CCMIN010405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Wayne Rasmussen, consultant, provided an overview of the planning process, which included a background of the Phase Ii Specific Plan process and status of the Phase I Sports Fields process. Mayor Hosterman was comfortable with the planning process and timeline. Ms. McGovern asked if the timeline is being used for putting the land uses for Phase II of the Specific Plan on the ballot? She asked if staff is looking at placing this matter on the ballot when the School District holds its next election? Mr. Fialho said he asked Mr. Rasmussen to prepare a work plan that completes the project by the end of 2005. The soonest that the uses for Phase II of the Specific Plan can be placed on the ballot would be March 2006, if the project were completed in early December. At that point, it becomes a Council policy decision as to whether it wants to place the matter on the March, June or November 2006 ballot. Mr. Rasmussen said he tried to lay out the work plan as realistically as possible but still look ahead to an election date. Given where the City is in this process, he believed it is reasonable to believe that Council can provide staff enough direction to finalize the draft plan, go through the environmental impact review process and allow for four months of review by December 2005. Mr. Sullivan asked if the 3ublic vote on the community park includes the sports fields? Mr. Fialho said the project goes on a parallel path but the item would be submitted to the voters is only the Phase II Specific Plan, which does not include the community park. After Council makes a motion pertaining to the lighted sports fields, Ms. McGovern asked if Council could have a discussion to decide whether it wanted to have everything voted on other than the two lighted baseball fields? Mr. Fialho said yes. As it is spelled out now, the voters would only be voting on the uses for Phase II of the Specific Plan, but at some point the Council, if it chooses, could take the community park plan to the voters. Mr. Brozosky thought Council might want to look at the process of what it wants to bring to a vote of the people and to consider whether to include things outside of the 400-foot setback, or to include everything else that Council has not already approved. He thought it would be better to allow the public an integrated vote. He asked Council what it wants to bring to a vote of the people and how specific? He noted that this is a long-term plan and is more of a master plan. He would not like for the City to be locked into something where there are uses that have been approved by the voters but the money is not available. Subsequently, things change. If this were to happen, he asked if the City would then be required to bring the changes back to the community to vote on again? Ms. McGovern would like to look at the idea of possibly giving the community the chance to fund the community park through a bond. She wanted the community park to Pleasanton City Council 11 01/04/05 Minutes