11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

strict design guidelines was required before a single house could be built and that multiple approvals must occur before any single house could be built. He noted that the City controlled the visual analysis because otherwise, every resident in every adjacent neighborhood could do their own photo analysis without the rigors imposed on the City to ensure they were standardized. He noted that the only truly valid visual analysis for this project that complied with the CEQA requirements was the one done for the CEQA study by the City's consultant. With regard to the EVA, Mr. Inderbitzen noted that the access to the property line for this project currently exists and is owned by the City; the City already had the right to use it independent of this project. He emphasized that they did not want to be inside Grey Eagle Estates, doing anything to the existing City-owned easements. He believed that the City has gone to great lengths to assure Grey Eagle Estates residents that they would not go into the neighborhood and remodel the EVA. They believed that it met their requirements, and that it was adequate to provide service to this property. He noted that there were already access situations for public safety through private developments in Pleasanton, such as Golden Eagle Farm. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roush reiterated the referendum procedure for the benefit of the public speakers who requested clarification. He noted that there was a 30-day window from the time that an ordinance was adopted. He advised that most Development Agreements, including the Agreement for this application, had language that provided that once the entitlements were vested, then a subsequent act by City Council or the voters to disenfranchise those entitlements would be considered null and void. He noted that this Agreement had a 10-year shelf life, and in response to Chairperson Fox's question regarding whether that could be extended by the Planning Commission, he confirmed that it could be possible to make it a less lengthy process; however, the developer must be reasonably able to build out the project. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the process to be followed by the Planning Commission, Ms. Decker replied that was delineated in the staff report. Mr. Roush advised that if the Planning Commission were to certify the EIR as being legally adequate, it must determine whether the EIR has reasonably and thoroughly evaluated, has disclosed environmental impacts, has identified mitigation measures, and has adequately addressed comments made on the Draft EIR, and whether the proposed findings and determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record. If those findings could be made, the Commission may certify the EIR and move ahead to the PUD development plan and Development Agreement. If those findings cannot be made, he believed it would be wise and helpful to the City Council to identify in what respects the EIR was not adequate and then take a vote on that action. Normally, if an EIR is not certified, there was no reason to move ahead with the PUD plan and Development Agreement. In that case, he recommended that the Planning Commission also make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the PUD development plan and the Development Agreement, so it would have the benefit of the Commission's thoughts in the event it wished to certify the EIR, and whether the plan and Development Agreement should be approved. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 14 of 17