My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
09
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
061907
>
09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2007 10:14:45 AM
Creation date
6/15/2007 9:44:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/19/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
PUD-93-02-09M <br />2001 Ruby Hill Boulevard <br />Discussion <br />a-b) Traffic to and from the proposed facility would occur primarily at off-peak hours during mid- <br />weekdays and weekend hours. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and <br />determined that a traffic report would not be necessary for this proposal for the following reasons: <br />1) the operation of the proposed facility during the evenings and on weekend would not conflict <br />with PM peak traffic; 2) the proposed access within the site would allow for vehicle queuing; 3) <br />the proposed left turn pocket on Vineyard Avenue and the deceleration lane should be adequate <br />for vehicle entering and exiting the site without impact pass-through traffic. <br />Therefore, this would be aless-than-significant-impact. <br />c) The existing building does not interfere with the existing air traffic patterns. Therefore, this is no <br />impact. <br />d) As part of the proposed project, a left turn pocket would be provided for access into the site from <br />Vineyard Avenue to the east, and a right turn pocket would be created provided for access into <br />the site from Vineyard Avenue to the west. The change would provide a safe access to the traffic <br />to and from the project area. Therefore, this would be aless-than-significant impact. <br />e) The driveway within the proposed parking lot is designed to meet the dimensional requirement in <br />width and turning radius of the Fire Department so as to provide access for emergency vehicles. <br />Therefore, this would be ales-than-significant-impact. <br />(f) On-site parking is part of the proposed development where adequate parking would be available <br />for restaurant patrons as well as for the facility staff. Therefore, this would be a less-than- <br />significant-impact. <br />(g) The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal. Based on the City's traffic baseline report, <br />the proposed project would meet the City's policies and programs; therefore no specific traffic <br />study is required for this project. Therefore, this would be a no-impact. <br />16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS <br />Environmental Setting <br />The City of Pleasanton has public services and infrastructure planned to meet the build out of the General <br />Plan, implemented by the Growth Management Plan. <br />Standards of Significance <br />For purposes of this environmental document, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project <br />would: <br />• Result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities; <br />• Result in exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control <br />Board; <br />• Result in or require the construction or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities; <br />• Be served by a landfill that has inadequate permitted capacity. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.