Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush indicated it does not have to, but Council would be required to make findings <br />explaining why it did not believe that Ruby Hill park did not meet the ordinance standards and <br />why Signature wasn't entitled to the full 50% credit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver found it difficult to grant the 50% credit because the Ruby Hill park is a <br />private park in a gated community and is principally beneficial to the Ruby Hill community and <br />Signature Properties. He did not believe this park benefitted the community as a whole. There <br />are many other park needs as discussed earlier in the evening. The Ruby Hill residents will use <br />their park but will also use the community facilities such as soccer fields and softball park. He <br />felt there should be a credit less than 50%. This is a long way from the City and even it had <br />been a community park, it would not have been used as much as a park in north Pleasanton or <br />other central location. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan pointed out that the 12-1/2 acre park is essentially what should be <br />provided for 850 houses. Signature Properties is doing that and paying $1.4 million to help <br />provide parks elsewhere, which he does not believe the Ruby Hill residents will use to that <br />value, because they have their own park available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico agreed with Mr. Tarver that this park is not open and available to the general <br />public and questioned giving a full 50% credit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated that the City is not buying or building this park. It is being <br />provided by Signature and it is also paying park fees. The residents of Ruby Hill deserve a <br />nearby park as do other residents of the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis understood the position of Mr. Pico and Mr. Tarver. Originally she did not <br />support this project because of the difficulty of servicing it due to its distance from the City. <br />However, this is a good deal for the City since it is not building or maintaining the park and the <br />acreage is appropriate. Signature Properties had made considerable effort to meet the <br />requirements of City ordinances and she believed the credit was justified. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr concurred with Ms. Dennis. Neighborhood parks are designed for the <br />residents who live nearby, not to drive across town to use. The gated concept is less of a <br />barrier in that regard. Residents of the area will invite friends to use the facilities and in that <br />respect it is open to the public. Half the fees pay for the neighborhood park and half will apply <br />to other community needs and she feels this is justified. <br /> <br />02/21/95 <br /> - 23 - <br /> <br /> <br />