CCMIN120595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift indicated no others charge the business sector a park facility fee. Mr. Pico stated there are certain projects that, as part of their approval, agreed to pay a fee. Up to this point, that fee has not been determined and that is pan of this process tonight. He supported the staff recommendation, but had an open mind. Ms. Aeosta felt it would be helpful if the speakers indicated whether they were addressing the consensus plan or whether they wanted a new fee for those not subject to the condition. Mark Sweeney, 4309 Hacienda Drive, Hacienda Marketing and Sales Corporation, agreed certain properties in Hacienda Business Park are subject to PUD condition f26 that has not been quantified. It has always been the intention to meet the obligation. Most of the land subject to the condition 26 is undeveloped. His clients are prepared to finalize the negotiations and if you support the consensus plan (Option 1), that obligation equals $986,000. Mr. Tarver referred to the March 4, 1986 minutes when the project was approved and quoted the comments of Joe Callahan regarding _an apparent demand for 4-5 lighted softball fields, two basketball courts, 6 handball/racquetball courts, jazzercise/weight rooms, indoor swimming pool and a couple of informal eating facilities. Mr. Callahan stated the rough plans and the facility would include a stress center and he estimated the cost at $7 to $8 million on top of the $3.2 million for the childcare facility. Mr. Callahan did not feel the developers could contribute 100% of the costs then for the recreational facilities, however, as soon as Mr. Callahan could determine the most economical and feasible approach, it was his intention to come to Council with a proposal to provide athletic facilities to serve the Hacienda Business Park. Mr. Tarvet realiz~ there were changes in the market and in the development but asked Mr. Sweeney to respond to those statements. People say they are going to do things with project approvals, but unless Council makes conditions associated with it, things change as the project goes on. Mr. Sweeney could not speak to Mr. Callahan's comments because he was not here at the time. Elsewhere he believed there were comments regarding a shared responsibility for this obligation. He did not believe Mr. Callahan ever intended for Hacienda Business Park to build a facility of that magnitude on its own. Some changes since 1986 include signi~canfiy lower intensity of uses than originally anticipated. For instance, shopping center areas, with less floor area ratios than office uses; far fewer employees than anticipated; more residential land that pays its park fees through the normal city park fee ordinance. Again, he indicated Hacienda is willing to pay the fee in the consensus plan and in fact will be paying a little more. Hacienda is fully prepared to mitigate its impacts and he felt it was not reasonable to expect them to do more. Ms. Acosta indicated one of the questions she has received is whether refunds due other property owners am being used by Prudential to satisfy its obligation. That is not correct. 12/05/95 -9-