CCMIN110105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Sullivan was supportive of the Draft Phase II Specific Plan and the concepts, which put some framework around the direction that Council was trying to pursue. He supported the commitment to the environmental and fiscal sustainability with the goal that any facilities or buildings that are constructed are valued by the community and blend into the environment and do not stand out, with the exception of the Cultural Arts Center which he believed Council needed to discuss, particularly in its current location. He supported the Grand Park Design Concept and the natural woodland setting. He believed it was important for Council to try and recreate something that was prominent in this Valley, which could coexist with the Sports Park. He believed Council had the ability to incorporate tennis into this plan and suggested that a designated land area be reflected. He believed Council needed to work on the parking principles to avoid creating a sea of parking lots. He was worried about the LOS D standards and Council needed to consider it prior to making any final determination. He believed roundabouts were an appropriate means of mitigating traffic through the Park and preferred these as opposed to traffic signals. He agreed with the goal to integrate pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. He expressed concern regarding the noise that would be generated by the railroad and the freeway. He was not sure if he supported the language included in the Plan regarding soundwalls around the railroad tracks. The planning process as laid out was adequate. Council needed to remember that as it goes through this process, any decision it makes is referendable and the public should have some type of recourse available particularly since the Bernal property was public land. A portion of the Plan discussed lumping the Bernal property into an overall priority and funding setting process, and he believed Council should discuss separating this and finding other ways to fund this project over time. He wanted to ensure that Council maintained sensitivity to the neighbors in the area who would be impacted both by the lights from the sports fields and noise generated by both the sports fields and amphitheater. He believed Council needed additional discussion on how this matter will ultimately be presented to the electorate. Ms. McGovern referred to the Illustrative Site Plan and inquired about the Sub-Area for special use and recreation (GG), which was near the housing project close to the Knoll. Mr. Rasmussen said this was a requirement of Phase I to occur within the Phase II area, which was intended to be a small neighborhood facility to serve those homes, which would consist of a tot-lot and picnic area. Ms. McGovern wondered why the developer did not include a recreational area for these homes. Mr. Fialho said the developer built a neighborhood park in the western area. Ms. McGovern believed this land use should look like it is a part of the Plan. She asked if the sub-area for an environmental education center included a building. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. Ms. McGovern asked if the Native American concept would be tied in with the environmental education center. Mr. Rasmussen believed there would be an opportunity to do so since both of these uses are in the same immediate area. The primary idea was to have an educational center that would serve school-age children and visitors on the weekends. Pleasanton City Council 20 11/01/05 Minutes