CCMIN110105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen said the plan is to prepare a Specific Plan for the 318-acres at a conceptual level and as funding becomes available for each of the main facilities within the 318- acres, such as the Community Park which happens to be first and the YouthlTeen Center which happens to be second, master plans are developed. He did not view the Specific Plan and the Master Plan as being two separate plans and the Park Master Plan being somehow unique to itself. He envisioned this as the first of a series of master plans that would come in once funding was available. Mr. Brozosky believed it was premature to begin any master plan for various portions of the Park until the Specific Plan was finalized, except for the previously approved lighted sports fields. Mr. Rasmussen noted the Initiative To Save Our Community Park stated that the City shall adopt a master plan for the Community Park in order that compatibility of proposed nearby uses can be compared with real plans for the Community Park. Mr. Brozosky believed that the initiative did not indicate the master plan must be completed before the remainder of the uses were designed. The initiative clearly stated that the lighted sports fields were to be the highest priority. He referenced the minutes of Council's July 2004 meeting where Council spent a considerable amount of time discussing the matter and making sure the City did not have to complete planning the remainder of the Community Park prior to the remainder of the 318-acres. Mr. Fialho said the Illustrative Site Plan was for community purposes. The Illustrative Site Plan is an illustration of what the property could look like. Staff would not be advancing the Master Plan in this fashion but felt compelled to do so based on the Initiative to Save our Community Park, which was ultimately adopted by Council. He referred to Measure X, which was adopted by the voters in November 2004. He believed Measure X spoke specifically to the Master Plan. He agreed it did not make sense to submit the Phase II Specific Plan to the voters without showing conceptually how the Bernal Community Park would look like. Mr. Brozosky did not believe there was any compelling reason to complete the remainder of the Master Plan, as there was no funding source available, which would not allow Council to actually fast track the development of the 50-acre Community Park. Mr. Fialho believed Mr. Brozosky wanted Council to have the ability to submit a land use plan for the entire site to the community for its review and consideration. The issue is the Sub- Area map, which is of how this property could be developed. The Illustrative Site Plan not only shows the Phase II Specific Plan area but also the Community Park. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Roush said the Specific Plan text now only provides that Phase II be approved by the voters but Council has the option to include more than that in terms of what is ultimately submitted to the voters. If Council chooses to submit the entire matter as one package and if the voters rejected it, Council would be back to where it was today. At that point, Council could submit everything but the Community Park to the electorate. Mr. Sullivan asked if Measure X specifically prohibited the Community Park from being voted on by the electorate. Pleasanton City Council 18 11/01/05 Minutes