My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092315
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 092315
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:55:08 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:46:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/23/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Commissioner O'Connor added that it would be something like if a reduced retail would <br />reduce pollution by 25 percent. <br />Chair Allen referred to page 5 -13 of the EIR on air quality which says that one option <br />would still exceed the Bay Area threshold of 10 tons per year under one alternative, but <br />it does not indicate the level of specificity or say that it will exceed it by 1 or 11 tons or <br />30 tons. She stated that she would like to look at that alternative per use. <br />Commissioner Nagler stated that actually using quantities per use may come up with a <br />different mix. <br />Commissioner Ritter added that existing data also be included: Fed Ex, Club Sports, <br />and Black Tie Transportation probably already know and have their numbers, and that <br />would provide a baseline for that area. <br />Mr. Weinstein stated that staff can come up with a table that is similar to that for <br />emissions for each alternative and provides tons per year for the various pollutants, <br />similar to the what is in the bulk of the EIR for the project. He added that the land uses <br />could also be dissected from that to determine the correlation between land uses and <br />pollution as well. He clarified that this would also take into account existing uses as <br />well, similar to what was done with the project. <br />Chair Allen asked staff if they wanted the Commissioners to share their perspective on <br />the options at this time. <br />Mr. Beaudin replied that tonight's meeting was noticed to focus on the EIR so staff <br />would like to limit the comments to the EIR itself. He added that future conversations <br />would include the merits of the EDZ. <br />Chair Allen stated that she has a couple of things she would like to bring up as well: <br />1. There was some conversation about some incentives that might be considered in <br />this economic development zone: what incentives are being fully considered and <br />who is paying for them; and if they are incentives that are being borne by the <br />City, that they be approved in economics in some way. <br />2. Include a small section on RHNA implications. The increased business intensity <br />will generate additional employees, which is one of the factors that have <br />historically driven the City's increased RHNA according to the formula. What the <br />implications of each option are relative to RHNA: which ones might drive a <br />higher RHNA requirement, which ones would be lower, and any directional order <br />of magnitude based on history or benchmarks. <br />Chair Allen thanked everyone on behalf of the Commission, noting that the team and <br />the economic development has brought forward a look at the best use for idle land not <br />just for this site but across the City. She noted that the recent resident survey <br />addressed forward planning, and this project is the right question for the City to consider <br />in terms of both the benefits and the cost so the right decisions can be made long -term. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 23, 2015 Page 18 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.