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
Commissioner Blank noted that Ms. Stern was emphatic when asked the question <br /> earlier that this was right out of the General Plan. He inquired if the Negative <br /> Declaration for the rezoning does not count as a Negative Declaration for the PUD. <br /> Mr. Roush replied that he was trying to pair it with Ms. Stern's comments that the <br /> Negative Declaration prepared for the rezoning was based on the environmental <br /> analysis done for the General Plan with respect to one of the alternatives, the transit <br /> oriented development, in the General Plan. He added that based on that, a <br /> determination was made that there would not be an impact on schools, recreation, etc., <br /> and he was only suggesting that when the PUD modification process comes forward, <br /> there will be another opportunity to look at a range of alternatives that may cause the <br /> need to have additional park -type facilities within the Business Park. <br /> Commissioner Blank stated that he wanted to have it clearly stated for the record for a <br /> future Planning Commission what Mr. Roush is saying: if this project were to be <br /> approved as it sits today, and two years down the road a developer comes in and is <br /> ready to develop a transit oriented development project, and the Planning Commission <br /> says that is great but the developer must build a park or amenity for recreation, he <br /> wanted to be sure whether or not this is legitimate. <br /> Ms. Stern stated that an environmental impact is not necessary to request an amenity. <br /> She explained that if the Commission believes it is a needed amenity in the area <br /> because of Pleasanton's high standard for good and accessible parks, the Commission <br /> can require it without relying on a CEQA analysis finding of significant impact. <br /> Commissioner Blank stated that he was looking at it from the perspective that the <br /> developer would say it is not needed. <br /> Ms. Stern stated that the Commission has discretion over this. <br /> Mr. Roush stated that if there were an environmental impact that resulted from the more <br /> specific PUD plan requiring additional park recreation facilities, clearly, the Commission <br /> could impose this. He added that even without that specific environmental impact, the <br /> Commission can still require it even if it did not rise to the level of an environmental <br /> impact that had to be mitigated, as long as you could find a reasonable nexus between <br /> the need for that amenity and the project. He confirmed that this could be backed up by <br /> the Planning Commission or the City Council if the PUD were approved by both. <br /> Commissioner Narum requested clarification that the PUD modification for the Business <br /> Park is where a lot of concerns she has with the Negative Declaration would actually be <br /> addressed. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that it is likely this would be the case; however, a few concerns may <br /> have to wait until a project came forward. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 9/23/2009 Page 12 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.