Laserfiche WebLink
this project will be a lot closer to the Livermore Airport than Kottinger Ranch. He noted that the <br />traffic pattern at Livermore Airport was recently approved with a substantial number of new <br />hangars, a runway extension, and a significant airport expansion. He indicated that he would like <br />to see the impact on the site of the mixture of business jet and small aircraft operations 24 hours <br />a day, 365 days a year. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Chairperson Arkin noted that there was more material in this EIR than can be covered in one <br />meeting and that there may have to be multiple meetings to cover everything. He suggested that <br />the Commission stop in the middle and take public testimony and then reschedule for a future <br />meeting. <br />Ms. Decker recommended that the Commission consider continuing some or all of the rest of the <br />presentation, from the hazazdous section , to the July 26, 2006 meeting. She noted that some of <br />the Commissioners would be on vacation, but a number of Commissioners will be in town, and it <br />could be determined then where the Commission is with respect to the Draft EIR review and <br />comment period; the next hearing would be on August 9, 2007. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if the Commission could also talk about some other alternatives that <br />the Commission might want staff to go out and investigate other than Alternative 4. <br />Ms. Decker replied that it may be premature to do that at this time as not all the information of <br />the Draft EIR discussion topics have been covered. She added that the Commission could also <br />have a study session about the preferred project and go more in-depth into the alternatives <br />sometime in August 2006. She recommended that discussion as faz as a revision or additional <br />alternatives be considered at that point. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that she had a lot of questions because that was done with Greenbriaz <br />and the Bernal PUD development on the west side of I-680. She noted that the inclusionazy <br />zoning ordinance was put in place, and the project ended up having to build multiple duets I <br />think there were ten in a section of million-dollaz homes. She stated that she did not see any <br />alternative that involves, for example, 51 units with ten duets in compliance with the <br />inclusionary zoning ordinance, but only references to a 20-unit off-site development with no <br />details. She noted that it goes counter to what the Commission tries to do of spreading those <br />units azound town. <br />Commissioner Fox continued that in terms of the ridgeline development and some of the <br />comments on the grading presented tonight, it appeazs uncleaz which part is fill and which is not. <br />She added that Commissioner Arkin has asked for a chart showing in green and red what is fill <br />and what is not and that she would like to see a map that shows the ridgelines of the property and <br />what pieces of property aze being proposed to be graded that are within 200 feet of the existing <br />top of the ridge, similaz to what the Commission talked about with the General Plan and the San <br />Juan Capistrano Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, with conservation and open space, and <br />potentially having a ridgeline preservation ordinance where grading would not be allowed within <br />200 feet of a ridgeline. She noted that based on the topographical map, she cannot get a sense as <br />23 <br />