CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti clarified that Ruby Hill could have donated unimproved acreage outside of the gate and that would have satisfied its park dedication requirement or it could have donated an improved five-acre park. Ms. Bengtson indicated there were never serious discussions about a five acre neighborhood park. There were investigations to determine if a well-functioning community park could be built in that area. Staff considered several issues, among which was that the park could not be big enough to meet community needs and it was difficult to place some of the most needed facilities, such as lighted fields, at that location. Ms. Michelotti asked if it had been a conscious decision not to take the ten acres of land. If that land had been donated, would it have satisfied the park obligations of Ruby Hill. Ms. Bengtson stated 13.13 acres would have satisfied the obligation, but that was never part of the discussions. Mr. Tarver wanted to clarify who approved this PUD and put conditions on it. Ms. Acosta indicated the County originally approved the PUD. Ultimately the City of Pleasanton also approved the project. Ms. Dennis requested a response to two scenarios: 1) the impact on the park CIP if the City had accepted the ten acres; 2) if the park were a public park, what would be the impact on the CIP. Ms. Bengtson indicated if the City had received the land, the City would have had to develop the park within five years and find the funding of approximately $100,000 an acre for those improvements. The land could not be used for any other purpose than for parks. No fees would have been received and the CIP would not have the benefit of the $1.5 million which it is to receive from Ruby Hill. Under the second scenario, Signature could have met the requirements of the Quimby Act by developing a certain amount of land with improvements that would not equal 12.5 acres, with no fees paid to the City at all. The City would then have to maintain the park. Mr. Tarver indicated his question regarding PUD approval was to clarify the City's authority under PUD approvals as it relates to achieving proper planning and the approvals of a development in that location. Were there other ways the City could have worked with Ruby Hill to address the park fee as it relates to the Ruby Hill PUD? Mr. Roush indicated the negotiated Preannexation Agreement is the document that addressed the park land issue in particular. Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, 6612 Owens Drive, briefly described the history of this project. It was approved by the County, which approval included a $500 per dwelling 04/04/95 -5 -