CCMIN121614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Thorne asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the increase in consultant's fees would be borne by the developers. Vice-Mayor Pentin acknowledged the community's concerns over developing another portion of the city, particularly in light of the current water situation. He noted that the Plan states several times that recycled water will be supplied to all but residential development in the Plan area and wondered if now might not be the time to make the leap to residential. City Manager Fialho explained that the State of California strictly regulates the deployment of recycled water into single-family owner-occupied housing, though it is not at all unusual in the common areas of multi-family developments. He noted that the supply distribution would be in reasonable proximity to single-family residences, if and when local governments are able to resolve some of the issues with the state's regulations, although the practicality of actually stubbing out that utility would need to be more thoroughly evaluated. Councilmember Brown noted that a considerable portion of the development within the Plan area is on the edge of Pleasanton, with approximately 112 acres located outside the Urban Growth Boundary. She questioned how well-educated the Task Force is on Measure FF, which says that no urban development will occur beyond the Urban Growth Boundary without a vote of the people, and how it might affect the EPSP. Mr. Dolan assured her that the Task Force is very aware of the Council's discretion in determining what is "major" versus "minor" adjustment to the boundary and the potential for this to go to the voters. Councilmember Brown acknowledged the 5 criteria used to make a determination of "minor," said she did not feel that something even larger in size than the Ken Mercer Sports Park at 103 acres is minor or anything less than significant. She also said she was under the impression that any efforts to relocate the Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) transfer station were to be cost neutral, but several areas in the Plan noted a cost of$2.5 million. Mr. Dolan explained that the Plan includes some zoning incentives to make relocation more attractive. He acknowledged a line item for relocation assistance but explained that this is not city money. Councilmember Brown questioned the benefit in relocating the transfer station from one area of residential development to another. Mr. Dolan explained that the new location is on the far eastern edge of an industrial area and fairly removed from any residential development. Councilmember Brown quoted the General Plan's discussion of quarry lands as a valuable urban separator between Pleasanton and Livermore which should be carefully studied during Specific Plan preparations, and that these qualities should be substantially protected, restored and regenerated to the fullest extent possible. She asked what discussions staff and the Task Force has had in this regard. Mr. Dolan explained that both the park and Open Space adjacent to Cope Lake are specifically placed to provide a natural habitat area, with a specific sensitivity to Zone 7s programs and control of those areas. He said that while there have not been detailed discussion about what specifically will happen in that area beyond the trail system, there is an open acknowledgement of the need to work with Zone 7 on what improvements can be made there. Councilmember Brown noted that when she served on the Task Force several years ago there was some discussion about Cope Lake potentially serving as an active recreation area, but a report in the Plan actually states that Cope Lake is a very poor use for recreation. She asked whether the Task City Council Minutes Page 6 of 18 Dec 16, 2014