06 ATTACHMENTS 03 TO 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vic Maletesta -endorsed and supported the Plan including the Sharks facility. He discussed the granting of land and felt the project was a step to the future, offering opportunities for the community. Mr. Maletesta asked the Commission to support the project with additional restrooms. John Carroll -indicated he was opposed to the Sharks facility design. He noted that earlier presentations for this park had included more trees, wondered why only a single design was being presented, and why all designs to date have included an ice facility. Mr. Carroll questioned how it can be determined that including the ice facility is a good deal when no indication has been made as to how much funding will be contributed by the Sharks. He felt it was important to have a park design that showed the park without an ice facility. Mr. Carroll likes the open space, bocce, and tennis courts, and felt design of the community and neighborhood parks should be done separately. He further added that CLC may be willing to provide the additional restroom. Parking areas should be placed closer to the roads, not deep in the park. If included in the Master Plan, the ice facility should be relocated. Tom Keely -has never been anywhere that had too many restrooms. He felt that areas of the neighborhood park would be unavailable for a significant amount of time because of the detention area, and the ice facility takes up a large portion of the community park space. Mr. Keely discussed a large regional park proposed for the El Charro 5-lakes area that he thought would be better suited for the ice facility, since the facility would serve the entire region. Ralph Kano Conservation Director for Alameda Creek Alliance -wanted to make sure the design will provide adequate buffers, and suggested fisheries be consulted so adequate riparian areas are planted along the creek. Matt Morrison, Friends of Pleasanton representative -had questions about what could be done with the land being bought from Alameda County, and felt this was something the City should research before agreeing to the purchase. He was thankful to everyone who attended the workshops and the help provided by staff and the San Jose group. Mr. Morrison commented on the fact that the ice facility will be a "for profit" entity, and wondered why it was being built on public land. He felt that regional activities would be required in order to make the ice facility viable. Mr. Morrison would like to move forward with the park development, but feels it should be done in tandem with the ice facility. Judith Geisselman -indicated that if the Sharks facility is not already a "done deal," she would like to see a community park plan without it being there. She advised that she has asked several times why it is not being located in the SE corner, so it would be closer to the retail center. Ms. Geisselman had concerns about building a regional facility in a community park; the EVA road being kept as an EVA road; traffic issues; financial benefits to the City from the ice facility; and whether research has been done to guarantee the facility would not eventually need to close. Rich Cimino, Alameda Count Audubon Societyrepresentative -advised that his group supports the ice rink. He noted that moving the proposed location of the ice facility could mean encountering many problems from the various agencies. Mr. Samino had questions about expanding the open turf/play area; uses of the detention pond; and moving the Sharks facility so overflow parking could go into the retail area. Mr. Samino recommended that the Commission not decide on a design proposal at this meeting, and look at other footprints. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes April 10, 2008 Page 6