My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENT 8
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
100207
>
11 ATTACHMENT 8
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2007 12:31:47 PM
Creation date
9/25/2007 1:56:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/2/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENT 8
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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 overaN 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 Pian for the city. <br />Mayor Hosterman asked if there were an opportunity to measure vehicle emissions <br />produced by additional traffic? Couki that be included in a future report? <br />Mr. Iserson said Council could direct that to be included. <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 />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 mare detail in the EIR. <br />Mr. Sullivan clarified that if some items were determined to need closer investigation, <br />they could be included in the EIR. <br />Mr. Iserson said that was correct. <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 />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 />Ms. McGovern asked if there would be an opportunity to make suggestions to staff <br />after the public comment. <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 />Mr. Sullivan asked staff to explain the EIR process for the benefit of the public. <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 />Mr. Brozosky referred to the $281,600 budget for the EIR, which excludes some items. <br />He asked if Council decided to indude some of the excluded items, how would that affect the <br />budget? <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council and <br />Planning Commission 2 <br />02/08/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.