CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

documentation in this process. Mr. Wardin was concemed that this Council and the General Plan Steering did not exercise global fairness, but rather was selective and left out persons, such as the developers of Hacienda Business Park and Ruby Hill, who create value for this town and society. He felt is was right to open the question for further review and comment, but he felt it was wrong to reverse the decision to grant the credit based solely on testimony heard at this meeting. Ms. Dennis referred to the editorial in the Tri-Valley Herald and indicated there was a mistake. It stated the City had a choice of taking ten acres of land and the entire park fee versus giving the credit. That is not correct, the option was land or some portion of the fee. She felt that may have confused some people. Mr. Wardin indicated that it was confusing and that is why he believes Council cannot rely on the opinions of just a few people and it is important to get the whole picture and not reverse a decision based on one aspect of the issue. Mr. Pico agreed with the concerns about the process, but from a different perspective. He was concerned because the City took action after 11: 30 p.m. when there was no member of the public left to testify on this issue. He objected to the suggestion that Councilmembers should come to a meeting with their minds made up and believed that fairness and equity demand that the opinions of the public be taken into consideration. Debra Barker, 2947 Chardonnay, indicated she has followed this Ruby Hill process since 1989, when it was a County process. She felt many compromises and deals were made on this and it was not appropriate to come back six years later and make exception in one small area and ask for money back. She stated she uses neighborhood parks all over town and did not believe this park meets the standards because it is gated off and not a neighborhood park, but rather a private park. New developments bring in impacts such as traffic and congestion, but they bring amenities. Ruby Hill also brings amenities, but they are locked up, and she felt Signature owed the fees to the community to provide facilities elsewhere. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, described various parks in Livermore, such as Robertson Park and Sycamore Grove Park, which are natural parks along arroyos and are very low maintenance. He suggested taking the entire park fee from Signature Properties and using it to acquire land along the arroyo to create a park of benefit to Ruby Hill and to other citizens in Pleasanton. This could be tied into Sycamore Grove Park and link hiking and biking trails in Livermore in regional cooperation. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, was very upset and believed this credit of $1.5 million was an extremely generous gift of public funds to a developer to enhance its exclusive, gated community. Pete Hansen, 7939 Applewood Court, agreed with Ms. Purnell. This is a gated community and the park is an asset to those residents, not to the citizens of Pleasanton. 04/04/95 -8-