Laserfiche WebLink
To allow access to Zone 7's easement, the applicant proposes an access road to be <br /> grasscrete (or similar) from the customer/employee parking lot to the easement (identified <br /> on the site plan and in Figure 2 of this report). <br /> I. Grading and Drainage: Sheet C5.0 shows the preliminary grading and drainage plan. The <br /> site would be graded such that finished grades would vary between 350 feet and 354 feet. <br /> No dirt would have to be hauled off-site, as whatever dirt that is cut would be used for fill in <br /> various areas of the site. <br /> DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT <br /> The subject property is part of an existing 10-year Development Agreement entered into by <br /> the City of Pleasanton and Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (SPA) on <br /> September 21, 2010.. The Development Agreement identifies that the agreement is <br /> applicable to successors of the Auto Mall (and CLC property) within the Staples Ranch <br /> development area and as such, no amendments are contemplated for the CarMax project. <br /> The most significant benefit that the City received for entering into the Development <br /> Agreement is the 17-acre parcel to be developed in the future as a Community Park. The <br /> most significant benefit that the project developers obtained by entering into the <br /> Development Agreement is that the General Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, and zoning <br /> regulations that apply to the site cannot be changed unilaterally by the City, either by the <br /> City Council or through a voter-sponsored initiative. The site is also subject to the Funding <br /> and Improvement Agreement (Staples Ranch Neighborhood Park/Detention Basin) <br /> including a proportional contribution to ongoing maintenance of the detention basin. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 9, 2014, to review the proposed <br /> project. Detailed information on this meeting is provided by Attachment 4, excerpts of the <br /> Planning Commission minutes. No members of the public spoke at the Planning <br /> Commission hearing. The Commission recommended approval of the applications by a 5-0 <br /> vote subject to staffs recommended conditions. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> The attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) presents a more thorough <br /> discussion of the project, including: General Plan conformity, zoning and uses, site plan, <br /> floor-area-ratio, parking and circulation, operation, noise, grading and drainage, building <br /> design, signage, lighting, Green Building, Climate Action Plan, and landscaping. <br /> PUD FINDINGS <br /> Please refer to pages 21-23 of the attached Planning Commission staff report for a <br /> discussion of the considerations needed to approve the proposed PUD development plan. <br /> Page 9 of 11 <br />