PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan deferred the matter to the project engineer. Chairperson Arkin inquired what the next step to taking public comments would be. Mr. Pavan replied that the next step in the process would be to complete the 45-day review period and come back with the Final EIR. He added that, hypothetically, the Commission could also comments and continue the item to another heazing for more comments. Ms. Decker explained that the first step in the process is to review the Draft EIR in a public forum and receive comments from both the public and the Planning Commission. It will then move to the City Council as a final environment document and will include the project after a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission. Should the Planning Commission wish to have this item return to the Commission for additional review or to have staff to report back on questions or concerns it may have, it can leave this public review and comment period open and schedule it to come back. She noted that no action is intended at this time for this item. Ms. Decker continued that some of the Commission's questions might be answered after the EIR consultant, Ms. Roberta Mundie, addresses the Planning Commission in terms of the CEQA and EIR processes and how the alternatives were determined. This can then be followed by a project-specific discussion. Ms. Mundie introduced herself and Ms. Suzanne Lampert of her staff. She stated that she would review the main components of the Draft EIR, including the structure and the content of the EIR; review the main findings relating to impacts under the variety of CEQA topics that aze required to be looked at; discuss the EIR's consideration of alternatives as described Ms. Decker; and then summarize the conclusions of the Draft EIR and explain what the next steps would be. Ms. Mundie stated that all EIRs have a similaz look because what goes into them is lazgely dictated by State law. She then explained that this Draft EIR has atwo-volume format - Volume 1 is the EIR proper, and Volume 2 presents appendices to the EIR, including the applicant's written narrative that accompanied the original PUD application of November 2003 and a slightly amended written narrative that is associated with Alternative 4. It also has technical background information on a variety of other topics, mostly methodological, and about the visual simulations that describe how they aze done. The last item is a long section of excerpts from the Pleasanton General Plan, containing plans and policies that have some relevance to this topic. Ms. Mundie then proceeded to describe the contents of the Volume 1, highlighting the main features of each Chapter: Chapter 1 provides a summary that is required for all EIR's. Chanter 2 describes the proposed project under the original application submitted. This is not the project that would be going forward for Planning Commission consideration, but the project that the Draft EIR started with, and, therefore, that to which most of the impact 9