CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarver referred to the preannexation agreement and asked why the figure of $1.4 million in credit was not specified instead of using the term "may apply" for the credit. Mr. McKeehan indicated the understanding was that Signature had to meet the conditions of the ordinance in order secure the credit. Until the park was designed, it was impossible to request a credit. Mr. Tarver felt the ordinance must be read to say an application for credit may be given only, if the Council finds it is in the public interest and meets the standards. Somehow that first phrase has been lost. Mr. McKeehan disagreed and did not believe the phrase could be isolated from the rest of the ordinance. Many times one word or phrase is isolated as a way to avoid obligations; however the courts have not looked favorable on that action. Ms. Dennis inquired about the trail from the Finestra Winery to Ruby Hill. Mr. McKeehan indicated the public trail will still be there. Dorene Paradiso, 3168 Paseo Granada, restated that this is a neighborhood park and not a community park and will not be using tax dollars. She concurred with the staff recommendation to allow the full credit. The City benefits from a fully developed park and maintenance of the park by Signature. Bert Felix, 2860 Garden Creek Circle, supported the full credit for Signature Properties. He asked the mayor on what basis he was requesting a reduction in the percentage of credit. Mr. Tarver responded it was based on the point of view of who uses which parks and where the money goes and what the community needs. He referred to the money necessary to be transferred form the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Program to cover the loss of park fees. That is the money he believes could be allocated in other ways, if it were not being used to cover the CIP deficit caused by the Ruby Hill credit. He referred to the 50/50 split of fees for neighborhood and community parks. That would justify the full credit. However, the neighborhood park should serve the people in the Vineyard Corridor and it will not be available because Ruby Hill is a private gated community; therefore, another neighborhood park will have to be developed for those who live between the previous city limit and Ruby Hill. Mr. Tarvet believed there were many factors influencing this decision. Keith Wardin, 2931 Liberty Drive, indicated he was concerned about the what Mr. McKeehan referred to as the fundamental process of fairness and equity. Mr. Wardin was not in favor of gated communities of any kind and felt they were destructive to the sense of community. He does not believe this is an easy issue, but believed there was a global process which is complicated and takes time to be gone through. He referred to the letter from Mark Avon and indicated he felt Dr. Avon had not spent enough time reviewing all the steps and 04/04/95 -7-