My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
041222 SPECIAL
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2022 1:34:19 PM
Creation date
4/6/2022 1:31:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/12/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
The City advertised for Community Workshop #2 to all neighbors within five -hundred <br />feet of Ken Mercer Sports Park, posted the meeting on the City's website, on the project <br />website (www. leasantonallabilities is round.com), on NextDoor, Facebook and <br />posted posters for the meeting in city facilities. <br />The concept designs, community input and in -progress community -wide survey #2 <br />results were all presented to the City Council on October 5, 2021. <br />The input received at the various meetings and event included: <br />Parks and Recreation Commission <br />• Most appreciated concept #1; however, they were concerned about the custom nature <br />of the main bird sculpture and its durability and playability <br />• Would like more accessible parking included <br />• Liked the event stage and picnic shelter ideas in concept #2 <br />• Loved the fitness equipment in addition to the park <br />• Would like a variety of seating elements included <br />• Liked the addition of sensory elements, swings, and the challenge course. <br />Human Services Commission <br />• Appreciated that the designs sparked imagination <br />• Liked that the designs were interchangeable <br />• Loved that the designs were utilizing the existing landscape and appreciated that the <br />existing tree canopy will offer shade <br />• Tended to favor concept #2 slightly <br />• Appreciated the all -ages approach to design <br />■ Would like to see a double swing included and to ensure that the quiet areas are as <br />quiet as possible <br />• Liked the inclusion of generational games <br />• Wanted more disabled parking spaces included in proximity <br />• Overall, did not feel enough additional parking spaces were added. <br />Youth Commission <br />The commission liked both designs, but the majority preferred concept #1 for the <br />following reasons: appears to have more play options than concept #2, is well <br />planned out, has good flow, is sectioned -off well, is more eye-catching and vibrant, <br />and the commission thinks it will be more enjoyable for children. They also felt that <br />concept #1 could and should still reflect the character of Pleasanton. <br />• Keep the horizontal pine tree and incorporate it into the design <br />• Preserve as many of the healthy trees as possible. <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.