My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 81127
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
RES 81127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2012 9:20:13 AM
Creation date
3/7/2000 7:18:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/28/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Pleasanton Comments on the Draft EIR <br /> Moller Quarry, SMP-9 <br /> <br />~ile the Draft EIR (March 13 Draft plus April 10 Supplement) <br />clearly addresses many of the impacts of the project, several <br />areas have been omitted and others require amplification and <br />correction to fully assess the environmental impacts of the <br />project. Specific concerns of the City of Pleasanton follow: <br /> <br />Environmental Setting <br /> <br />The Draft EIR fails to clearly describe not only what exists <br />in the vicinity of the project, but what has been approved and <br />is planned. This is especially critical in understanding the <br />City of Pleasanton's concerns over quarry traffic utilizing <br />Foothill Road, an especially attractively designed thoroughfare <br />leading to the prestige office/retail shopping center hub. <br />Attached is a figure depicting the existing, approved, and planned <br />major development in the area. Special note should be made of <br />the park located directly opposite the proposed quarry entrance <br />and the sensitive uses proposed along the Foothill Road routes. <br /> <br />2. Public Plans and Policies <br /> <br /> (a) It should be noted that while the Alameda County General <br />Plan designates this area as Agricultural, the City of Pleasanton <br />General Plan designates the area of the site within its sphere <br />of influence as Open Space (Public Health and Safety) and Low <br />Density Residential. This inconsistency should be noted within <br />the text as it may affect the perspective of comments made by <br />the City. <br /> <br /> (b) Although the Draft EIR mentions that Foothill Road is a <br />County scenic route, it contains no mention of the policies <br />corresponding to such routes. The EIR should contain County <br />policies visa vis scenic routes and discuss the consistency of <br />the proposal with those policies. <br /> <br />3. Aesthetics/Reclamation <br /> <br /> <a) If little or no t~psoil ~xistsontbe site, expandedanalysis of <br />the site's ability to revegetate, including time frame, type of <br />vegetation, and conformity with oak woodland habitat should be <br />presented. <br /> <br /> (b) It appears the westerly terraced slope would be visible <br />from Foothill Road, a city scenic route as well as a County scenic <br />route. Quarrying generally is incompatible with the city's scenic <br />route policie~ as would be the reclaimed, unnatural terrace land <br />form. Note that this terrace may be hidden if the easterly edge <br />of the quarry cut is kept at about 550 feet elevation rather than <br />the 525 feet elevation proposed, a feasible mitigation. Such a <br />berm would also assist in noise and dust mitigation. <br /> <br />-1- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.