10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mitigation measures -recognizes the EIR; and implementation -infrastructure phasing, financing public improvements, and developer/Alameda County Surplus Property Authority responsibilities. Mr. Bocian then discussed the proposed rezoning and pre-zoning issues, stating that the Continuing Care Retirement facility is being proposed for High Density Residential/Commercial, the Auto Mall as PUD-Commercial, and Retail as PUD-Commercial. He pointed out that the rezoning is currently PUD-Medium Density Residential but is actually part of the CLC property so it would be rezoned to PUD-Commercial. He noted that there is an existing strip of 19 feet which will be transferred to property owners and which will be PUD-Medium Density Residential, which is the current zoning. Mr. Bocian then introduced Mr. Mike Tassano, City Traffic Engineer, and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. There being none, Mr. Bocian turned the floor over to Mr. Rodney Jeung. Rodney Jeung, PBS&J, noted that the certification action to be taken by the City Council and the recommendation by the Planning Commission are not the same as project approval. He stated that the Commission can find that the EIR satisfies and meets all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and still reject the project. He explained that "certification" means the City has complied with the CEQA and various State guidelines, that the City has received all information necessary to understand the potential impacts associated with approving the project, and that the City has exercised its own independent judgment regarding the analysis of the project. Mr. Jeung noted that after the Draft EIR was released, the planning activities continued, and there were several changes to the project description that was previously presented in the Draft EIR. He stated that these changes involved components related to the emergency access, the conceptual park master plan, boundary modifications, and a revision as to how the EI Charro Road Auto Mall Place intersection would be constructed and configured. He stated that the changes to the project description do not constitute any new environmental effects or things already identified in the EIR; they are normal changes, modifications that evolved through the planning process. He added that once the City had reported those changes to them, they included them in the EIR, did an assessment, and found none of them represented anything new in terms of a potential impact. Mr. Jeung continued that with respect to the public review, there were 23 different comments letters received; approximately 12 came from public agencies, 5 came from various organizations, and the balance from members of the public. He noted that there were a total of approximately 200 comments received. Mr. Jeung noted that it is their obligation to prepare responses to substantive comments regarding the EIR. He added that there were three different types of responses: the first includes those that clarify and explain information contained in the EIR, such as EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2008 Page 3 of 12