PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

l'v1r. lserson noted tl'l.at on December 8", 2003.. tl'l.e project vvas considered by the Youth l'v1:aster Plan In--.plemen.t:a"tion. Corru-rl.ittce. The Con""1rl""1ittee sent a letter to the Planning Commission stati1""1g their support orthe project" subject: to tl""1C resoluti01""1 of:.tl"1e tra:f1:1C arld rl.oise issues. It "V\!as also particularly concerned VV"ith staffing and security" as "V\!ell as the applicant and their employees adhering to the City"s Community o:FCharacter standards. Starr recu:rn..mcnded L'V'VO addition.al con.dition.s of appro-val: 1. The refinement of the secu.rity plan vvitl'l. mOTe specific i1'l.formation a.r1d its submission to the Police Department Tor revie"V\! and appro-val; and 2. The applicant."'s responsibility for maintaining adequate staffing on-site as "V\!ell as su.per-vision of the staff. lV1:r. Iserson advised that the East Bay Regional Park District had u.p to Se-Ve1""1 ra..ngers assigned to the park and arl EBRPD police officer assigned to Shadovv- Cliffs vv-ho vv-ould be able to handle emergencies. The Pleasanton police force "VVould also be able to respond to calls that the Park District cou-Id not handle. The Police Department revie"V'Ved t.his project" and its mail'l. concerns vv-erc that alcohol consumption during special events l~e strictly regulated; othervvise" it did not have concerns 'V'Vit.h respect. t.o security or in'l.pacts on the P'olice Depart.ment. In response to an. i1"1quiry by Cornn""lissioncr IVIaas" 1'\./Ir. Iscrson replied that a condition may be incl"Uded suggesting that Pleasant01"1 residents be con..sidered :first :tor emploYI.-rl.e1"1t. 1V:ls. Nerla1"1d ad-vised that a preference for Pleasanton residents cou.ld be stated "V\!hen considering employmen.t. 1'V'1r. Iserson ad-vised that the Yo-uth 1V:[aster }>lan Implementation Committee hoped that the applicant VV"ould be vvilling to provide discounts to Pleasa..nton residents for the park. He noted that the EBRPD" as the lead agency" conducted the en-viromental assessment aJ.""1d then adopted the mitigated negative declaration. The City"'s comments made d"Uring tl"1e 3D-day re-vievv- period vv-ere incorporated into the process as mitigation measures. '"l~he City could rl.ot do mu.ch 1-rl.Ore as far as requ.iring ne"V'V en-vironmental docu1-rl.entation unless it finds that there are ne"V'V" significan.t environmental effects as a result or substantial changes to the project" substantial changes under VV"hich the project vvould be nndertaken", or neVV" information that "V\!as of substantial importance. Staff did not belie-ve that any of those cOr1dition.s are met: at this time an.d that the existing r:Legati-ve declaration is adequate. He advised that the Commission must make a specit-ic f-l.nding bet-ore any action OJ'l. the project could be taken. St-afTbelieved that through the mit.igation l-rl.eaSUres", t-l"1c project: plannil."1g" and the conditions of approval", the use is cornpatible vvit:l~ the surrounLiing area and appropriate for the site. Staf':t:- believed tl""1at tl""lc vario.us studies cOlTl.pleted by the applicant and revievved by staff have resolved the issues. Additional information has been submitted by tl~e a.pplicant", and a subst:an..tial JT\':U.""l""l ber of C01.""l.ditiorl.s of appro-val l""1ave beerl. added to the project. The City has the ability to revievv the project as nevv phases are developed before PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION l'VlINUTES December 10, 2003 Page 9