My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN031902
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN031902
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
4/13/2002 4:25:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/19/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN031902
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Ms. Dennis also felt the policies were important to determine. For example, does the <br />City own the land, will part of it be sold, what will be the design guidelines to preserve the park <br />like look, etc. She was concerned about seeing a picture with nothing but trees and a long list of <br />uses that are not shown. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan again said those are "potential" uses. There would be a process to <br />determine which of them will ultimately be on the site and that also deals with time, money, <br />priorities, etc. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Dennis, that the Bernal Property <br />land uses not be put on the ballot in November 2002. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Campbell, Dennis, and Michelotti <br />NOES: Councilmember Ayala and Mayor Pico <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mayor Pico, seconded by Mr. Campbell, to direct the two Bernal <br />Task Forces and staff to draft a specific plan for the publicly held portions of the Bernal <br />Property, showing a park like setting on the property and would include policies for <br />determining future uses on the property, and their timing and a process that the City <br />would follow in the ultimate development of the property. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said the kinds of policies he was looking for are: does the City sell parts of <br />the property; how to finance the projects; priorities (i.e. lighted fields, etc.); what process to be <br />followed; whether to continue the Task Force, or to create a standing commission or committee <br />to advise on the uses of the property, etc. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis questioned whether the motion dealt with the lighted fields issue since that is <br />already being handled by another Task Force. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico felt the two committees need to come together. If we are planning to build <br />lighted fields, we need an overall concept plan on how that will fit it. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated it has already been planned that the two committees would <br />come together, but Council has already set aside a piece of the property for the lighted sports <br />fields. Council has directed a park like setting, so that fifty acre park is now bigger and staff <br />would master plan a 300 acre park later, with the small piece for the lighted sports fields coming <br />forward first. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti agreed the two groups need to get together, but she did not want to <br />undermine the idea that the lighted fields would go forward first. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 13 03/19/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.