Laserfiche WebLink
BRUEN & GORDON <br /> THOMAS M. BRUEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE: (925) 295-3 1 3 1 <br /> SCOTT W. GORDON FACSIMILE: (925) 295-3132 <br /> DAVID J. MILLER 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD SGORDONQa BRUGOR.COM <br /> SUITE 940 <br /> WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 <br /> June 12, 2000 "EdEIVEL,, <br /> JUN 13 Z000 <br /> Community Ueverv�,n1eut uCN,. <br /> VIA FACSIMILE& U.S. MAIL <br /> Mr. Ben Hulse,Director <br /> San Joaquin County Community Development Dept. <br /> 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205-6232 <br /> Attn: Mr. Michael Hitchcock <br /> Project Manager, Mountain House Development <br /> Re: Mountain House; Tri-Mark Communities Application for Major Subdivision <br /> App.Nos. SU-00-3, SP-00-1, MP-00-1, PP-00-1 <br /> Dear Mr. Hulse: <br /> I am writing on behalf of my client, Alameda County, in response to the Agency Referral <br /> circulated for the Tri-Mark Communities application for a Major Subdivision ("the Tri-Mark <br /> Project"or"Project") within the Mountain House development. <br /> Alameda County has several concerns with the proposed Tri-Mark Project, including the <br /> significant direct impacts to Grant Line Road and Altamont Pass Road as well as the indirect <br /> transportation system impacts that will flow from this large residential/commercial project. <br /> According to the Referral, the Tri-Mark Project will result in the entitlement of a 1,006 lot <br /> subdivision,plus commercial/retail and industrial development. On May 16, 2000, the Alameda <br /> County Planning Director, James Sorensen, corresponded with Manual Lopez, San Joaquin <br /> County Director of Public Works, concerning the Project's significant direct transportation <br /> impacts on Alameda County roads. The letter specifically requested detailed information <br /> concerning mitigation measures to address and mitigate these impacts, which information is <br /> required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I have enclosed a copy of the <br /> May 16,2000 letter for your review and comment. Please include the letter in the administrative <br /> record for the Tri-Mark Project. <br /> In addition, Alameda County has serious concerns about the degree, if any, to which <br /> regional transportation system and cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered and <br /> assessed in connection with San Joaquin County's previous review of the Mountain House <br /> development and the County's current review of the Tri-Mark Project. In the 1992 General Plan <br /> Amendment EIR, cumulative traffic impacts were not even mentioned. The January 1993 <br /> Supplemental EIR briefly discussed cumulative traffic in general terms, requiring that future <br /> Mountain House development pay its fair share of the cost of roadway improvements, including <br /> those required in Alameda County. I have not yet been provided with the 1994 Specific Plan <br />