PC 052400 - Laserfiche WebLink

11. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION a. ]~eview and comments renardina the North Livermore Specific Plan Draft EIR Mr. Swit~ referenced a staff report dated May 24, 2000 and highlighted key areas contained in the report including background information and the proposed project. He noted that comments on the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR will be accepted until June 16, 2000. Further, that a public hearing will be conducted at the June 6, 2000 City Council meeting to enable City comments to be made with comments being forwarded to Alameda County and the City of Livermore for response in the Final EIR. Mr. Swift noted that individual comments made by the Commission members may be submitted to Alameda County or the City of Livermore. In conclusion, he noted that staff's recommendation is that the Commission take public testimony, discuss the adequacy of the DraR EIR's treatment of issues relevant to the City of Pleasanton, and forward any issues of concern and comments to the City Council. Discussion ensued relating to the process for public review of the Draft EIR. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Sorenson, Director, Alameda County Planning DeparUnent, provided an overview of the pluming process for the North Livermore Specific Plan. He informed the Commission of the location of the project and urban growth areas. He provided an overview of the public hearing process and noted that the County of Alameda will hold a hearing on June 5, 2000 and the City of Livermore will conduct a public hearing on June 13, 2000. Chris Bazer, Plarming DeparUnent, County of Alameda, provided an overview of the rural program of the project, the opec space feasibility study adopted in 1996, zones within the urban growth area, the permanent transition zone, urban development in Zone A being assessed at $25,000 per acre, and the total amount of funding necessary for purchasing land in easements. Mark Roberts, City of Livermore, Economic Development Department, provided an overview of the urban areas contained in the project. Mr. Roberts commented on the fees, the density of the project, location of retail businesses, organization of open space area, schools, parks, density of units, and affordable housing. Discussion ensued relating to the architecture of homes and location of the Crosby family holdings. Scott Gregory, Lamphier & Associates, provided an overview of the technical issues of the project included in the Draft EIR, noting that the County is the lead agency on the project. He then discussed the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, focusing on traffic mitigation measures. Discussion ensued relating to Alkali Sink hydrology, whether traffic on the Sunol Grade will be affected by the project, storm water flow issues, involvement of resource agencies in the project, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2000 Page 10