CCMIN091796 - Laserfiche WebLink

then spent City money to improve it, the City would have spent 100% rather than 50% of the cost of a neighborhood park. Those people are just as entitled to a park within a half mile of their residents as anyone else in the City. The City traded the developer constructing an improved park within Ruby Hill for half the cost of what it would cost the City to build the park outside of Ruby Hill, plus the City does not have to maintain the park. There are tradeoffs involved that may or may not work to the City's benefit. In one situation, the City came out substantially ahead; in another instance perhaps the City would not. She wanted to keep flexibility in the program. Ms. Dennis felt there is a philosophical problem. People were uncomfortable with granting the $1.5 million credit to Ruby Hill for the development of that park although she did not think the City lost money in providing the neighborhood park for those people. It is the idea that is objectionable. The difficulty is, when the State says a credit is permissible, it is in the City's best interest to have ordinances which address the legal environment established by the State. This ordinance takes a step in the right direction, although she hopes this situation will not happen again. It can be addressed by discouraging gated communities and discouraging developing private parks. The City is close to buildout and she did not think there are any areas for which this will be an issue. One of the reasons Ruby Hill received the credit is because the rule was there when the development was established. She did not feel right about changing the rules in the middle of the project. She felt the proposed ordinance was a good amendment to the ordinance and would protect the City. This will discourage a developer from applying for a credit because it reduces what can be gained. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to introduce Ordinance No. 1695, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving Option 3 of the staff report giving a credit based on the proportion of neighborhood parkland to a combination of neighborhood/community parkland, but not to exceed 50%. A substitute motion was made by Mr. Pico, seconded by Mr. Tarvet, to adopt Option 1, which gives no credit for private open space. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmember Pico and Mayor Tarver NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti and Mohr ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The substitute motion failed. 09/17/96 -6-