My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/07/99
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC 07/07/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:06:40 PM
Creation date
10/24/2001 5:14:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/7/1999
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/07/99
NOTES
BERNAL PROP PUBLIC HEARING
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
component will need to be five-story unless structure parking is included <br />(this would materially change the value of the office space). The Bernal <br />Corporate Center across Bemal Avenue has been developed with <br />four-story buildings although it was allowed to go to five-stories. From a <br />design standpoint, once buildings exceed three-stories (no more than <br />40-45% FAR if surface-parked), they take on a different design "theme," <br />but staff believes five-story buildings can be as attractive as four-story <br />buildings here. Either would "block views" from 1-680 equally (so, too, <br />would three-story buildings), but this area was determined in the Preferred <br />Plan process to be acceptable to have views across the site obstructed. <br />Three-story or shorter buildings will not be able to achieve the allowable <br />building intensity unless every building is three-story and no housing is <br />added, with structure parking a likelihood. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the existing provisions be retained. <br /> <br />10. Golf Course <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />The golf course should be developed in the project's initial stage, use <br />reclaimed water, and provide permanent open-space. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: There is no mandated phasing, reclaimed water use is required only <br /> when available and cost effective, and no permanent provision for golf or <br /> open space uses is included. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require golf course construction in the initial project stage. <br />Require reclaimed water use when available at the site [at any cost]. <br />Require reclaimed water use at the outset, including building a reclaimed <br />water line. <br />Require reclaimed water when available at potable water cost or less. <br />Require the golf course be offered to the City if its owner no longer wishes <br />to operate it, and, if City refuses, require it become project-maintained <br />open space. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Although the approvals allow the course to be deferred, the practical <br />realities of the project's development essentially require its early <br />construction. Reclaimed water which is not de-salted (reverse osmosis) <br />does not meet current basin plan requirements. Reverse osmosis water <br />requires a delivery system and is very expensive. Pleasanton dropped the <br />requirement for the project to include a multi-million dollar reclaimed <br />water line in exchange for project amenities due to the unlikelihood that <br />the project could use traditional, tertiary-treated reclaimed water. The <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 11 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.