Laserfiche WebLink
Pape 2 CI 2 <br /> 7 Please provide a BART parking needs assessment with and without a future BART to Livermore station. <br /> e. Please provide charts similar to ;he 1996 DEIR for Comparison of Allowable Residential Development amd <br /> Crimearisc n of Allowable Commencial Office and Industrial Development based on the proposed general plan <br /> and the 1996 General Ptan (p.19 -21). <br /> 9. The pre v ious DEIR for the 1996 General Plan was organized by each element of the General Plan The format <br /> and organization for the proposed General Plan DEIR is confusing since d does not snap to each element <br /> 10 Pleasit provide a rationale for changing the Hacienda Business Park designation from Business Park to <br /> Mixed Use. If it were to remain Business Park, what would the net environmental impact be? Please provide an <br /> explanatio 1 as to why the city is aecommodating'residential units over and above the 333 units "allocated' to this <br /> area (p ti -5, 2 -11, etc). Please provide two options for the General Plan, one which keeps Hacienda Business 7.2 <br /> Park as 8t stress Park and the other as Mixed Use, similar to the 1998 General Plan with the 'property owners' <br /> option, Altimabve 4. <br /> 11. Please provide a rationale for changing Applied Baosytesns from General and Limited Industrial to Business 7.3 <br /> Park. I5 n ore intense development envisioned there? <br /> 12 Please provide a net change table on p. S-4 from the 1996 General Plan which shows proposed General <br /> Plan Land Use Acreage from the 1996 General Plan, what has been built, and the proposed General Plan. <br /> 13. It the IIacianda Business Park is changed to Mixed Use, isn't this by default going to result in land use <br /> conflicts and incompaliibitity between existing and proposed land use? Why is W-2 marked as insignificant then? <br /> 14 Isn't Staples Ranch considered agricultural rand in the county plan? If so, wouldn't this need to be ircluded <br /> under LUM? <br /> 15. For alternative 3 on p. S-21, it stales In this alternative, there are no residential tasils counted towards the <br /> cap in the Staples Ranch area. it the residential units are housing units as defined by Measure PP, which <br /> obtained a higher number of votes in the Nov. 2008 erection, they must be counted toward the cap. Please <br /> explain the concept of having residential units in Staples Ranch and excluding them from being counted towards <br /> the cap, Co you mean there are no residential units at all or there are residential units that are not counted <br /> against the housing cap? <br /> 16. I art c refused by the Land Use Designation in the Staples Ranch area map on Figure 2 -3. The diagonal 17A <br /> stripe with thick brown fines is not in the legend'Mat is Mrs designation supposed to be and what was the <br /> dosignatiou in the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Ptan? <br /> 17 Please clarify the Urban Growth Boundary on Figure 2 -3 vs the Planning Area and the Iwo lakes in the Chain <br /> of Lakes tt at appear to be outside the Urban Growth Boundary but inside the Planning Area Also these seem to <br /> be within the Specific Plan Area. <br /> 18 Oak Grove and the legend on Figure 2-3 is confusing Was this not changed from RCP to LDR? The lots 7.5 <br /> are not 5 acre let minimums. Please clarify why skis is shown in yellow under ROR. <br /> 19. What does the superscript 1 on p. 3.2 -17 signify? <br /> 20 I do not understand why PS -2 Development near the Urban Growth Boundary associated with buildout of the <br /> proposed General Plan would not increase risk from wildland fires due to to new development's proximity to open <br /> space areas composed of chaparral or grassland 4 Idled as Tess Than sign Octant 13 4.9) New fire facil tes or <br /> access roads may be required it order to mitigate the risks. <br /> 2008.12 -05 <br />