05 - Laserfiche WebLink

located on Main Street and a few adjacent side streets; however parking in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and Revitalization District is not at capacity and parking is available. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this item was published in The Valley Times and was noted in the Pleasanton Weekly. Public notification cards were also sent to owners and tenants within the entire Downtown Specific Plan Area. At the time this report was prepared, staff had not received public comments beyond those already provided to the Planning Commission. With the exception of two letters of concern, one from Bob Byrd and the other from Peter MacDonald, all of the public correspondences are in support of the proposed amendment. Mr. Bryd has concerns regarding the "fairness" as he feels the amendment would not be beneficial to all property owners within the eligible boundary area. Mr. MacDonald raised the same concerns that he brought up at the December 4, 2012, City Council meeting regarding the 511 Main Street proposal. Mr. MacDonald provided comments regarding the following: the general applicability standard; the parking supply standard; and the value of the public amenity (i.e., mini-plaza). Mr. MacDonald also provided the following suggestions for consideration: allow properties providing plaza space to meet up to 100% of the additional parking requirements by paying in-lieu fees; and the City should create new public parking spaces necessary to support the increased development. Staff has included all of the Planning Commission public correspondences, including Mr. Byrd's and Mr. MacDonald's letters, as Attachment 5 for the Council's consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15070, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed Pleasanton Municipal Code amendment. The Initial Study concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and correspondingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared (Attachment 2). The comment period for the Negative Declaration started on December 19, 2013 and ended January 8, 2014. No comments were received regarding the Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION The proposed changes to the PMC are intended to improve the Downtown Area while offering flexibility to developers/owners within the Downtown Revitalization District. Should an eligible property owner/developer, as defined in the proposed PMC amendment above, redevelop a building/site that can accommodate a public plaza, for example, the City would evaluate the proposed location of the plaza through the development process to ensure that it is in an appropriate location and is an appropriate amenity that justifies waiving in in-lieu parking fee. Page 10 of 11