CCMIN040495 - Laserfiche WebLink

Twenty-nine percent of Pleasanton's parks are used by non-residents, yet we will not be able to use the Ruby Hill Park. He also thought this was setting a dangerous precedent for other gated communities. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, believed a reduced credit was in order. He was not in favor of approving the maximum credit of 50%. He felt the ordinance gave Council discretion and maximum benefit should only be granted if the City receives maximum benefit. This is not the case because other neighborhoods must allow others to use their parks and Ruby Hill will not share their parks. If the City grants maximum credit to this park and it is not open to the general public or Pleasanton residents under some kind of permit system, such as Golden Eagle, it implies the City places no value on the benefit of access to public parks. Granting the full credit sets a bad precedent because it leaves no margin in the future for the City to reward a developer who does allow public access and removes that incentive. He felt there would be more such gated communities and felt this was damaging to America because of the fortress mentality. He described his calculations and suggested the credit be for $500,000 only and the balance of the park fees be used to provide park facilities elsewhere in the City for use by all. , Laura Darrow, 7760 Cottonwood Lane, stated that if a credit was appropriate, she believed it should be based on population and if the new residents of Ruby Hill represent five percent of Pleasanton's population, then Signature should get a five percent credit on the park fees. However, she did not believe any credit is warranted for a gated community. A city is defined by its public spaces and not its private ones. Pleasanton has provided exceptional recreation facilities, preserving open spaces and well-planned schools. This is the commitment that gives this City its quality of life and makes Pleasanton a place where people want to live. This commitment comes at a cost, one of which is the park dedication fee. Those fees guarantee the City can retain park facilities and continue to create new spaces for recreation for everyone. She requested Council to reinstate 100% of the required park dedication fees. Sherry Morse, 2311 Cone de la Jara, was concerned about the detriment to the CIP by the loss of the of the park fees. She has worked for years trying to get a pool and the CIP is important to the entire community. Council needs to consider the potential losses or delays for projects that have already been prioritized. She and her husband have joined a masters swimming team and must practice at 4:30 a.m. She also indicated she has used all the neighborhood parks in this town and never thought they were restricted for use by the neighborhoods only. She believes all citizens should have access to all parks. George Gunter, 1805 Greenwood Road, believed the decision to accept fees instead of the land was a good one. He believed this question should be reversed to ask how much should the citizens of Pleasanton get back from the fees. He quoted from portions of the Municipal Code regarding calculation of the park fees and land value. He thinks the City is entitled to the fair market value of the ten plus acres that were given back to the developer. Mr. Tarver indicated the setting of property value for calculation of park fees is done on City-wide basis and not by specific areas. 04/04/95 -9-