CCMIN060600 - Laserfiche WebLink

comment period on the Draft EIR so Pleasanton residents may ask pertinent questions that relate to the fro--reaching negative consequences lbr this City. Clearly, in Pleasanton's case, there has not been substantial compliance with the primary goal of CEQA, which is m allow meaninlifful participation by the public, not just staff. She gave an example of the overflow drainage which would be exacerbated greatly by this prc~iect. The project area around the Livermore golf course floods every year. Becanse of the increased flow of water from 12,500 homes, businesses, parks, schools in this area with kno~vn flooding problems, the project will drain areas adjacent to the project, but will send much higher volumes downstream to Pleasanton. Cumulative runoff would increase flooding in Pleasanton in at least three areas that were mentioned yesterday (Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Del Valle and Laguna Bernai) as much as 10% to 15%. Ms. Cabanne expressed concern with the handling of the landscape irrigation and the runoff that it produces lbr Pleasanton and the hydrology problems with the clay soil in the valley. She was also concerned about minimum s'tandards being imposed with this water and asked what it might do to the quality of the groundwater. She expressed concems about the essential requirement not being met with major areas such as traffic, air quality-, water resources, wastewater treatment. biological resources and geological conditions and felt that data used in these studies were out of date, incomplete or inconsistent. A large concern addressed was the gridlock of traffic on both the 1-680 and the 1-580 freeway with a scenario of an additional 25,000 cars, plus the air quality levels being lowered. Also addressed were water and geology dam. In summary, the public was not being given all parts to the Draft EIR in a timely manner to allow meaningtiff input. Secondly. she felt the Draft EIR does not come close to depicting currant conditions due to many major omissions and outdated dam. ThirdIy, numerous mitigations are based on policy and speculations. Finally, she expressed her concern that there has been a clear bias for the project to the exclusion of other lomwn and viable alternatives. Tom Hurper, 2757 North Vasco Road, North Ijvermore, said that many of the issues now are the same issues that have been talked about since 1984. Litigation and settlements with large landowners, the County and the City have allowed these 12,500 units to be planned. No consideration has been made to reduce the number of planned unim. He felt the EIR is flawed, and that there are 10 areas of significant and adverse efti~cts with no mitigation available. There are seven additional areas that require significant mitigation. He is concerned about cut tttrough traffic in Springtown and felt that Pleasanton should be worried about cut through traffic in Pleasanton. Vineyards, hydr010gy, and the flood flow are als0 problem areas. He remarked that the Citizens For Open Space Initiative is an upcoming county vote, with five former mayors of Livermore supporting this Initiative. Carole Varela said it has taken over five years for rite Alan~eda County to prepare the Draft EIR and yet is allowing only 45 days to review it. Using the standard calculations to predict the number of residents that will reside in the number of houses planned, 37,500 residents am to be expected in the units planned. Added m these numbers are the addition of businesses and schools required. She feels that Pleasanton Pleasanton City Council 12 06/06/00 Minutes