PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the roadway south of Dublin Canyon was inside or outside the County urban growth boundary, Ms. Decker replied that staff would return to the Commission with that information. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether both sides of the road would have to be annexed into the City in order for the City to enforce traffic regulations and whether the City or the California Highway Patrol (CHP) would enforce the speed limit up to the Canyon Creek development, Ms. Decker replied that staff would return with that information as well. Chairperson Fox requested the time of day that the traffic fatalities occurred, whether they occurred during were peak or off-peak, and how many had occurred over the past five years. Ms. Decker noted that staff would discuss that question with the Police Department. Commissioner O’Connor inquired whether there were other criteria besides accidents when installing a traffic light in an intersection. Ms. Decker replied that the lights were installed based on a number of different criteria, and that the City was reluctant to install lights without substantiated information. Ms. Decker noted that the City and the applicant would host a neighborhood meeting and assured the Planning Commission that the noticing area would be a 1,000-foot radius from the project site or greater. The speakers from this meeting would also be noticed. Staff had not yet addressed environmental documentation, but at first glance, this site did not appear to require an EIR as had been requested by a member of the public during public testimony. She noted that because of the creek alignment and the issues with the State, it was possible that a negative declaration may be performed. Commissioner Blank suggested that each Commissioner go through all the questions to maintain focus. Commissioner O’Connor noted that some speakers stated that they did not believe the architecture fit in with Pleasanton and noted that there were certain laws against overburdening religious uses. He requested clarification from Ms. Seto. Ms. Seto noted that the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA) was a Federal law to prevent religious and assembly uses from being overly burdened, although there was still the ability to do architectural and site planning review, unless the applicant asserts that some of the regulations or architectural modifications to be imposed would interfere with basic tenets of their faith or activities. While the applicant described the importance of the dome and eight-sided buildings, they had not yet reached the point of debate about the necessity of those features related to their faith. Comments regarding height and size would be appropriate at this point. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 18 of 24