SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor and City Council November 16, 2015 Page 2 The bullet points above make clear the broad extent of the record considered in this matter. 3. Should the City Council approve a project different from Staff's recommendation, but with fewer than 50 units, the CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Lund Ranch II (PUD -25) Project, dated June 2015, and attached to the draft Resolution adopting the same and labelled as Attachment 2 will be amended to include: • CEQA Regulations section 150.88.5 requires an EIR to be recirculated when "significant new information" is added to the EIR prior to certification. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation can include a disclosure showing that a new significant environmental impact would result from the project of from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • The City has reviewed the documents submitted by the Applicant regarding the scope of impacts associated with the Project. Existing mitigation measures will address any incremental in impacts stemming from [identify Council's approved project that varies from Staff recommendation], the Project modifications will not result in any new or substantially increased impacts beyond those already disclosed by the EIR, and therefore recirculation of the EIR is not required. • In light of the entire administrative record for the Project, the City finds that there is no significant new information (within the meaning of CEQA) that requires recirculation of the EIR. 4. The Ordinance Approving the PUD Rezoning and Development Plan (Attachment 3) is modified to include the following recitals: • Whereas, the Applicant, GHC Lund Ranch, LLC, seeks this PUD Rezoning in part to ensure it complies with the City of Pleasanton's applicable zoning standards and criteria; • Whereas, this rezoning is a legislative act of the Pleasanton City Council and no findings are required. 5. The list of attachments at page 25 of 26 to the Agenda Report at Attachment 5 should refer to the draft Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, not a draft resolution. Also, attached is a copy of the October 26, 2015 letter from attorney Christian Cebrian of Cox Castle Nicholson LLP, legal counsel for the Lund Ranch II developer. This letter was referred to following the City Council's closed session of November 3, 2015, and is attached here in order that it is posted on the City's website for public review along with the above revisions. Attachment: October 26, 2015 letter from attorney Christian Cebrian of Cox Castle Nicholson LLP