CCMIN051705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky noted that there is no neighborhood park available in South Pieasanton. A -- location has been identified in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor for a park and there may be some potential problems associated with it. He asked if staff was considering alternatives if the City could not purchase the property located in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor? Mr. Fialho said yes. He noted that there are some issues associated with the land that is designated for open space in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor and staff has concerns, as this area is a former landfill site. Conceivably, if the School District decides not to build Neal School, there is a potential of converting a portion of that property into a community park. Staff does not contemplate any tot lot facilities as part of any future development improvements. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, pointed out that there is no neighborhood park included in the Happy Valley Specific Plan because the lots in this area are larger and considered park like settings. The South Pleasanton Park Site Acquisition Reserve CIP fund was not developed for the Happy Valley Specific Plan area residents' benefit. It was developed for Pleasanton residents in the Rosepoint and Carriage Garden neighborhoods, and a neighborhood park is not available to these residents as this area does not meet the City's Growth Management or General Plan description of being within one-half mile of easy walking distance of a park. She reminded Council that it would be moving the medium density housing on the Spotorno property, which at one point in time was envisioned to be senior housing; therefore, there was no need for a neighborhood park. If Council utilizes these funds, it needs to consider the Pleasanton residents in Rosepoint by placing pressure on Greenbriar to build the park and not allow them to pay the In Lieu Park Dedication fees. Mr. Sullivan asked if Council had the ability to add conditions to Greenbriar's project for the Spotorno property, particularly adding the condition of a neighborhood park? Mr. Fialho said as part of any major development, Council could condition a park. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. Mr. Brozosky said that when this matter was originally presented to Council, he wanted Council to rezone 4254 Vervais Avenue so that the Duclairs could sell their property on the open market. He still feels the same way today and the reason for having this property rezoned is a matter of Council priorities and funds. When he considered the purchase price of $750,000 and the improvement costs associated with it, he believed there were other higher priority Capital Improvement projects that are either underfunded or unfunded where these funds could be utilized. He believed turning the Main Street Green site into a park was a lower priority than the Bernai Community Park, the downtown parking project or the Alviso Adobe Community Park project. He was concerned about running into the same situation with the property at 4230 Vervais Avenue. He would not support the purchase of 4254 Vervais Avenue. Ms. McGovern supported the purchase of 4254 Vervais Avenue. She believed it provided the City the most flexibility for the future. It is one of the few remaining sites in the downtown area where the City has a choice of being able to do something with it. She liked the idea of moving forward with the Downtown Specific Plan's recommendation to adopt and _ _ implement the Downtown Parks and Trails System Master Plan approved in 1999. The plan indicates a small parking area holding a total of 12 parking spaces. She believed the City has an opportunity and the flexibility to do something in South Pleasanton that it would not have had had it not had the opportunity to purchase this property. She did not believe the existing Pleasanton City Council 22 05/17/05 Minutes