Laserfiche WebLink
6. Identify different approaches for funding this project in terms of bonds versus <br />other options, such as how Hacienda was built out, as each of them may have a <br />different level of risk on how financially feasible different options are. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Allen's assessments <br />and that he does not have much to add to that other than he is concerned about the <br />situation with the schools and the extension of the mining operations as was mentioned <br />tonight. He noted that these should definitely be factored -in for the EIR study. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that Commissioner Allen covered everything that he <br />wanted to bring up, with the addition of one or two other areas. He agreed with <br />Commissioner Allen that the impacts should be limited, especially in those areas that <br />have been talked about for so long, including schools. He indicated that the <br />Commission has been looking all along at alternatives of what the maximum number of <br />homes is, what the maximum number of development acres is, industrial versus retail, <br />and so forth. He added that he thinks one of the areas that the Commission missed <br />was what the minimum development needed is in order to make this a feasible project, <br />including one with no or a smaller El Charro Road, either not having it come through at <br />all or having only two lanes or letting it come through only from existing roadways that <br />are already there today. He noted that doing that would mean a much lighter <br />development; that would also help impacts to schools, and maybe another school site in <br />this area would not be necessary if there were not that many homes built. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that the other thing he thinks the Commission needs to <br />look at is that in every map he has seen so far, the road is either on or outside the urban <br />growth boundary (UGB), and industrial is also pegged outside the UGB. He indicated <br />that, again, the more that is built, the more the impact. He added that he would also like <br />to make sure that an option of not going outside the UGB is included when the <br />alternatives are looked at and not developing that industrial there. He asked what it <br />would take to make this a financially feasible project without that development and that <br />it need to be scaled back to some extent. He noted that the underpass being <br />considered is costly: a $4 million dollar road versus a $2 million dollar road is quite a bit <br />more costly, or saving more by not putting El Charro Road all the way through. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that the goal is to get the worst -case scenario and that his <br />big thing is instead of saying "We are going to develop X number of homes" is to ask <br />"What do the citizens of Pleasanton need." He indicated that the City need schools, it <br />needs seniors, it needs special needs housing, it needs affordable housing. He added <br />that he thinks some of these have been included in recommendations in the EIR. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that the other issue is traffic, noting that one of the residents <br />brought up that staff ensure that what is happening with the new developments coming <br />in and even Livermore with Stanley Boulevard be included. He added that as the City's <br />demographics and population shift, it is important that those issues are covered with the <br />EIR, and he believes that they are covered in the way the EIR is written. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 13 of 50 <br />