My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2000-45
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
PC 2000-45
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:32:47 AM
Creation date
8/15/2001 6:14:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/9/2000
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2000-45
DOCUMENT NAME
CEQA Findings
NOTES
Bernal Property
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Measure Lla(1). Increase the height or shif~ the location of the proposed <br />benn/soundwall combinations. <br /> <br />Mcature Llc(3). Require detailed Proj~-speci~ic noise studies for each development <br />project in au area where the staudlud is exceeded to characterize noise conditions and <br />to identi~ the noise reduction features that must be incorporated to achieve <br />acceptable interior noise levels, and require incorporation of those features into <br />construction. <br /> <br />F~: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation <br />measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. <br /> <br />Fac~ in Su~ nort of Findin£: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitigate the hnpact to a less than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. Mitigation measures required to reduce noise levels to 60 dB Ldn require <br />construction of a soundwall within Caltraus' jurisdiction on the B-2-1 channel/UPRR <br />overcrossing bridge. It also requires a sound berm elsewhere of 30 feet in height or <br />sound walls at residence yards. These measures have been rejected as infeasible <br />because <br /> <br /> (1) they interfere with other General Plan policies requiring retention of <br />views westward across the property froTM I-6g0; <br /> (2) they would likely be unaesthetic (wall on bridge structure with no <br />landscaping opportunity) or unnatural-looking (30 ~. high levee-lik~ berm) along the <br />designated I-6g0 scenic route; <br /> <br /> b. City General Plan standards allow noise levels to exceed 60 dB Ldn in <br />outdoor areas when necessary to achieve other General Plan goals. <br /> <br /> c. The Project has incorporated the mitigation measure requiring indoor noise <br />levels to achieve the City standard of 45 dB Ldn. <br /> <br /> d. The Project has incorporated requirements for using site development <br />pattems, housing produce type options, and/or building consl~uction techniques to <br />minimize outdoor noise to the extent feasible (PUD Condition ). <br /> <br /> e. The No Project Alternative is the only alternative which would avoid this <br /> impact. It is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project SponsoFs objectives <br /> nor would it fulfill any of the Cityts objectives for this site, including provision of <br /> additional housing, open space, affordable housing, au elementary school site and <br /> public improvements. <br /> <br />56 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.