My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
061510
>
11 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 3:59:05 PM
Creation date
6/10/2010 3:17:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/15/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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
whether the City Council felt such striping was then currently warranted. The preferred <br /> project, by contrast, allows the City Council to gauge changing traffic conditions, the <br /> 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 therefore allows the City Council to make a determination to restripe <br /> the Stoneridge Drive bridges to two lanes in each direction even if all the regional <br /> improvements have not been completed, thereby vesting the City Council with the <br /> freedom to exercise its discretion about how best to manage Pleasanton's roadways. <br /> All impacts of the preferred project have been analyzed in the EIR /SEIR. The Four <br /> Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative analyzes all impacts associated with Stoneridge <br /> Drive (including the Stoneridge Drive bridges) being striped with two lanes in each <br /> direction. Although the SEIR also analyzes the Two -Lane Constrained Extension <br /> Alternative (which, as a practical matter, the preferred project will mirror for some period <br /> of time), the CEQA Findings, the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the <br /> Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan track the Four -Lane Concurrent Extension <br /> Alternative because the preferred alternative anticipates the restriping of Stoneridge <br /> Drive bridges to two lanes in each direction at some point in the future and therefore the <br /> impacts and related mitigation associated with the Four -Lane Concurrent Extension <br /> Alternative, rather than the Two -Lane Constrained Extension Alternative, reflect the <br /> greatest impacts that will result from the preferred project (see SEIR at 123). <br /> PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS <br /> The City distributed an initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR on June 13, 2006, <br /> for agency and public review. The purpose of the NOP was to announce the City's <br /> intention to prepare and distribute a Draft EIR on the proposed project and to solicit <br /> comments on the scope and issues that should be considered in preparing the EIR. <br /> The initial NOP comment period closed on August 7, 2006. The NOP was subsequently <br /> updated and redistributed on March 26, 2007. The updated NOP comment period <br /> closed on April 30, 2007. <br /> A public scoping meeting was also held by the City on April 11, 2007. The scoping <br /> meeting provided the public with an opportunity to orally present their concerns about <br /> the proposed project. Comments were received through the combined NOP and public <br /> scoping process. <br /> Based partially on the NOP and public scoping process, the City prepared a Draft EIR <br /> (DEIR) that was published on April 16, 2008. The CEQA- mandated 45 -day public <br /> review period began on April 16, 2008 and ended on June 4, 2008. In addition to the <br /> comments received at a public hearing conducted by the City Planning Commission on <br /> May 14, 2008, comment letters were submitted by various public agencies and <br /> organizations. <br /> Responses to all comments received were prepared and included in the Final EIR <br /> (Responses to Comments document), published in August, 2008, which was prepared <br /> in accordance with CEQA and the guidelines for implementation of CEQA. <br /> 5 <br /> Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.