My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082410SP
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
CCMIN082410SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/23/2010 11:32:02 AM
Creation date
9/23/2010 11:32:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/24/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN082410SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
before any others, one of those being completion of SR -84. She said the regional framework is <br /> fine, but this seemed the most effective way to ensuring the completion of SR -84 sooner rather <br /> than later. <br /> Director of Community Development Brian Dolan introduced the SEIR, noting that in some <br /> cases the agreements described by Mr. Bocian actually take environmental mitigation above <br /> and beyond what is required in both the EIR and SEIR. In response to challenges to the original <br /> EIR prepared for the project, the City agreed to prepare a supplemental analysis on several <br /> biologically sensitive issues, in particular several species, including the California Tiger <br /> Salamander, California Red - legged Frog, Western Pond Turtle, and San Joaquin Spearscale. <br /> With respect to the California Tiger Salamander and Red - legged Frog, the supplemental <br /> analysis came to the same conclusion as the original document, and no new mitigation is <br /> required. While there were two sightings of the Western Pond Turtle not acknowledged in the <br /> EIR, it turns out that the mitigation is the same whether they are known or simply thought to be <br /> present, and no new mitigation is required. The SEIR reevaluated its original approach and <br /> conclusion regarding the San Joaquin Spearscale and, in doing so, identified 1.77 existing acres <br /> of species to be protected in an offsite mitigation location. As discussed by Mr. Bocian, a <br /> supplemental agreement has provided for funds to be set aside for that much mitigation acreage <br /> at minimum and will likely provide substantially more. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated the public and several interest groups also presented several specific <br /> questions relative to cumulative impacts and in response, the SEIR presented the <br /> environmental analysis much more clearly in terms of addressing the proposed extension of <br /> Stoneridge Drive. The SEIR also contains two very specific and clear alternatives for <br /> consideration, those being the four -lane extension and two -lane constrained extension. These <br /> new roadway alternatives required the noise analysis to be revisited in more detail. He reviewed <br /> the analyses' conclusions, stating that all identified impacts could be mitigated to less than <br /> significant levels with one exception in the vicinity of Chocolate Street. Anticipated noise levels <br /> in this area reach 64 decibels, are mitigated to 61 decibels by the noise attenuating pavement, <br /> but still exceed the City's residential standard of 60 decibels. The SEIR determined that <br /> additional mitigation would come in the form of raising the existing sound wall in this area by <br /> one foot. The end result of the SEIR relative to noise is that the sound wall be increased by one <br /> foot and that Stoneridge Drive be repaved from Kamp Drive to Trevor Parkway with noise <br /> attenuating pavement. The County has agreed to install and contribute $500,000 toward this <br /> repaving. <br /> He noted while all impacts were reduced to standard levels with mitigation, the project cannot <br /> meet the new General Plan's standard for thresholds of significance related to noise. The <br /> standard, which was not in place at the time of the EIR, states that any increase of 4 decibels or <br /> more in any location is itself considered a significant impact. He suggested this may be <br /> something the Council wishes to look at in the future, as staff is learning that the standard does <br /> not always make sense when applied in low decibel environments. <br /> Mr. Dolan also noted that since the time the EIR was published, the methodology for <br /> greenhouse gas emissions analysis has rapidly evolved. In looking at this project with new <br /> methodology, staff had to concede that the project actually did exceed the standards in place at <br /> that time. He stressed that while they did not have the benefit of this information at that time, <br /> many best management practices such as green building, bicycle parking, bicycle and <br /> pedestrian connections, and transit connections were already incorporated into the project to <br /> reduce these types of emissions. Despite that, it is inevitable that a project of this type and size <br /> will exceed those standards and as there are no additional mitigation measures to apply, the <br /> impact conclusion is changed to significant and unavoidable. <br /> Special City Council Minutes Page 3 of 9 August 24, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.