Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Ayala expressed her hope that everyone could work regionally to <br />get a master flood control plan in place and anticipate what is going to happen before any <br />forward movement is made. She also pointed out that she was please to see that direct <br />injection of reverse osmosis treated wastewater is not being proposed for the project and <br />asked what was the rationale for this decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roberrs said Livermore would want to use reclaimed water~ a combination of <br />untreated and Title 22 water, as well as reverse osmosis water, to irrigate the proposed <br />landscaping in North Livermore. In addition. the water would be made available for <br />agricultural irrigation. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Ayala asked Mr. Roberrs to comment as to whether the North <br />Livermore Plan was in sync with the Vision 2010 Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robeas said the plan was meant to incorporate the existing General Plans of <br />the surrounding communities and l~om that perspective it is consistent~ The area that is <br />proposcd to be urbanized, the location of the urban growth boundary, the remount of units <br />and the area set aside for agriculture are all completely in sync. The challenge is to create <br />a plau that is very habitat friendly as well as agricultural friendly and at certain times <br />those values conflict with one another, or perhaps need to be closely balanced between <br />habitat and agriculture. <br /> <br /> Councihnember Michelotti asked Mr. Roberts to comment on the Crosby <br />property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roberts explained that there are two properties that are controlled by the <br />Crosby Family Trust. One of them is immediately adjacent to North Livermore Avenue <br />and this consists of 500+ acres. Discussion is taking place with representatives of the <br />Crosby family concerning this property and he hoped to reach an agreement that the types <br />of uses proposed on the property are consistent with the density plan in Zone B. The <br />second property is at the western edge of the project area in Zone C. This is pla~med for <br />agricultural uses. The Crosbys have let it be known that they would like to consider more <br />urbm~ uses, at least on a portion of that property, but at this point that is not included in <br />the plan, but could be at a subsequent time. <br /> <br /> Donna Cabanne, Conservation Chair of the Tri-Valley Siena Club, discussed <br />serious flaws with the DraR EIR that were brought up in a county reeeting yesterday and <br />comments made by Mr. Roberts that are different than those that were previously <br />discussed. A primary goal of CEQA and the Drab EIR is to provide citizens with an <br />opportunity to gain i~fformation and provide meaningful input with comments and <br />questions. Pleasanton residents have been severely limited in their access to information <br />about this plan. As I~ar as the hearings held, many of those were workshops - which arc <br />not technically considered hearings. lJnforcunately, Pleasanton residents will suffer <br />directly from many of the negative impacts without any benefits from this plan. She <br />urged people to ask the County for a hearing in Pleasanton and for an extension of the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 11 06/06/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />