Laserfiche WebLink
Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court North, urged Council to vote for a business tax that will <br /> fully fund the building of a sports park in Hacienda Business Park. This directly affects the <br /> safety of children in north Pleasanton. In March, the School District held meetings to review <br /> the design of the middle school. It was the intention to rent the school's sports fields to the <br /> Hacienda businesses for after work sports leagues. The campus plan of the proposed school was <br /> presented and the three classroom buildings are a small area of the campus. This design is to <br /> maximize the fields for rent to the Hacienda businesses. In fact, the school rooms are two-story <br /> buildings with no fire sprinklers. No other Pleasanton school uses such a design. He feels this <br /> is solely to use the new middle school as a substitute for the Hacienda Sports Park. He urged <br /> Council to pass a tax sufficient to fund a Hacienda Sports Park. The recreational needs of the <br /> business should be separate from the school. He also asked Council to adopt an ordinance that <br /> requires sprinklers in all new school construction. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt these concerns should be raised at a School Board meeting. The <br /> Liaison Committee brought up the use of school fields, but was told the size was not adequate <br /> and that it would not work out. She did not believe that there was a proposal to share these <br /> fields. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico also commented that the City has no control on the construction, site or design <br /> of school facilities. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta agreed. The School Board makes unilateral decisions about what occurs on <br /> school properties and how schools are constructed under the guidance of the State Architect's <br /> office. City staff has not been actively involved in any discussions about use of the fields of the <br /> proposed middle school, so we do not know what the plans are. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pretzel indicated he was told in March that negative comments should be directed <br /> to the State officials and the fire inspector of Pleasanton has the fight to review those plans. <br /> Pretzel wrote letten, but has received no response from the inspector. The State indicated there <br /> is no obligation to put fire sprinklers in the buildings. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated staff did not believe the sports park issue was tied to that building <br /> atall. <br /> <br /> Barbara Allen, President of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, indicated the <br /> Chamber was stwngly opposed to any fees to be imposed on businesses for construction of park <br /> and recreational facilities. It feels that would be detrimental to the business environment of <br /> Plea~nton. She referred to further points set forth in a letter to Council dated May 5, 1995 <br /> suggesting options and observations that need investigation. She believed the driving force for <br /> new community park facilities is not the businesses but the desires of the community as a whole <br /> for added recreational facilities. She felt a blanket assessment against business would create an <br />-- anti-business environment in Pleasanton. The Chamber was opposed to removing any currently <br /> designated commercial/office/industrial properties for park purposes. The City has the <br /> opportunity to acquire and has developed substantial mounts of community park facilities in the <br /> <br /> 12/05/95 -10- <br /> <br /> <br />