CCMIN022096 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mark Sweeney, 9309 Hacienda Drive, representing Hacienda Marketing and Sales, responded to previous comments. Mr. Tarvet had indicated he did not expect to pay $500,000 an acre for park land. Mr. Sweeney indicated the offer made several months ago was $110,000, which is substantially less. The scenario presented by Mr. Pico is not how Prudential understands the ordinance allowing the rezoning of Lot 60. He believes there was a 79 acre parcel that was rezoned, which included Lot 60. That property was required to provide either a five acre neighborhood park or pay in-lieu fees. If Council accepts the offer tonight, he believes that satisfies the requirement. Mr. Sweeney pointed out that the $500,000 per acre property is on the north end of Lot 60; the rest of the property is in escrow and has not been offered to the City. Mr. Tarvet did not doubt that the land was worth $500,000. He also understands from staff that there have been discussions that the City would buy Lot 25 to satisfy the park requirement for the 79 acre rezoning. This Council has not taken action and it made a mistaloe by not saying you will dedicate the land. He would have preferred placing the park in the middle of the development and designing the PUD to make more sense. Now in order to place the park where it makes the most sense, the City must pay a lot more money than he wants to pay. Mr. Sweeney objected to the scenario that would require ten acres of park land in this area, because that is not what the ordinance required. Mr. Swift pointed out it is not a requirement to give up land for the park. What was required at the General Plan change was that a neighborhood park be located somewhere in that North Pleasanton area. Staff is looking for direction on where to place the five acre park which was required for this General Plan change. Council will have discretion at a future stage to decide if it wants additional park land. Mr. Tarvet rephrased his question to ask if the change to the General Plan for the 79 acres had a requirement that Prudential dedicate five acres of park and not pay in-lieu fees. Can Council look at the PIJD again and situate the five acre park somewhere? Mr. Roush indicated the condition required that a five acre neighborhood park be established somewhere within or near the 79 acres, but be paid for by the City. Mr. Tarvet asked whether the option was available to collect in-lieu fees or receive park land dedication? If the developer pays only in-lieu fees, those fees will fall short of paying for the five acre park where the City wants it. Mr. Swift indicated the original discussion about a park in the area was at the General Plan stage. The first PUD Council reviewed thereafter was from Prudential/Robertson Homes. Staff identified Lot 25, parcel F, as the potential location for a five acre neighborhood park for the entire North Pleasanton high density units. That site is adjacent to one of the already developed sites and is centrally located. The Robertson Homes plan was never built. When 02/20/96 -?-