CCMIN010405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Wolfe said the first plan that was developed by the Community Park Task Force included nine fields. The second Phase ~ plan included 10 fields. The Parks and Recreation Commission endorsed the second Phase ! plan but at that time, Council elected to hold the design competition and this plan was put on hold. No formal action was ever taken by Council on this plan. Mr. Wolfe presented the Unified Plan as prepared by M.D. Fotheringham. He noted that the Task Force reviewed this plan in November 2004, and the Task Force endorsed the Unified Plan, as it was similar to the original plan that was submitted by RRM Design. Mr. Fotheringham described the elements of the Phase One Concept Plan for the Bernal Community Park and the prioritization for the basic elements of the Plan as proposed by the Task Force. Mr. Sullivan asked if the baseball fields are at grade? Mr. Fotheringham said the baseball fields are at grade and would have sand and gravel with a subdrain system. The street, parking and plaza level would be located about six feet above the playing surface. He noted that one of the key issues is the existing grade at Bernal Avenue as well as the drainage channel that has been added to the community park that is designed to take water from the Fairgrounds through the project into Zone 7 facilities. Mr. Sullivan asked if the seating terraces come down from the level that people enter? Mr. Fotheringham said yes. The plan could change and bleachers could be added instead, but this is how the plan is currently. In looking at the gravel parking area and the alternatives, Ms. McGovern asked if an actual road would be connected through the meadow area? Mr. Fotheringham said the roadway would not be completely paved. The road is more of a multi-use trail that can accommodate maintenance vehicles as well as parking. The road may be roped off except during tournament level play where parking will need to be expanded. Ms. McGovern asked if this road would cause a disconnect between the community park and the baseball fields? Mr. Fotheringham said no. Mr. Wolfe said that there was originally discussion about this issue at the Parks and Recreation Commission level. The discussion was whether to eliminate the parking and to provide some of the other amenities, particularly the tot lot and to provide for Field 7, which is a casual field and will provide a potential place for practice. The Commission made the decision to eliminate the parking. In trying to keep within the budget of $4.3 million dollars, Ms. McGovern wanted to ensure that certain elements of the Phase I plan could be eliminated if they caused the project to run over budget. Pleasanton City Council 16 01/04/05 Minutes