CCMIN121702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McKeehan said at the time the development agreement was approved, it was believed that $650,000 was an accurate estimate. Staff did not want a cap at all, but after the lengthy negotiation and a variety of trade-offs, that was the agreement. Mr. Campbell asked how willing Greenbriar had been to work with City staff during those negotiations. Ms. McKeehan said a price had been set by San Francisco for the purchase of the property. The City then negotiated an agreement with the purchaser. This was a very different process than normal. Both parties had to make concessions. Mayor Pico said one cannot review this on a piecemeal basis. You have to take into account the fact that the City got 318 acres for public purposes. This was a lengthy negotiation and he felt staff and Council did the best possible under the circumstances. He felt it was a good deal for the City and he felt Council should honor the spirit of the agreement. He wanted to make certain the design was flexible enough to add amenities in the future when resources become available. Mr. Wolfe said that was possible. The preferred option was to build the park all at once to save impacts on the residents. However, park renovations are frequently done. The Parks and Recreation Commission would prefer to build the park as set forth in Exhibit A. The Commission will keep the design in mind as it reviews its priorities and will have to decide where amenities for this park can be added. Mayor Pico noted that this neighborhood and especially the neighborhood on the west side of 1-680 will be surrounded by open space, parkland, arroyo trails, etc. The cost of this park, the sports park phase, and the remainder of the 318 acre open space area will be a significant amount. Some of the amenities for this neighborhood park may not be added for a long time, but it appears to be a neighborhood park that matches other neighborhood parks, such as Nielsen, Del Prado, etc. with open lawn, trees on the perimeter, with modest tot play areas and potentially a basketball or sports recreation court. He did not believe the neighborhood was being short-changed at all. Mr. Brozosky said there were three alternatives given to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Plan A was just turf; Plan B included some amenities; and Plan C, which is the full plan as depicted on Exhibit A of the staffreport. The Commission decided to take Plan B, which cost just below the $650,000 cap, and added a few elements such as pathway lighting and picnic tables. An additional $100,000 would more than cover the cost. Ms. Ayaia agreed with the concern that the park design was such that features could be added in the future. She visited the site and noted there are houses on three sides with the berm near the freeway on the fourth side. She noted the berm works very well to mitigate noise. She liked the fact that the neighborhood park was open and expansive, although she would like more attention paid to the tot lot and youth play center. She was sorry the overhang area was being dropped. Trees take a long time to grow. Pleasanton City Council 8 12/17/02 Minutes