My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010599
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCMIN010599
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:17 AM
Creation date
3/14/1999 10:53:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/5/1999
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i. Adopt Ordinance No. 1768 amending Chapters 2.28, 2.36 and 2.38 of the <br /> Pleasanton Municipal Code for the purpose of changing the name of the <br /> Affordable Housing Commission to the Housing Commission. <br /> <br /> j. Adopt Ordinance No. 1769 approving the application of the DeSilva Group for <br /> prezoning and development plan approval as filed under Case PUD-96-14. <br /> <br /> Bob Cordtz, 262 West Angela, had a concern with the environmental review for the <br />DeSilva Group project. He understood Council voted for the project because of the <br />improvements to Foothill Road. He mentioned the City getting $22,000 per house and wondered <br />if the city were offered 1000 homes at 22,000 would it turn down $22 million. He had questions <br />about the difference between a negative declaration and an environmental impact report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said an environmental impact report was done in conjunction with the General <br />Plan and the Merritt (DeSilva Group) project was consistent with the General Plan. It was at the <br />upper end of the allowable density range rather than at the midpoint. The environmental review <br />for this individual project under CEQA concluded that there would be no significant impact and <br />therefore the Council adopted a negative declaration for the project. There was no change in the <br />General Plan. A significant change in the General Plan would have to be addressed through an <br />environmental impact report or a negative declaration. The CEQA process is used to review site <br />specific individual impacts for a project. For this project a Negative Declaration was adopted, <br />which meant an environmental impact report was not required. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cordtz understood that if an environmental impact report were done on the San <br />Francisco property project and is certified, then a Negative Declaration would not be done. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the environmental impact report prepared for the General Plan is not <br />sufficient for the proposed project on San Francisco property. A final environmental impact <br />report will be released sometime in February and this is what will be used in considering the <br />application that is currently before the City Council, which is a Specific Plan and a Planned Unit <br />Development plan. As subsequent builders submit plans for the project in the future, the City <br />will determine whether they need environmental impact reports, negative declarations, etc. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cordtz understood there are two plans included in San Francisco's request for <br />qualifications to the bidders and that there will be public hearings held and an environmental <br />impact report prepared. He asked if the final Environmental Impact Report can be changed with <br />a Negative Declaration? <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said no. There will be a public hearing on the final environmental impact <br />report so the environmental impact report is certified. The Council could determine that a <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 3 01/05/99 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.