CCMIN020696 - Laserfiche WebLink

from Ms. Dennis and indicated it may be possible to get the adjacent 1.4 acres available on the north side of the creek, which would complement the basic park. Debi Wallace, 5243 Ggnovesio Drive, felt the proposed park was too small. Onc~ the surrounding developments are built, this will be totally inadequate. She much preferred acreage on Lot 60 and also did not like the proposal to split the park on two sides of the creek. John Haskins, 5225 Gcnovesio Drive, indicated Hacienda Business Park is a unique situation where business/retail and residential have been blended. He felt some consideration had to be given to the business use during the day and the community that resides in the area. WalMart and AT&T tak~ up a lot of space. He felt a large amount of green space was necessary to mediate the effects of the business on the residents. He agreed the park was too small. He felt there was a need on the north side of town to have more space for families to Mr. Pico reiterated his comments and concerns that this park site is not accessible and is tucked away behind commercial sLructures. Given the density of the neighborhood, he felt the park was too small. It should be closer to the residential development. He supported acquiring eight acres on Lot 60 and putting in a larger amenity for the neighborhood. He felt employees in the Business Park will be using this facility as well. Ms. Bengtson referred to the matrix and indicated she had mistakenly included park fees as well as the dedication of land. So the deficit for seven acres is $300,000; for eight acres, $1 million; for nine acres, $1,692,000; and for ten acres, $2,425,000. Mr. Tarver agreed with the speakers that this was not the best park site and more land was necessary. We have been offered land at $132,000 an acre vs. $500,000 an acre and he wanted to see some kind of park developed for the residents. He also wanted to look at additional space and better ~s. However, he could not see how to refuse this offer considering the amount of money available to put into this park. Even if land were available in another location, this is a deal in terms of park land in the Business Park. He agrees it does not meet all the needs, but we should buy this site and do something now; then look at alternatives for additional space. He did not want to miss the offer. Ms. Mohr pointed out that park dedication funds can only be used for a neighborhood park or city-wide parks and we are not looking at a city-wide park here. That makes this an even better buy. Ms. Michelotti indicated the total cost of parkland above project generated fees for Lot 60 is $2,324,709 and for Lot 25A the total fee generated from project above parkland costs is $12,458. This must be considered. As far as location, she agreed a bridge should be built for access. She a.~lced if the Mayor was trying to get the eight acres including the 1.4 acres from Spanos. 02106/96 6