Laserfiche WebLink
mitigation measure in the environmental document, which become conditions of <br />approval, as well. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Commissioner Blank disclosed that he knows Mr. Morrison but has not seen him for <br />about a year and has not discussed the matter with him. <br />Matt Morrison referred to a letter he had submitted earlier in the evening and cited the <br />transportation section of the Two-Lane Constrained Alternative which states that the <br />City retained Dowling Associates to analyze the potential traffic impacts of the <br />alternative in the same manner as the proposed project in the EIR. He noted that the <br />two-lane traffic analysis prepared by the City only references the cumulative analysis <br />prepared by Dowling Associates in 2008. He indicated that he wanted to see the <br />reference documents for the Two-Lane Constrained Alternative prepared by Dowling. <br />He added that he also did not see anything in the intersection analysis regarding the <br />two entryways to the medical center and to the road going along the Arroyo and the Ice <br />Center. He stated that according to the maps, these are not full intersections; one will <br />be a right turn only, and it looks like the medical center will have an unguarded left turn <br />going northbound on Stoneridge Drive and the right turn going southbound, without an <br />analysis on how they affect traffic. He indicated that he also wanted to know more <br />about the Pleasanton traffic model, how long it has been in use, how it was developed, <br />and how accurate it has been. He stated that he did not know if it was appropriate to <br />address it in an EIR or not. He also noted a footnote in the Dowling report that states it <br />is simply a model used. <br />Mr. Morrison stated that he believes there were problems with the posting, and <br />requested an extended comment period if staff does not find a reason to withdraw the <br />Supplemental EIR and reissue it. <br />Ralph Kanz, Conservation Director for the Alameda Creek Alliance, stated that most of <br />the Commission received his e-mail of today. He pointed out that the City went to <br />BART to indicate that it was not kept in the loop for the BART EIR, and for that reason <br />BART extended its comment period for 30 days and added an additional hearing in <br />Pleasanton. He stated that similarly, the Notice of Completion was not posted on the <br />City’s website until last Friday, which came out as a result of his e-mail requesting <br />dates. He indicated that the Notice is normally posted with the EIR, but it was not. <br />Mr. Kanz stated that reference documents for the EIR were not available until this past <br />Monday and that there are two additional documents referenced in the EIR that the City <br />has indicated it will not provide until after the comment period. He noted that CEQA law <br />provides that they must be available at the same place the EIR is available for review, <br />and they are not. He stated that the 45 days does not begin until those documents are <br />available and ready for review. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2009 Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br />