11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan indicated that concerns were expressed by neighbors along the Arbor Drive area with respect to the development along that portion of the site as well as some visual impacts. He stated that the density of the project has been reduced and that almost all the lots have increased in size as a result of this new plan. The water tank is still located in the same area of the property. Mr. Pavan indicated that the Draft EIR went into great detail under the environmentally preferred alternative, which is discussed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR. He noted that this environmentally superior alternative is the item that will be evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report, and the conditions of approval for the development which shall be recommended to the Commission will pertain to this plan. Mr. Pavan continued that there are still ongoing discussions with the applicant and, as stated in the staff report, the Draft EIR aspects of the project are still being perfected. Comments from the Commission and the public will be addressed in the Response to Comments section of the Final Environmental Impact Report. He noted that the Draft EIR was published on June 30th, thereby beginning the 45-day review period as fixed by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); hence, members of the public still have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR. He advised that staff will accept written comments that are postmarked, emailed, or hand-delivered up until midnight of Monday, August 14th, which is when the review period ends, and these will be factored into the comments section of the Final EIR. Chairperson Arkin noted that he has seen other public agencies extend the comment period, such as the City of Livermore for the airport. He inquired what the criteria are for extending the comment period. Mr. Pavan replies that based on his experience, the City of Pleasanton has always adhered to a 45-day review period and deferred the question to Ms. Harryman. Ms. Harryman indicated that she did not have an immediate answer and would look into the matter. Commissioner Fox inquired what the process might be should the Planning Commission wish to have staff go back and look at a different alternative rather than the four that were outlined in the Draft EIR. She further inquired if this might be a mechanism to extend the 45-day review period. She noted that back in June of 2004 when the Commission first started hearing about the Draft EIR and the Council had agreed to the developer's request that the Council be involved in the scoping session, then Commissioner Sullivan, now Councilmember Sullivan commented that this was not the proper process and sets a bad precedent of taking away from the Planning Commission's function in that process. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that this precedent expressed a lack of trust in the Commission's ability to complete the EIR process or suggested that the Council had a preconceived notion of what the EIR should look like. Commissioner Fox continued that since February 8, 2005, the Commission has not really had an opportunity to discuss this project with staff to come up with what the Commission might think would be a preferred alternative. She stated that the Alternative 4 the staff is recommending as the preferred alternative is something that the Commission is seeing for the first time. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 2 of 21