PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin regarding whether arx environmental review that is more rigorous than a Negative Declaration should have been prepared, Ms. Decker replied that generally, potential impacts related to specific uses or developments would be evaluated to determine whether any exemptions would be appropriate- Whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR is appropriate would be tied to the specitic proposal. Any environmental impacts associated with a proposed project are identical at the time the Initial Study is prepared- Com nom. issioner Arkin noted that he brought this concern up due to the explosion that had occurred on the site several months prior, which may have had an environmental in~xpact_ Ms_ Decker explained the details of the environmental process and the factors used in staff's determination, including the recant explosion/fire at the site- The City has a specific Hazmat team which did not determine there was any additional concern aRer clean-up_ Commissioner Roberts understood that the City would not extend Rose Avenue because Alameda County Fairgrounds did not want to release that land to the City, nor would they grant an Exrxergency Vehicle Access (EVA):, she understood that a bridge must also be built- As a consequence, this project had been designed to function independent of the road extension. Ms_ Decker con£rnied those assessments were correct~ Commissioner Roberts noted that she had spoken with Ms. Nerland and Ms_ Decker earlier about the easexrxent to the Jones property, and she believed that signs should he placed at Calico Lanc, Rose Avenue, and Street B alerting the neighborhood that the street could be extended in the future- She noted that the PUD process evaluates road layout, lotting pattern, architecture, floor area ratio AFAR) of the site, setbacks, and other development standards and determined whether or not this particular development meets the direction and goals of the City as well as the City's policy documents- She noted. that her discussion with Ms_ Nerland and Ms_ Decker clarified that the issues with respect to easements arxd agreen-xents aro, at this point, secondary in that they need to be reached prior to a tentative map, which will come before the Commission for determination- If approved, this PUD would. expire within two years if the applicant were unable to reach agreement or to find a method to reach agreement to have easements vacated to implement this PL7D, the project would expire- Any other development would then need to come before the C7ox-nmission at that time- Staff-conrrmed that it would be unlikely that a tentative map would come before the Commission without those agreements in place, which are needed to obtain a final n~xap before building. in response to an inquiry by Comarxissioner Roberts regarding whether the fencing separating the Alameda County Fairgrounds from Rose Avenue was supposed to match the other fencing that was done for part of Nolan Farms, Ms_ Decker confirmed that was correct She added that the same motif and construction style, as well as the landscaping strip, will be an extension of the same wall seen in front of the southerly side of Rose Avenue_ Commissioner Fox requested clarification regarding proposed. conditions referring to unapproved. developments and higher densities for specific locations at Staples Ranch and Hacienda Business Park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 2005 Page 4 of 23