My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-99-80
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC-99-80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:32:57 AM
Creation date
3/23/2004 9:37:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/27/1999
DOCUMENT NO
PC-99-80
DOCUMENT NAME
SP-99-02
NOTES
SF WATER DEP
NOTES 3
APPROVAL OF SP PLAN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 />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 to <br />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 />FindiDl!: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation <br />measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. <br /> <br />Facts in SUDnort of findinlZ: 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 of a soundwall within CaltranS' jurisdiction on the B-2-l channellUPRR <br />overcrossing bridge. It also requires a sound beam elsewhere of 30 feet in height or sound <br />walls at residence yards. These measures have been rejected as infeasible because <br /> <br />(I) they interfere with other General Plan policies requiring <br />retention of views westward across the property from 1-680; <br /> <br />(2) they would likely be unaesthetic (wall on bridge structure <br />with no landscaping opportunity) or unnatural-looking <br />(30 ft. high levee-like berm) along the designated 1-680 <br />scenic route; <br /> <br />(3) they would interfere with the objective of making the golf <br />course a visual amenity for adjoining homeowners. <br /> <br />b. City General Plan standards allow price 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 requiring indoor noise <br />levels to achieve the City standard of 45dB Ldu (Specific Plan, Conservation and <br />Environmental Mitigation Element). <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, except along golf course locations (Master <br />PUD Condition 96). <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 />nor would it fulfill any of the City's objectives for this site, including provision of <br />additional housing, open space and public improvements. <br /> <br />SF:FMP\AGR\WEX\61138664.2 <br />062499 <br /> <br />A-59 <br /> <br />WEX-660IJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.