> <br /> <br />