PC 012611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2011-04 denying Case PAP-150 was entered and adopted as motioned. b. PUD-81-30-48M/PUD-85-08-21M, City of Pleasanton, Hacienda Transit-Oriented Design Standards and Guidelines Application for a Major Modification to the Planned Unit Development for Hacienda Business Park to adopt various standards and guidelines to guide development on three parcels close to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and to provide design concepts for associated improvements including streets, landscaping, bike and pedestrian connections and open space. The sites are: (1) The W.P. Carey site at the southeast corner of Owens Drive and Willow Road (Assessor’s Parcel No. 941-2778-013-00; (2) The BRE site at the north corner of Hacienda Drive and Gibraltar Drive (APN 941-2778-011-00); and (3) The Roche Molecular Systems site, south of Gibraltar Drive between Willow Road and Hacienda Drive (a portion of APN 941-2761-003-00). Zoning for the properties is PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use). Commissioners Blank, Pentin, Olson, O’Connor, and Narum disclosed they had met earlier today with the stakeholders. Mr. Dolan stated that this is the end of a long process and that due to the time restrictions imposed on the City by the Settlement Agreement, the entire project needs to be finalized with the second reading of the Ordinance by the City Council to be . completed by March 1, 2011He expressed regret at not being able to allow more time; however, the good news is that there were two Planning Commissioners on the Task . Force who are well-versed in the processHe added that the Commission also had a Joint Session with the City Council and the Task Force a few weeks ago, which provided a good introduction. Mr. Dolan stated that staff recognizes the Commission just received the environmental document and that, consequently, it is unreasonable to ask the Commission to make a recommendation on that part of the project documents even though the staff report asks that this be done. He explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require the Commission to make a recommendation on that document. He noted that the City's typical process is that the environmental document is completed considerably ahead of when it comes before the Commission to provide ample time for review. He added, however, that CEQA only requires that the document be made available 20 days in advance of the action of the final decision-making body, which would be the City Council, and the City is barely making that deadline. He advised that when the Commission gets to the decision point and it does not feel comfortable making a recommendation on the Negative Declaration, it is not necessary to do so. With respect to the presentation, Mr. Dolan stated that Mr. Rick Williams of Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP, and a member of the City’s consulting team that helped staff for the second half of the process, will set the framework and provide an overview of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 9 of 50