CCMIN110105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern said it was important to tie this property with its history, as she was aware that artifacts were found on this piece of property. She asked if it was possible to get the trains to cease blowing their whistle in the Park? Mr. Roush said staff could look into this possibility. He believed there were certain requirements that a train whistle must be blown within a certain number of feet of a road crossing the railroad tracks. Ms. McGovern referred to page 38a of the Draft Phase II Specific Plan, a diagram of traffic roundabouts. She expressed concern with the ending of the bicycle lane inside of the roundabout and if roundabouts were to be included, she did not want the bicycle lanes to be a part of the roadway. She wanted to avoid bicycles mixing with vehicles on an arterial street. She wanted Council to direct staff to return to it with a report identifying alternatives to fund the Bernal property Park. She preferred to have the funding alternatives identified and included when this matter was presented to the voters in November 2006. She preferred to have a land use plan for the entire property be voted on because if funding for the entire Park was included, she would not want the sports fields and other uses in Phase I excluded. She referred to page 37a of the document, which depicted a Phase I and II Circulation Diagram and asked if staff anticipated buses coming into the park? Mr. Rasmussen said yes. He believed buses could be shown in this diagram. Ms. McGovern believed it was important to reflect buses in this diagram as the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) would want to know where the buses were stopping and how close to the public facilities. If roundabouts were included, she hoped they were design differently than those on Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Brozosky referred to page 17 of the document and asked if there was any reason why a community garden was not reflected in Sub-Area 16 (agriculture). Mr. Rasmussen said the only reason for not including a community garden was because it would be close to the backyard of the residents that face on the street that connects under the freeway. Mr. Brozosky did not want a community garden to be excluded. He believed it was important for Council to remember the Bernal property is a park for the entire City and Council should make sure it does not produce a park that is only used by the neighbors whose homes face the street that connects under the freeway. He referred to page 29 of the Draft Phase II Specific Plan, Guideline 1.1 that stated new building sites should be located a minimum of 100 feet from existing natural habitats. He inquired about the existing natural habitat and asked if the entire Arroyo was a natural habitat. Mr. Rasmussen said this section was not clear and it would need to be refined further. Mr. Brozosky concurred with Ms. McGovern's comments related to the ending of bicycle lanes inside roundabouts. His vision for the Park was of people riding bicycles and it was unsafe to have vehicular traffic and bicycles coexist in the same roundabout. He recalled that Council had previously decided that all uses for the Bernal property would go through the PUD Pleasanton City Council 21 11/01/05 Minutes