SR 05:165 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton, CA - City Council Minutes Page 14 of 16 Mayor Hosterman felt a lot of this would still be subject to change in the future. She did not feel that level of detail was necessary at this point. Mr. Fialho commented that since the youth center is a critical piece of the property, it was helpful to staff to have direction on the concept. The Youth Master Plan Implementation Committee wants focus on a public sector driven youth center with management being provided by a nonprofit organization like the YMCA or some other foundation. He asked if Council wanted to proceed with the public sector model or to stick with both concepts. Staff felt a youth center was all that was needed, with a YMCA or other foundation to operate the facility. Mayor Hosterman agreed with that direction. The Youth Commission really wants its own place and has done a lot of work in this regard. Ms. McGovem agreed with following the staff recommendation. Mr. Rasmussen believed that the majority would like to eliminate the central location for the cultural arts center, which is in Plans B, C and E. He suggested that direction be given at a special meeting immediately after this workshop. He also recommended eliminating or combining alternatives A and D, so there is one Valley Avenue location for the cultural arts center and give direction to staff to prepare a new alternative that would locate the cultural arts center in the northeast corner of the Bemal property as has been discussed at this meeting. Regarding the community park topics on page 6 of the staff report, he asked if the group wanted to discuss item #2, the mix or types of sports fields? Mr. Fialho believed the type of fields was close in both plans and felt the real question was the number of sports fields. He believed he had heard support for seven or eight and requested direction to staff. Mayor Hosterman wanted as many fields as possible on the 45 acres. She felt it was a question of how many acres to devote to this portion of the park, not necessarily the number of fields. If staff could get a couple more fields out of this acreage, she felt the community would be thankful. She believed the original RRM Design Group plan called for ten fields. Ms. Namm indicated the original design was for ten, but in the lower comer, the two football/lacrosse fields were in the outfield of the two informal baseball fields, so you could not use the fields simultaneously. There were in essence eight fields that could be used at one time. She strongly urged eight fields at a minimum. The plan included two soccer fields, with field #2 a stadium championship field that could be used for soccer, football or lacrosse. There were three baseball fields of appropriate size, and two football/lacrosse fields. Ms. McGovern really liked the idea of multi-use fields. When baseball season is over, there are fields that are not used. She did not believe the four lighted softball complex fields are used as much as they could be. She hoped there could be more multi-use fields. Ms. Narum agreed with the concept. She said the park task force has strongly urged that enough room be allowed in the soccer/football/lacrosse fields to allow more fields for a tournament. She wanted to keep in mind that these are the only other lighted fields in town and as the sports are going more year round, they are the ones that will be used when it is http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccminutes050512ws.html 6/9/2005