PC 070815 - Laserfiche WebLink

number of bedrooms that would be provided as part of that previous project, compared to the current project, is diminishing from 235 to 217, and associated impacts, including water use, traffic, and so forth would also be expected to diminish. He added that the data will be incorporated into the City Council agenda report once they are refined and triple- checked. Chair Allen thanked staff and clarified that her reason for bringing this up was not so much a big concern of this project because it did not appear to be significant, but because there could be other projects for which the Commission would need to know the answer. Commissioner Ritter expressed concern about the affordable housing numbers and wanted to make sure that the City is still meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements even with the reduction in the number of units. Mr. Weinstein replied that there is an Affordable Housing Agreement that would still apply to this current project, and the reduction in the number of units would not affect that. He explained that the RHNA requirements are really just the capacity of the City's residentially zoned lands to accommodate housing; it does not necessarily require the actual construction of the housing units. He reiterated that a change in the number of units in this respect should not affect the City's affordable housing obligations. Commissioner O'Connor moved to: (1) find that the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR, including the adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, are adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; (2) find that the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment/Staples Ranch; (3) make the PUD findings for the proposed Development Plan, as listed in the staff report; and (4) recommend approval of Case PUD- 68 -06M, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. Commissioner Ritter seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Allen, O'Connor, Nagler, Piper, and Ritter NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Balch Resolution No. PC- 2015 -20 recommending approval of Case PUD- 68 -06M was entered and adopted as motioned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 10