CCMIN092104 - Laserfiche WebLink

It was moved by Ms. Hosterman, to delay the supplemental Environmental Impact Report until after the General Plan Update process has been concluded. During her discussion with Mrs. Spotorno, Ms. Hosterman informed her that it is very important to weigh the interest of the Spotomo family with the interest of the community. It is important for Council to maintain consistency in its ongoing decisions as it has previously determined that it would prefer not to consider projects requiring General Plan amendments until the General Plan Update process is completed. She was interested in including the determination of the traffic impact to accommodate a future alternate bypass road and the possibility of a peer review. Ms. Hosterman's motion died due to lack of a second. It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Mr. Campbell, to approve a consultant contract with Mundie & Associates to proceed with a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Greenbriar Homes' request for Happy Valley Specific Plan modifications and project approval, Spotorno Ranch. Mr. Campbell asked for additional clarification regarding staff's memorandum to Council dated September 21, 2004. Ms. McKeehan said that staff did recommend approval of a consultant contract with Mundie & Associates to proceed with a supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The secondary memorandum was to bring to Council's attention that the project, as currently proposed by Graenbriar Homes, would also require a General Plan amendment. Staff wanted to bring this to Council's attention given that Council had previously determined that it would prefer not to proceed with projects that require General Plan amendments until the General Plan Update process is completed. Mr. Brozosky believed this General Plan amendment is different from other amendments that Council has considered. This amendment is only for a density transfer within a Specific Plan. Ms. Ayala pointed out that Council voted against a moratorium on any futura development projects. Ms. Hosterman clarified Council's position on a moratorium. She noted that Council did not consider a moratorium; rather it considered whether Council wanted staff to provide language that would allow Council to determine whether or not a moratorium would be defensible. Ms. Ayala considers this matter an ongoing project. In order for Council to look at the entire project, a supplemental Environmental Impact Report needs to be completed. Mr. Brozosky said that he would hold the developer accountable to its statement that it would work on reducing the density for this project. He believed that the scoping changes would occur during the Planned Unit Development process. Ms. Hosterman said she would not support the motion as she believed it is important for Council to maintain some consistency in its decision making process. Pleasanton City Council 7 09/21/04 Minutes