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
2: ~. Some proposed residential development on the West Parcel north <br />of the 1-680 overerossing of the Pleasanton Avenue extension would be exposed to a <br />Ldn of greater than 65 dB. <br /> <br />Measure Lla(1). Increase the height or shift the location of the proposed <br />berm/soundwall. <br /> <br />Measure Llc(3). Require detailed project-specific noise studies for each development <br />project in an area where the standard is exceeded to characterize noise conditions and <br />to identify the noise reduction features that must be incorporated to achieve acceptable <br />interior noise levels, and require incorporation of those features into construction. <br /> <br />Findimz: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation <br />measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. <br /> <br />Facts in Suonort of Findinm The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. Mitigation measures required to reduce noise levels to 60dB require <br />construction ofa soundwall within Caltrans' jurisdiction on the B-2-1 channel/UPRR <br />overcrossing bridge. It also requires a sound beam 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 from 1-680; <br /> <br /> (2) they would likely be unaesthetic (wall on bridge structure with no <br />landscaping opportunity) or unnatural-looking (30 ff. high leVee-like berm) along the <br />designated 1-680 scenic route; <br /> <br /> b. City General Plan standards allow noise levels to exceed 60dB in outdoor <br />areas when necessary to achieve other General Plan goals. <br /> <br /> c. The Project has incorporated the mitigation measure requiting indoor noise <br />levels to achieve the City standard of45dB Ldu. <br /> <br /> d. The Project has incorporated requirements for using site development <br />patterns, housing produce type options, and/or building construction 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 Sponsor's objectives <br /> <br />57 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.