My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11092022
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2022
>
PC 11092022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2023 2:02:01 PM
Creation date
4/18/2023 2:00:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 Nibert highlighted the statement in the draft report regarding water supply and <br />deficiency. He asked about maximum build out capacity , and if it considered differences in sites. Ms . <br />Clark explained that it was more citywide and programmatic . <br />Commissioner Morgan asked the significance of EIR concluding that Alternative 2 was the <br />environmentally superior option . Ms . Clark explained that the City was required to study a range of <br />alternatives and disclose the environmentally superior option . She stated the City was not obligated to <br />select that alternative rather it was a statement of fact , not a staff recommendation. Commissioner <br />Morgan asked what additional information might be available on level of service . Ms . Clark stated the <br />level of service analysis would be part of the discussion in December. She stated other considerations <br />might be neighborhood compatibility, local serving retail , and policy and land use decisions . <br />Commissioner Morgan asked how certain sites were automatically included. Ms . Clark discussed the <br />formulation of the original site list and inclusion of specific sites . <br />Vice Chair Gaidos requested clarification on alternatives. Ms . Clark explained that the Draft Housing <br />Element as formulated was the "project". She reiterated the requirement to disclose and analyze a <br />reasonable range of alternatives and that the City was not obligated to select a site . She stated she did <br />not anticipate adding sites , but the list might be narrowed. Vice Chair Gaidos requested the HCD <br />comments be provided to the Commissioners . <br />Chair Pace explained the forthcoming HCD comments and reasons to be conservative . Associate <br />Planner Campbell stated staff would compile all information on the potential mix of sites and provide a <br />recommendation. <br />In response to Vice Chair Gaidos , Ms . Clark stated the cost of EIR cost was $370 ,000 . She .stated no <br />public comments had yet been received but anticipated some prior to the December 4 , 2022 , meeting . <br />She stated the proposed EIR was similar to the 4th cycle EIR , a similarly encyclopedic document. Vice <br />Chair Gaidos stated it seemed like impacts were boiled down to car emissions and water. He asked if it <br />was necessary to flag or highlight an alternative recommendation . Ms . Clark explained the purpose to <br />confirm the scope and technical work was done satisfactorily . Vice Chair Gaidos confirmed that car <br />emissions and water were not specific to any of the sites, and the public should provide input on site <br />preference . Ms . Clark explained that when specific sites proceeded through the development process , <br />subsequent EIRs would in most cases be unnecessary . <br />Commissioner Nibert asked if there was a possibility the State would refuse to allow removal of sites . <br />Ms . Clark explained that the State required demonstration of the capacity on RHNA. She encouraged <br />mindfulness of avoiding geographically narrow site locations . Commissioner Nibert asked if HCD had <br />visited the sites . Ms . Clark stated they had not but arrangements could be made . <br />Commissioner Mohan thanked staff for its work on the Housing Element Update . <br />Commissioner Jain expressed his gratitude to staff. He asked how the State tracked the City 's <br />implementation of the Housing Element. Ms . Clark explained that the City had to show feasibility of <br />development within eight years and to annually report its progress . She stated the City was zoning and <br />creating opportunity for housing to be built. She stated the City was not a housing developer and had <br />limited control over what was produced . Commissioner Jain asked what happened if a building wanted <br />to developer a site included. Ms . Clark explained that SB35 gave the City less discretion on designated <br />sites if the RHNA had not been met. She clarified that the State could not make the City rezone. Chair <br />Pace discussed prior litigation resulting in the City 's lack of control. Commissioner Jain asked if the City <br />considered hospitals , groceries , etc. in growth . Ms . Clark stated CEQA did not require consideration of <br />hospitals and grocery stores . Commissioner Jain discussed the transportation and asked if the City <br />would analyze traffic when an actual project was submitted . Traffic Engineer Tassano stated Level of <br />Service (LOS) would be included and CEQA only considered distance . He explained micromobility , last <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 November 9 , 2022
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.