My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-98-31
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
PC-98-31
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:00 AM
Creation date
12/16/2003 11:40:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/29/1998
DOCUMENT NO
PC-98-31
DOCUMENT NAME
EIR HAPPY VALLEY
NOTES
CITY OF PLEASANTON
NOTES 3
APPROVAL OF EIR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
<br />Alternative 4: ONE ACRE DENSITY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE HAPPY V ALLEY <br />LOOP <br /> <br />Alternative 4 would provide for increased housing density, and allow development of as <br />many as 274 new housing units. This would result in noise impacts similar to, but greater than <br />Alternative 3. <br /> <br />Therefore, based on the facts set forth below, and the information in the Draft EIR and <br />Final ErR, Chapter 4.B., the City Council finds that Alternative 4 is less desirable than the <br />proposed Project, and rejects Alternative 4 for the following reasons: <br /> <br />I. Noise. The increase in housing density inside the Happy Valley Loop affects <br />traffic patterns, which result in increased environmental impacts related to noise <br />for neighborhoods along Happy Valley Road, Alisal Street and Sycamore Road. <br />Furthermore, the City desires to be sensitive to increases in noise within residential <br />communities, especially those which are planned as semi-rural in character. <br /> <br />2. Same or Greater Imoacts. Alternative 4 would have environmental impacts which <br />are equal to or greater than the Project, and this alternative would not substantially <br />reduce any significant environmental effects of the Project. <br /> <br />Alternative 5: ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN <br /> <br />This alternative would provide for development in conformance with the Alameda County <br />General Plan, which allows for construction of up to 890 new housing units. Alternative 5 would <br />not include the golf course, nor the Bypass Road. Infrastructure for development would be <br />provided by the County. <br /> <br />Based on the facts set forth below, and the information in the Draft EIR and Final ErR, <br />Chapter 4.B., the City Council finds that Alternative 5 is less desirable than the proposed Project, <br />and rejects Alternative 5 for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Land Use lmoacts. Alternative 5 would create a new residential development with <br />substantially higher densities. This would modify the existing semi-rural character. <br />of Happy Valley. In addition, such new homes would create a potential for <br />conflict with agricultural activities. These would be significant new impacts. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Traffic Imoacts. With the increase in density, the traffic volumes would exceed the <br />City of Pleasant on standard of2,000 to 3,000 vehicle trips per day on residential <br />roads in all of the Happy Valley loop roads. Such traffic would result in increased <br />levels of noise along Happy Valley Road, Alisal Street, and Sycamore Road <br />(between Alisal Street and Sunol Boulevard.). These would be new significant <br />impacts. <br /> <br />Exhibit B <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.