My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 98084
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
RES 98084
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2012 4:51:04 PM
Creation date
1/11/1999 5:30:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Alternative 4: ONE ACRE DENSITY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE HAPPY VALLEY <br /> LOOP <br /> <br /> Alternative 4 would provide for increased housing density,, and allow development of as <br />manv 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 Draf~ EIR and <br />Final EIR, 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 /> 1. 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, .Mini 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 Impacts. 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 ~fects 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 ElK, <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. Land Use Impacts. 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. Traffic Impacts. With the increase in density, the traffic volumes would exceed the <br /> City of Pleasanton standard of 2,000 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 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.