CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

unit park fee. When Signature negotiated with the City, it was aware that the City's park fees were substantially higher than the County's. Two alternatives were discussed, one being dedication of ten acres of land as credit against park fees with little or no money being paid to the City. The City was concerned that the site was too far away from the majority of Pleasanton's citizens and people would not drive to a community park out there. The other alternative was to build a neighborhood park which meets the City's standards and apply for a credit. The City decided not to accept the dedication of land. Signature then paid the park fees and prepared to apply for a credit. First it had to determine what kind of park would be built. Mr. McKeehan indicated that conceptually 50% of the park fees are for neighborhood parks and 50% are for community parks. At Ruby Hill, half the money is $1.4 million. With the cost of land and cost of developments, the amount of money being spent by Signature to build a neighborhood park is $4.7 million. In this situation, the City has no maintenance cost, does not have to spend $1.9 million to develop a park, and will receive $1.4 million from Signature for use on community park facilities. He believed the money will probably be spent on pool facilities or tennis facilities, which the residents of Ruby Hill will have in their own park. Mr. McKeehan referred to the objections he has heard regarding the credit: 1) that tax money is being used. That is not the case; these are park fees that can only be used for park facilities. The City is getting a neighborhood park for its residents and $1.4 million for other community facilities. 2) This credit should not be given because Council did not have money to send a high school Civics class to Washington. This park fee money would not be available - for any worthy cause, no matter what it was, that did not relate to parks. 3) gated communities preclude general community use. This is true, however, the general concept behind a neighborhood park is that it is for use by the neighborhood and in this case there are 850 dwelling units. It is not for general community use. As a neighborhood park, it will be available for normal use, including guests and league play involving Ruby Hill residents. Mr. McKeehan indicated he had talked with Dolores Bengtson and as a matter of policy, neighborhood parks are not assigned uses for league games. Signature anticipates there will be a Ruby Hill swim team, which would include members from anywhere in the City, and it would allow its pool to be available for League competition. Signature also agreed that its fields would be available for soccer or softball practice for teams with Ruby Hill members. The other notion Mr. McKeehan has heard a lot is that because Signature has the money and the City needs the money, Signature should give the money to the City. This is against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, almost every law in the United States, local ordinances, and the fundamentals of fairness and equity. Mr. McKeehan believed the City made a good deal. It received a fully improved neighborhood park designed to serve 850 homes at no cost to the City, with no maintenance obligations, and receipt of $1.4 million to use on community facilities, which will only marginally benefit the residents of Ruby Hill, who are paying for them. He urged Council to follow its ordinance, do what is right and extend the credit for the park. 04/04/95 -6-