My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101502
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN101502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:36 AM
Creation date
11/15/2002 7:22:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/15/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN101502
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
,.. 7. MA~iTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti inquired about the process regarding the proposed dog park and whether <br />Council needed to discuss this with the Parks and Recreation Commission. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said it was difficult to say at this time what would be recommended to the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission. Staffhas not finalized the report. A neighborhood meeting <br />was just held and staffhas not reported back to the Commission yet with regard to the <br />neighborhood reaction. Ms. McKeehan believed it was advisable for Council to allow the <br />process to finish before it got involved with any kind of direction. The next step is the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission hearing. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico indicated he has been a proponent of building another dog park within the <br />City and every potential site has been reviewed. In almost every case there have been issues or <br />problems. He felt the current plan was significantly flawed. He hoped staffcan continue to <br />search for one or more locations for a dog park in the community. However, having heard the <br />concerns of the neighbors and visited Nielsen Park, he believed there were issues that would be <br />heard to overcome. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated staffis well aware of the comments made by the neighborhood <br />and that will be reported to the Commission. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis wanted the Commission to deal with the problem before Council inserts <br />itself. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said that was why she asked the question about the process and felt there <br />was a legitimate concern. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked staffto provide information on the airport master plan. She asked if <br />there was a way to encourage the Airport Commission not to circulate the plan during December. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico indicated there is a Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee meeting <br />shortly and asked to include this on that agenda. He felt there should be representation from the <br />City of Pleasanton on the Airport Commission. This is a regional asset. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti noted there is a part of the Staples Ranch property that could be <br />considered for housing and she reminded people that housing was denied on that location at one <br />point in time. While the Liaison Committee is discussing parameters, it should be aware of the <br />portion of the Staples Ranch that is within the Airport Protection Area. She also noted that <br />Dublin is growing and is now impacted by the airport as well. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico commented that Area 4 of the Alameda County Congestion Management <br />Agency, which is the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, plus the BART representative <br />and the County Supervisor, had a meeting to discuss allocation of Proposition 42 money ($55 <br />million) within the Tfi-Valley area. Discussion was spirited and the recommendation coming <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 10/15/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.