CCMIN020696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarvex was not referring to Spanos at all. He was talking about the offer before Council (6.6 acres offered at $132,000) to take care of park needs existing today. He wants to buy it as quickly as possible. E. J. Sauciex, 5216 Genovesio Drive, agreed this is a good deal for the land, howevex, he did not feel this area was large enough to handle all the proposed residential development as well as the Business Park. He felt Hacienda had a requirement to provide a park that could handle the population for the area. They are not responding to that and he still felt it had an obligation. Mr. Tarvex indicated the Business Park had paid fees to mitigate the park impacts. Ms. Michelotti then briefly reviewed the proposal for a community park in Hacienda Business Park and all the circumstances that caused the opportunity to be lost. Mr. Sauciex wanted to be sure that before the apartments are built that there is a condition that part of Lot 60 be used for park land. Mr. Tarvex clarified that the Spanos project is not before Council yet. There is an approved project with conditions, which can proceed today. If there are changes to the project or any project in Hacienda Business Park, Council can _a_slr for additional mitigation if it feels it is appropriate. This proposal for 6.6 acres is for those units already built and Council needs to get to it soon or it may have to pay even more. Mr. Sauciex also expressed concern that adequate notice was not given. Mark Sweeney, 4309 Hacienda Drive ~550, representing Prudential, indicated the conditions of approval on the property where Mr. Saucier lives requires a five acre park in the vicinity of or on the 79 acres. Therefore, this offer meets that obligation. We are not rushing into anything; we have been working for two years on this. We made an offer and are asking for a response. If Council feels it is not adequate park land, it can chose something else. He pointed out for the record that in North Pleasanton, specifically Hacienda, all of the residential projects paid the full in-lieu park fees. It was the decision of the City of Pleasanton to spend those fees elsewhere in the community. So to say that this park is inadequate and that Prudential or the developers of the Business Park did not plan adequately is a misstatement. It was moved by Mr. Tarver to continue this item until notice is sent to everyone within 1000 feet of the park site. Ms. Acosta indicated notice had been sent to an enormous list of people, but staff was not certain which department had sent the notices. Mr. Tarver withdrew his motion. 02106/96 7