My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
061510
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 3:59:05 PM
Creation date
6/10/2010 2:53:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/15/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
The Preferred Project would allow the City Council to gauge changing traffic conditions, <br /> the efforts of the City's regional partners to support funding and construction timing of <br /> regional improvements that benefit Pleasanton, and community concerns. The <br /> Preferred Project allows the City Council to make a determination to restripe the <br /> Stoneridge Drive bridges to two lanes in each direction even if all regional <br /> improvements have not been completed, thereby vesting the City Council with the <br /> freedom to exercise its discretion about how to best manage Pleasanton's roadways. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> On May 26, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed action items under <br /> consideration. By a 5 to 0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended rescission of <br /> the existing approvals (other than the certified Final EIR) and then approval of revised <br /> CEQA documents, a revised SPA, and rezoning /pre- zoning as recommended by staff. <br /> By a 4 to 1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the non -CEQA <br /> based action items (see #3 of the Planning Commission's recommendation on page 2 of <br /> this Agenda Report), and careful consideration of revising the San Joaquin Spearscale <br /> mitigation ratio, which would be a CEQA based item (see #4 of the Commission's <br /> recommendation on page 2 of this Agenda report). <br /> Concerning one of the non -CEQA based items whether San Joaquin Spearscale <br /> should be planted on the Community Park site —Ralph Kanz with the Alameda Creek <br /> Alliance questioned at the Planning Commission meeting the feasibility of planting San <br /> Joaquin Spearscale on the site. WRA, the biological consultant for the SEIR, also <br /> believes the plants will not thrive due to the soil type on the community park site. <br /> On a somewhat related note, in response to comments made by Mr. Kanz indicating <br /> that the replacement ratio of San Joaquin Spearscale acreage lost on site should be <br /> greater than the 1:1 ratio recommended by the City's biological consultant, the <br /> Commission recommended the Council consider carefully whether the 1:1 ratio should <br /> be changed. However, the Commission did not recommend a change from the 1:1 ratio. <br /> Because replacement of this plant is a CEQA based mitigation, should Council decide <br /> on a ratio greater than 1:1, the project developer will be responsible for providing such <br /> mitigation. The enhanced mitigation would also need to be reflected in the CEQA <br /> Findings and the MMRP. <br /> Although the Commission did not formally recommend it, the Commission, in response <br /> to one of the speakers, did inquire whether the City had plans to repave Stoneridge <br /> Drive with noise attenuating pavement between Kamp Drive and Rheem Drive (in that <br /> there is multifamily housing on the north side of Stoneridge Drive); City staff has <br /> evaluated this request and is recommending Stoneridge Drive between Santa Rita <br /> Road and Kamp Drive be similarly repaved and take place prior to opening to traffic the <br /> full extension of Stoneridge Drive. Because such repaving is not CEQA based <br /> mitigation, the cost of that repaving will be borne by the City through the use of <br /> Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Fees and /or roadway improvement funds. <br /> Page 7 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.