Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Asset Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents demand Linda Vista Park be preserved as board authorizes negotiations for developer—s proposal
Summary
After hours of public comment urging the district not to relocate Linda Vista Park or cut mature trees, the board authorized exclusive negotiations with a preferred developer (Insight) and added a requirement that the ENA preserve the park—s existing footprint and location.
Dozens of Linda Vista residents packed the Pasadena Unified boardroom to oppose a developer proposal for the Linda Vista Elementary site and to urge the district to preserve the neighborhood park and mature trees. Several speakers described the park as a daily safe space for families and said moving the play area or removing mature canopy would damage community life.
"Please don't take our park," said Karly Whitney, a neighborhood resident, summing the sentiment shared by parents who said the park provides shade, a traffic buffer and the social networks young families rely on.
CBRE, the district—s real‑estate adviser, summarized a competitive RFP process and recommended a preferred proposer it said offered the highest revenue projections. Damon Feldmouth of CBRE told the board the preferred proposal was for 32 detached single‑family homes, a 99‑year ground lease, a $1 million deposit and an initial annual ground rent of $575,000 with CPI escalators. CBRE—s financial model projected about $285 million in total ground‑rent receipts over 99 years under its assumptions.
Trustees pressed staff and CBRE on process and timing. CBRE explained that a board authorization tonight would not finalize a site plan but instead permit staff to sign an exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA). Under the ENA the developer would perform due diligence, produce a community outreach plan, and refine the project; the city entitlement process would come later. Trustees repeatedly asked whether the board could require the park to remain in place; staff and CBRE said such restrictions can be negotiated but cautioned that overly prescriptive conditions could affect a developer—s financial feasibility.
After extended debate the board approved a motion to authorize the ENA negotiations with the recommended proposer but adopted a trustee amendment requiring the ENA to include a condition that the proposed development preserve the existing park footprint in its current location and size. Trustees emphasized the vote authorized negotiations only; any final ground lease or site approvals would return to the board and to the city entitlement process.
Residents said the board—s amendment was an important victory but said they will monitor the ENA process and press for community design sessions and independent reviews of tree and environmental impacts. District staff said the ENA will require the developer to produce a community outreach plan and that final project approvals would rely on city permits and environmental review.
