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
18. <br /> <br />beyond its State Water Project entitlement. Zone 7 also has refused to <br />allocate its water sources directly to Pleasanton. For these reasons, <br />attempting to tie the Bernal Property project to any water source is <br />problematic. Staff believes the water arrangements included in the project <br />will be beneficial to Pleasanton rate-payers and will use less "net water" <br />than building this same project elsewhere in the valley. San Francisco <br />representatives have indicated a willingness to discuss water issues with <br />Pleasanton and Zone 7 officials. This could be memorialized in the <br />Pre-Annexation Development Agreement by adding to Section 3.9. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Include the project's water use/entitlement rules as described <br /> above. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Water availability is a complex issue in the valley. A <br /> commitment to continue to work together may expose feasible options <br /> once Zone 7 has its storage facilities on line and can take advantage of <br /> available wet-year flows. Staff believes an obligation to explore options <br /> would be satisfactory to all parties. <br /> <br />On-Site Storm Drainage <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />Fertilizers/chemicals/pesticides, especially from golf course, can pollute <br />surface streams. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Requires erosion/sediment control plans, urban nmoff plans, and golf <br /> course water quality management program, all to meet "best management <br /> practices," City-adopted standards, or NPDES pemfits. Project is also <br /> designed to use detention ponds and filtration via grassy swales. See PUD <br /> condition no. 82 generally. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Modify requirements by specifying new standards and/or requirements, <br />such as no chemical fertilizers, no pesticides, etc. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The structure of the initial approvals puts into place a land plan/master <br />storm drainage system which is capable of meeting the "best practices" <br />standards. It allows the City full discretion to review and <br />approve/condition the subsequent precise control programs when these can <br />be tailored to an actual plan. Staff believes it is unrealistic to operate a <br />golf course with all organic practices. For example, San Francisco has had <br />to allow exceptions to its own regulatory programs for golf courses within <br />its watershed lands. Golf course play requirements and intensive use areas <br />typically require special maintenance, including use of some chemicals. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 21 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.