PC 060805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Roberts inquired if a separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be done if this change were implemented before some PU DS coma forward- Ms_ Stern replied that environmental review would be necessary, and depending on the outcome of the Initial Study, that either a Negative Declaration or F1R would be required, which is part of the reason that staff is recommending that any change in the definition of gross developable acreage be considered with the General Plan Update and its enviroi~iizental review- Ms. Nerland reiterated that the new legislation provides that any reduction in density would require a corresponding density increase, regardless of whether the matter was discussed within or outside of the General Plan Update process- She noted, however, that it would be ditf3c ult to revise the definition of gross developable acreage outside of the General Plan process in part because of the environmental review needed and in part because it would be putting this discussion ahead of what needs to be addressed in the General Plan and would not make the process any faster. She further noted that for PUD projects, the Commission has the discretion to approve, deny, or add conditions, including conditions based on density- Discussion ensued regarding the process that would be followed in relation to a residential project proposal and the needed environmental review. Commissioner Fox commented that reducing density could apply not only to hillsides but to t7 at lands as well- She noted that because of the legislation, any density reduction on the hillsides would result in higher density on the tl at lands- She indicated that she would like to see a more global detnition of "gross developable acres" in this regard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, commented that with the new legislation and if the definition of "gross developable acres" is changed, then the density of a property with a 25 percent slope would be reduced, and the City or the property owner would have the responsibility to relocate the difference in the number of residential units to another site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Arkin indicated that he was in favor of "Policy X" has described in the staff reports and would like to see the Commission support it by recommending to the City Council that it be adopted ahead of the General Plan. Commissioner Blank commented that Forwarding this to the City Council at this time would guarantee that any large project presented in the interim would be considered carefully- Commissioner Fox stated that she would like to look at the entire picture rather than piecenzeal_ She indicated that she would like to see drag policies for the Land Use Element, including "Policy X," in the same manner the Energy Element was considered, and from there consider what should be done in the City as a whole. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2005 Page 9 of 15