My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020805
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN020805
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:41 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 3:49:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/8/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN020805
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
__ Mr. Iserson explained that the General Plan anticipated development of this type on <br /> this property and the project conforms to the established density for the site. The General <br /> Plan had an EIR that contemplated air quality impacts overall throughout the city. The reason <br /> staff checked the category "insignificant if mitigated" is that this project was not determined to <br /> exceed air quality issues that were addressed in the General Plan for the city. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman asked if there were an opportunity to measure vehicle emissions <br /> produced by additional traffic? Could that be included in a future report? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said Council could direct that to be included. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan referred to the fact that several aspects of the initial study were <br /> categorized as ~insignificant" and asked if that meant they would not be studied as part of the <br /> environmental impact report? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson explained that the EIR would concentrate on the potentially significant <br /> impacts and suggest mitigation measures. All issues could be addressed and at the <br /> conclusion of this workshop, if certain areas designated as potentially insignificant were <br /> changed to significant, they would be looked at in more detail in the EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan clarified that if some items were determined to need closer investigation, <br /> they could be included in the EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said that was correct. <br /> <br /> Ms. Maas noted the comments at this meeting as well as email messages received <br /> would be included in the EIR. She asked if the concerns would be investigated? <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said that was true and the EIR consultants were in attendance to hear <br /> those kinds of comments and to make certain they are addressed in the EIR. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern asked if there would be an opportunity to make suggestions to staff <br /> after the public comment. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman said the plan was to hear the applicant's proposal, take public <br /> comment and then for Council and the Commissioners to give direction to staff. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked staff to explain the EIR process for the benefit of the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson indicated after this scoping session, the consultant would include the <br /> issues raised in the preparation of a draft EIR. That will take three to four months to complete. <br /> There is a 45-day review period for the draft EIR. Responses to comments on the draft will be <br /> presented in the Final EIR along with mitigation measures. The PUD plan will then be <br /> presented along with the EIR to the Planning Commission and City Council for review, <br /> possible certification of the EIR and action on the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky referred to the $281,600 budget for the EIR, which excludes some items. <br /> He asked if Council decided to include some of the excluded items, how would that affect the <br /> budget? <br /> <br /> Joint Workshop <br /> City Council and <br /> Planning Commission 2 02/08/05 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.