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
17. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require a transit center "hub" in the Village Center. <br />Require certain elements as part of the TSM program at this time, such as <br />a transit hub, feeder bus linkage in North Pleasanton/BART/ACE, local <br />car-pool site, etc. <br />Add text to the Specific Plan addressing a transit center concept. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The Bemal Property project as originally envisioned had a transit center <br />"hub" as a feature of the Village Center. It was "lost" as the Village <br />Center was rearranged and its specifics deferred. This concept is central to <br />neo-traditional planning and is a key concept to be reviewed with the <br />Village Center PUD (hence, the TSM plan requirement linked to that <br />PUD). The Specific Plan could add text to require this element be <br />addressed in the TSM plan, which is as efficient a way of addressing this <br />issue as the others. Staff does not believe a specific car pool lot is a good <br />fit on this site. Such a regional feature will fit within the freeway <br />interchange given certain configurations, but not others. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff believes this issue would have been addressed in the TSM <br /> plan/Village Center PUD. Adding text to the Specific Plan is an efficient <br /> way to ensure it is addressed at that time. <br /> <br />Water Use/Conservation <br /> <br />Issue: The project should identify/bring a water source for the entire project. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Uses existing groundwater entitlement for golf course. Grants to <br /> City any groundwater entitlement above golf course/Castlewood use of <br /> groundwater. Relies on City assurances that potable water will be provided to <br /> project from City sources. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require San Francisco to participate in discussions with Zone 7 and <br />Pleasanton in seeking opportunities to efficiently utilize each other's water <br />resources. <br />Require an independent San Francisco source, beyond groundwater, to be <br />transferred to City/Zone 7 for the project. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Pleasanton contractually can only buy water from Zone 7. Zone 7, whose <br />facilities are aligned with the State Water Project, has not sought San <br />Francisco water. It is unlikely San Francisco water supplies are reliably <br />available in average/drought years. Zone 7 has committed to providing <br />water to Pleasanton, including its new growth, and it has acquired water <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 20 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.