CCMIN101805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Thorne said the initiative To Save our Community Park only dealt with the 50-acre Community Park and Phase I was defined as the lighted baseball fields. Mr. Brozosky pointed out there is nothing else in the initiative that Council adopted that required the City to design the remainder of the Park before it designed the entire 318-acres. Again, he questioned the need to prepare a Master Plan for the 50-acre park. He preferred the designer to focus on the three options for the Specific Plan and Council could then select a preferred plan and submit it to the voters. Mr. Roush believed the Community Park Master Plan had to be submitted to the voters. Mr. Brozosky did not believe the Community Park Master Plan was required to be submitted to the voters. Council could decide if it wanted to do this as one process, which it previously had discussed. Mr. Fialho said Section C of the initiative To Save Our Community Park states, "the City shall adopt a Master Plan for the Community Park in order that compatibility of the proposed nearby uses can be compared with real plans for the Community Park." For planning purposes, staff is proposing to prepare the Specific Plan but as part of the initiative that was adopted, the City obligated itself to prepare a master plan for the 50-acre park. Staff is presenting one document to Council, half of the document would be the Specific Plan and the other half would be specific to the 50-acre park. The document would be general in nature and allow Council to create maximum flexibility in terms of development at some point in the future. The discussion of the meandering stream throughout the park, where the parking might be located, what type of materials would be used, are items that staff has to identify prior to phasing the project. Mr. Roush asked Mr. Thorne if he wanted the Specific Plan for Phase II completed before the Master Plan? Mr. Brozosky believed it might be part of the master plan for the entire 318-park. Mr. Fialho noted that the Master Plan is only for the 50-acre park and the Specific Plan encompasses the entire 318-acres. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Fialho said Council could wait until the environmental impact report was completed to select a preferred solution before preparing the master plan, which was one option. The goal was to try and run the Master Plan and the Specific Plan in parallel tracks so that time is not lost and the issue could be presented to the voters in November 2006. If Council waited until it adopted the Specific Plan and waited to update the Master Plan until some time in February or April of 2006, Council would be delaying it from a planning perspective and tying its hands for community consideration in November. Mr. Brozosky believed Council needed to discuss whether one plan is prepared for the entire community park that is ultimately presented to the voters while it is carving out the 50- acre park, which Council has not yet decided. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Thorne said the initiative was intended to set aside the 50-acre parcel in the northeast comer of the Bernal property and make sure that was where lighted sports fields were placed. The intent of the initiative was also to ensure the Pleasanton City Council 30 10/18/05 Minutes