My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092513
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 092513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:57:17 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:50:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/25/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Chair Pearce commented that she thinks people get caught up on the language of a <br />"Preferred Plan." <br />Commissioner Ritter inquired if the City can go through and do the EIR for the Preferred <br />Plan but then choose, say, Option 6, and would the City have the information in the <br />Preferred Plan EIR to cover Option 6. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. <br />O'Connor stated that he thought Option 6 would not be used for comparison because <br />the number of units was higher than those on the Preferred Plan. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that there is an analysis for Option 6, which is the worst case, and the <br />City can then select anything below that. He acknowledged the concern that calling an <br />alternative a "Preferred Plan" can cause some people to say that it gives it some sort of <br />a special status and some momentum to go forward. He added that he understands <br />that people might feel that way about that terminology, but it is not legally binding to do <br />it that way. <br />Commissioner Ritter inquired if it can be called the "EIR Plan" instead of the "Preferred <br />Plan." <br />Mr. Dolan explained that ultimately, the people who would be poking holes or evaluating <br />or analyzing whether or not the EIR is adequate would be attorneys, and no matter what <br />it is called, they will know that it is the Preferred Plan in normal CEQA terminology. He <br />indicated that he thinks it does not matter what it is called and recommended that if the <br />Commission wanted a suggestion for something different than "Preferred Plan," it be <br />called it the "Base Project" because it implies then that it is what the other Alternatives <br />are being compared to. He indicated that he is open to other suggestions as well. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that based on some of the letters received from the <br />public on this matter, people put a lot of emphasis on wanting a certain plan to be the <br />Preferred Plan when this really is just the basis for studying the EIR and it is not a <br />decision to accept. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the Task Force has recommended that that Plan be the lead <br />project as the Task Force moves forward, and it does have a certain amount of status. <br />He added that staff had the Task Force pick a plan to be the focal one, and that is the <br />one it selected. He indicated that he did not want to diminish that either. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired, for purposes of clarification, that if this came back <br />later, if it would matter which one was picked. He stated that all the Alternatives are <br />studied, and then one is picked. He inquired if the option is to be able to pick any one of <br />these listed Alternatives that get studied; and what would happen if the Commission <br />wanted something in between two of them, for example, if the Commission wanted <br />1,500 units and that does not exist in any of the Alternatives; and can Alternatives be <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 25, 2013 Page 28 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.