Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wolfe said that one of the conditions in asking Council to move forward is to <br />have M.D. Fothefngham develop construction documents so that staff can return to <br />Council with the final documents. Staff will be asking Mr. Fotheringham to prepare a <br />revised update of the probable costs and at that point, if construction costs have <br />escalated, some of the basic elements can be removed. Staff's direction to Mr. <br />Fotheringham is to stay within the 64.3 million dollars, which is what the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission discussed, The Commission recommended that the project <br />could be constructed within the established budget of $4.3 million; however, given the <br />current uncertainty of construction costs for public projects, the list of amenities are <br />presented in prioritized order to allow elements of lower priority to be bid as "add <br />alternatives" in the event the project costs exceed the established budget. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan believed the $4.3 million cost was an estimate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said the $4.3 million cost is a probable estimate provided by the <br />architect, <br /> <br /> Mr. Wolfe said the $4.3 million dollars is the amount of money that the City has <br />allocated for the project. Staff has stated all along to the Task Force, the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission and Mr. Fotheringham that the basic elements of the Phase I <br />community park need to remain within that amount. If the City receives favorable bids, <br />some of the items can be added as potential alternates. Staff plans to come back to <br />Council at some point with a Master Plan after it has taken the remainder of the <br />proposed plan for the entire 50-acre community park that M.D. Fotheringham has <br />prepared to the Parks and Recreation Commission. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman was interested in looking at a more environmentally friendly <br />way to build parking lots. She favored the use of concrete block and tun', which allows <br />for permeability, but also makes for a nice substation for parking vehicles. Based upon <br />Council's direction, she asked Mr. Fotheringham to include the cost of this type of <br />parking lot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fotheringham said he would. His goal is to make this a sustainable park in all <br />aspects from composting all of the green waste to permeable sun'aces that allow water <br />to get back into the ground water table. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked staff to review the priority system for parking in this area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fotheringham said the parking included in Phase I only supports this phase. <br />This ratio was worked out with staff in terms of what it anticipates the need will be for the <br />two formal baseball fields. He noted that over 400 parking spaces are currently provided <br />for all 50 acres of the community park, and additional parking spaces may be added to <br />the west side of the sports fields. In working with staff on the equation and based on the <br />existing demand, he believed there is sufficient parking available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky how many parking spaces area available for Phase I? <br /> <br /> Mr. Fotheringham said there is a total of 64 parking spaces with the ability to <br />expand to 100 parking spaces. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 01/04/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />