CCMIN041905 - Laserfiche WebLink

proiects on Attachment A, but he did not plan on bringing this matter back to C0uncil. He was hopeful that by the end of the calendar year, Council could reach its goals and he would provide Council with measurable results on a calendar year basis, and at least once or twice per year, staff can share with Council its accomplishments in each of these areas so that Council can treck what is occurring. Ms. McGovern had a question regarding the bypass road and the verbiage and some of the things the public has discussed during the meeting open to the public portion of the agendas. It was her understanding that Council had no choice except to consider alternatives for the bypass road, as they are part of the Greenbriar application and its EIR process. She wanted to know if this was correct. Mr. Roush said that as part of Greenbriar's project, it does include a location of the bypass road that is different than what is in the Specific Plan. He noted that the EIR that is being prepared for this project would also previde an evaluation of the bypass road in the location that is currently shown in the Specific Plan. Ms. McGovern stated that even though the City is settling this matter, it does not change her opinion about where she would like to see the bypass read located, which is where it was originally designed. Mr. Brezosky had a question regarding the activities of Kottinger Place Task Fome, and asked if it would make a difference as to whether this was included on the priority list. He assumed if it were on the priority list it would be on staff's action plan, which was one of the reasons he voted for it to be a priority. He wanted some resolution on this matter even if the resolution is that it could not be done. He wanted to previde every opportunity to this Task Fome to make it successful. Mr. Fialho noted this goal was defined in the project description. Staff is now suggesting continuing to review the potential of redeveloping Kottinger Place and Pleasanton Gardens. The distinction would be to redevelop it, which would make it a priority. Mr. Fialho stated that if Council wanted to make it a priority for the basis of making a policy statement, then votes could be changed, and it would be included on the priority list. Staff plans to continue to provide staff and resoumes over the next year to this project. Mr. Brezosky asked if this project was included on the priority list? He also asked if staff would include this on the work plan as a measurable goal for the year and he would lobby for a third vote. Mayor Hosterman opened the meeting to the public. Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, addressed Council regarding a recent email she sent to Council expressing her opposition to the format of its priorities workshop. She addressed Council regarding the quality of life for the Alviso Adobe Community Park and open space as it related to the golf course. She noted that a portion of the Alviso Adobe Community Park was recognized as part of the off- site mitigation permitting process. If the City is going to complete the golf course project, she believed the City needed to make sure that all of the off-site mitigations or permit requirements are in place. She also believed Council is previding a model for developers that might come forward with a preposed project as the City nears build out. She pointed out that a plan is currently in place for the Alviso Adobe Community Park, but the project has not gone out for bid because it is over budget. She believed Council should allocate additional funds to this project and it should not wait until July to remove it frem its priority list. Pleasanton City Council 13 04/19/05 Minutes