My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENT 01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
101513
>
11 ATTACHMENT 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2013 4:44:04 PM
Creation date
10/9/2013 4:18:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/15/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
in terms of lower-density on the outside. She noted, however, that with the direction the <br /> Commission is going in, she did not think there would be that kind of density to work <br /> with. <br /> 5. Comment on the use of land east of El Charro Road as a passive <br /> community park and use of land south of Lake I as an active recreational <br /> area. <br /> Chair Blank asked Mr. Dolan what staff is looking for with this question in terms of input, <br /> if staff is asking for comments versus something else. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that what staff is trying to get from the Planning Commission is its <br /> feelings about the location and kinds of parks. He noted that all the plans show this <br /> area as being a community park, an open space type of passive use type of facility, with <br /> potential extensions out into the habitat area as there would not be any development <br /> within any of the Cope Lake area as far as flood concerns go. <br /> Chair Blank stated that if it is the only alternative, then the feedback from him is that it <br /> looks great. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that that it is what staff is looking for, just some kind of concurrence <br /> because staff is pinning down major things now in the plan, and as they do and get <br /> confidence, then it narrows the planning options and makes it easier. <br /> Chair Blank stated that it cannot go north because of the APA. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that it could with residential. He indicated that this area is one which <br /> staff is looking for concurrence on as they have heard a lot of people say they would like <br /> a passive park with trails and leisure facilities, and others say they would like an active <br /> park with recreation facilities. He added that there could also be, in some cases, a <br /> neighborhood or village green of a couple of acres for people to gather at, and then the <br /> question later on, a fourth potential park, that would be for the City to share a <br /> neighborhood park with the School District as a park and the school play area. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Rasmussen to describe an active park versus a <br /> passive park. He indicated that he thinks he understands a passive park as having <br /> walkways and observation areas and that kind of thing and inquired if by active park, he <br /> is talking about a swim center or basketball courts with a playground, or something else. <br /> Mr. Rasmussen replied that the kind of uses that the Parks and Recreation Commission <br /> suggested and felt strongly about included a three- to four- acre dog park, and there <br /> was a discussion about tennis courts and a swimming pool, and then neighborhood <br /> facilities for the people in that area. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that would be open to all residents, including the <br /> residents west of the development area. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 22, 2013 Page 24 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.