My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092309
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 092309
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:41:17 PM
Creation date
1/28/2010 10:42:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/23/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
th <br />Ms. Stern clarified that the numbers are distributed from Kindergarten through 12 <br />grade. <br />Commissioner Narum referred to page 23, Section 14. Recreation, of the Negative <br />Declaration, and stated that there are not enough parks in or near the property for the <br />400 children that would be generated. She added that the Creekside Park gets a lot of <br />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 />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 23, 2009 Page 13 of 34 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.