My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN022195
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN022195
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2018 2:17:58 PM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:00:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/21/1995
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
course there will be new participation. To date, the majority of park needs are being met, <br />however as uses increase, the facilities need to be located in the business park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis referred to the suggestion of acquiring 33 acres for a long term plan. She <br />asked if there was consideration for needs for corporate events or staging areas for runs, etc. <br />Does staff have information that other cities have provided such facilities? <br /> <br /> Ms. Bengtson indicated 33 acres is desired to provide flexibility in designing the park and <br />serving needs. She agreed this could attract new businesses. At the same time, she wants a <br />hard edge to the park because it makes facility planning easier and provides an open space <br />element to the area. Staff is making estimates on park needs and it is better to have more land <br />than less. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated that even if all the land is not currently developed for park usage, <br />some of it could be kept for future needs. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti agreed 33 acres would be ideal, but if there are not enough funds <br />generated by the present proposals, then Council must look at other funding options to acquire <br />future park land. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr recounted that in 1980 a former Councilmember had wanted to sell <br />undeveloped park land because it did not appear feasible that the City would have resources to <br />develop it. She believed that was short-sighted. She believed it was more important to acquire <br />the land sufficient to serve the projected needs and then develop the facilities as funding becomes <br />available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not want to give any general directions and suggested proceeding with <br />the rest of the agenda. Perhaps a workshop could be scheduled or a Council committee created. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis requested graphs be created to show properties versus costs to individual <br />participants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico commended staff on the excellent job on the study. He thought the staff <br />solution could show a connection between park requirements and usage needs. This is not a <br />scientific study and is based on the 1991 transportation survey and facilities available at that <br />time. There are other methodologies that could have been used, such as asking if these facilities <br />were built and available, would you use thein. For example, the tennis complex was not built <br />and the Sports Park has been expanded since then. Existing facilities would be used more if <br />they were lighted. That information may modify the findings of the study. No consideration <br />was given to a golf course and he believed that would have a high rate of use by the business <br />community. Further investigation needs to be done to fund all the requirements. Mr. Pico <br />wanted to look at the broader needs of the community and supported a lighted facility. He <br />strongly supported acquiring 33 acres. He also supported a golf course and referred to the swim <br /> <br />02/21/95 <br /> -8- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.