PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

clearly incorrect to say that exponentially, there will be only one-tenth the traffic when there are three people to a car. Mr. Pretzel stated that the Draft CAP is replete with continual propaganda on why there is global warming and it is very difficult to understand where the effect is on the City. He indicated that he understands the people who brought the med fly problem and MTBE are the same people who wrote this into the California Plan and into California law, which then needs to be followed. He pointed out that the CAP goes over the top and tries to exceed this; and years from now, this whole global warming issue will be like the electricity scare which made people put masking tape over electrical outlets to prevent electrons from contaminating the air. Mr. Pretzel continued that the other thing that is very interesting is that going more into this, there is something called global warming potential (GWP) which is actually calculated or advertised by the people who are most entrenched in the economic part of climate change, and it is to their advantage to promote this. He stated that as indicated on the web, the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor. He added that the Department of Energy does not know the GWP of water vapor, and he does not know if ESA knows how to calculate GWP either. He indicated that it is not just a simple calculation; it is the quantity in the lifetime of the gas and its absorption of the spectrum on the ultraviolet, which means that a quantity of gas will have to be assumed before GWP can be assumed. Mr. Pretzel stated that the web also indicates the contribution of the greenhouse effect from natural and man-made sources: water vapor is 95 percent, and the contribution of man to water vapor in the atmosphere is .001 percent; carbon dioxide is 3.6 percent, is 1.117 percent; methane, nitrous oxide, and other miscellaneous gases, and the total man-made contribution to global warming is 0.28 percent. Mr. Pretzel asked the Commission to be very careful, to look very hard at this report, and to really dig into it to see its economic impacts and what it will do to the City because everything says it has zero impact, but it is not looking that well at all. He indicated that the City and businesses will economically suffer from this, so the City should go into this with the bare minimum that the State of California requires. He noted that ultimately, all this will be reversed; and while it will take some time before that happens, the City should not, in the meantime, pin itself into a corner. Mary Huk stated that she has been a resident of Pleasanton for about 26 years and expressed concern about the traffic resulting from high density housing as well as its impact on the School District with respect to students. Wesley Lum addressed the impact of the increased amount of commuter traffic that will be impacted with the development of houses and new commercial developments in Site 7. He invited the Commission to walk the streets near Hearst Elementary School and Pleasanton Middle School between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., as well as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 9 of 28