Laserfiche WebLink
future. Secondly, we are in drought and even though I may not notice or none of us may <br />notice individually what is happening, it does drain this limited resource that we're all <br />using in Pleasanton and water is a top concern, so I don't feel its right to knowingly now <br />allow the well. <br />Then my third point is that I happened to be riding my bike on the Marilyn Kane Trail in <br />Bernal Park the other day and noticed one of our City employees in a truck that was <br />going and getting recyclable water to water all of the trees we just planted in Bernal <br />Park and I was shocked. I said to myself, wow, the City is really being diligent about <br />using recyclable water to maintain the trees we have so let's expect that of some of <br />these new properties like this too. <br />Beaudin: Can I just interject? I really want to make sure you all are making a decision <br />with all of the information that you need. So Zone 7 issues well permits when well <br />permits are requested. To my knowledge, I did have a request from a resident not <br />associated with this application but in recent months, and I did learn a little bit about the <br />well process. They will accept an application and they have their own criteria that they <br />go through. There's no moratorium even during the drought interestingly enough. <br />Someone could go to Zone 7 and apply for a well permit and go through their process <br />which is completely separate from the City process, so I just want to make sure you all <br />know that. I have a personal perspective on this, but from an information and decision - <br />making perspective, I want you to know that these folks could leave here tonight, say <br />we want a well permit for all three of these and if they were willing to pay for it, I know <br />Zone 7 would at least consider it. So I want you to have that. <br />Commissioner Balch: Unless we condition it in the PUD. <br />Beaudin: That's correct. <br />Chair Ritter: My thinking on the well is, you know, they've obviously paid money and <br />installed it and I'm wondering why we're telling residents to cap their well if they get <br />connected over to City water. I didn't know that. Do we do that? <br />Beaudin: When we annex we try and convert things to our services. So we make an <br />agreement with the county and we do a local service agreement and so the expectation <br />would be that we're managing the resource in a different way and people don't need to <br />have a septic system or be on a well. There are public health issues that go with both of <br />those kinds of infrastructure and there's a lot more maintenance that goes into it and <br />potable water versus non - potable water on a site comes with its own maintenance and <br />obligations and risks. So, that's the reason. We want to make sure when we do that <br />service agreement, those are the services people are getting and using. <br />Chair Ritter: Okay, well my thinking on the well is their landscaping is well below what <br />some of our current homes have and they've already got the well there and it's just <br />been not used and I'm not really in favor of telling them to just cap it because they're <br />using it just for landscaping and they're already going to be on City water for the rest of <br />the development so I don't mind Condition 18 as written. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 10 of 38 <br />