RES 06035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures I. Land Use and Planning process that has shaped the Master PlanJ1: the result of direction provided in the 2004 "Initiative to Save our Community Park." This process has incorporated (1) work of the Bernal Community Park Task Force, (2) the 2004 Bernal Property Design Competition, and (3) input provided by the City Council, Parks and Rec- reation Commission, and citizens of Pleasanton. It draws on detailed information on recreation and park facilities and usage in Pleasanton and staff resources of the City's Parks and Community Services Department. (2b) Pleasanton does not fall within the jurisdiction of a local coastal plan. (2c) Specific Plan consistency with the plans of public agencies other than the City of Pleasanton is reviewed in detail in the Phase I Specific Plan, Section 6-2. To update that presentation: Alameda County is no longer the principal jurisdiction responsible for planning at the Bernal site, in view of the annexation of the Bernal Property to Pleasanton in 2001. While the Alameda County Transportation Corridor passes along the eastern edge of the Bernal Property, no conflict has been identified between the uses proposed on the Bernal Property and possible future uses of the Corridor. The relationship between the Phase II Specific Plan and the areawide Congestion Management Plan and Tri-Valley Transportation Plan are considered as applicable in Chapter 4 Part O. Transportation. Based primarily on its incorporation of Pleasanton 1996 General Plan principles, the Phase I Specific Plan (including the Pleasanton Unified School District's plan to construct the Hearst Elementary School) was found to be consistent with the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy. Continued application of the General Plan principles would maintain consistency with the Regional Planning Strategy. The Phase II Specific Plan would have no adverse impacts on planning or land use. d. Mitigation Measures No significant adverse impacts are identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 31 While Pleasanton has previously assessed its recreation and park needs in a Municipal Facilities Master Plan report (December, 1990), that document is not current. The information base and community priorities reflected in the Bep Master Plan represent the most up-to-date foundation available for the design of a major community facility. 97