My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
102009
>
12 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2009 11:21:06 AM
Creation date
10/14/2009 3:03:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/20/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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).
View images
View plain text
use already and inquired how staff arrived at "Less Than Significant Impact" and how <br /> the additional residents would be served. <br /> Ms. Stern replied that the information in the General Plan is based upon a general <br /> analysis. She stated that with respect to the number of acres of park per person, there <br /> may be needs specific to this area as the City grows which could be looked at in <br /> designing the individual developments or the entire PUD. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that a park could be part of the PUD modification and that it is fairly <br /> likely that in reviewing parks per person per acre, the City rates very well against the <br /> standard; however, the City may decide that it needs more park space. <br /> Commissioner Narum stated that the developments are proposed to have less car <br /> dependency, which may mean that some members of the family will not have access to <br /> a vehicle. She noted that this would make it more difficult for family members to access <br /> a park somewhere else in the City that does not have as much use as those in the <br /> Business Park. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that this could be incorporated into the PUD process. <br /> Commissioner Olson stated that he thought, given the number of additional residents <br /> and children, the requirement for more parks and schools would have to be built into the <br /> PUD process. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that there will be the Hacienda PUD Master Plan process and the <br /> subsequent, actual PUD process, both of which staff will go through. He added that the <br /> Commission will have to look at potential outcomes and come up with some alternatives <br /> because the park demand will be different if ultimately an office application is received. <br /> Commissioner Blank inquired if each property would have its own PUD process. <br /> Mr. Dolan said yes. <br /> Commissioner Blank commented that if he were a developer and was asked to develop <br /> a park, he would cite the Negative Declaration that states he would not need to do <br /> anything about parks. <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the Commission would have to distinguish between a situation <br /> of what the Negative Declaration is based on, which is the analysis under the General <br /> Plan EIR where it looked at a transit oriented development alternative, and whether it <br /> had any impact. He stated that this is generally true citywide and not only for the <br /> Business Park because community -wide impacts are looked at. He continued that <br /> during the Master Plan process, it may be necessary to provide additional park space <br /> within the Business Park in the PUD process. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/23/2009 Page 11 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.