Laserfiche WebLink
be built sooner rather than later. She believed some specifics are important if the <br />community is asked whether it wants the community park built now or 20 years later. <br /> <br /> By Council consensus, the planning process and timeline was <br />unanimously approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked staff to refresh his memory on what the jury's comments <br />were on the plan submitted by M.D. Fotheringham that Council looked at when it <br />selected M.D. Fotheringham as the design competition winner, as there where some <br />changes that were discussed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen said the jury recommended that the cultural arts center be <br />moved up to the north of Valley Avenue. The jury envisioned a large set back and open <br />space. The jury did discuss both locations and there was mixed thinking. The jury <br />assumed that a baseball field would have to be removed in order to accommodate the <br />cultural arts center. The jury did not recommend eliminating the baseball field but did <br />say it would be appropriate to place the cultural arts center where existing baseball fields <br />will be located. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked for the jury's reasoning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen said that the freeway and noise were the jury's biggest fear, <br />which is why he recommended moving the cultural arts center north of Valley Avenue. <br />This had to be balanced against the remaining open space, which the jury liked. The <br />Civic Arts Commission reviewed the five site plan alternatives and it recommended the <br />location of the civic arts center further away from both Bernal Avenue and the existing <br />homes. In order to make this viable, the Commission felt that the City would need to <br />acquire vehicular access to Bernal Avenue through the business park to the north, which <br />presents certain traffic issues. During the design competition, the designers were <br />required to provide at least eight lighted sports fields. The design that the Task Force <br />had produced before the design competition began included a total of ten sports fields. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked what are the probabilities in trying to acquire vehicular <br />access through the commercial property? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush noted that there is an approved PUD and development agreement, <br /> and in order to provide vehicular access through the commercial property, there would <br /> need to be concurrence on the part of the current property owner to modify the PUD. In <br /> addition, the Specific Plan does not contemplate vehicular access going through the <br /> commercial property area, which would require an amendment to the Specific Plan. The <br /> more problematic issue would be what it would take to get the property owner to agree <br /> to modify the PUD plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky pointed out that commemial property contained 750,000 square <br /> feet of commercial space. He asked if it would still be possible to place that amount of <br /> commercial space in that location, or would the City be taking away some of the property <br /> owners development rights? <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said the issue comes down to parking and what the City will condition <br /> in terms of parking versus for the road. Ultimately, it might be that Council does not <br /> require such a higher threshold of parking to accommodate the roadway. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 12 01104105 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />