My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN031991
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN031991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:17:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
Mr. Swift replied that the traffic study was not forwarded to <br />the Department of Transportation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver requested Mr. Roush to comment on the legal issues <br />raised in Mrs. Black's letter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that based on the given information, Council <br />would have to make a determination on whether or not the project, <br />with its proposed mitigation measures, will have a significant <br />effect on the environment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if there would be a management plan for <br />the open space, since there is no EIR for the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that one of the conditions requires the <br />developer to have a wild life, wild fire, and open space management <br />plan, as was required of the Presley and Garms project. He added <br />that the plan will be submitted in conjunction with the tentative <br />maps for the final maps. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if clean-up of toxics that occur on a site <br />where no construction will take place would also be required. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the presence of the toxic or hazardous <br />material would be identified as a potential environmental impact <br />because it could leak into the ground water and have other effects <br />over and beyond where the toxic materials may be located. The <br />project conditions should address the removal or abatement of that <br />hazard. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that after discussion with Staff, she was <br />convinced that extending "C" Court would not be a good idea <br />environmentally. With respect to the Negative Declaration, as <br />opposed to an EIR, she stated that with the EIRs done on the <br />adjoining properties, in addition to the proposed mitigated <br />measures for the project, it would be redundant to evaluate and <br />assess the same data again. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner expressed concern regarding the Negative <br />Declaration since the agencies did not certify it and the suggested <br />mitigation measures were not sent to those agencies as well. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the project is a good one but needs to <br />go through the EIR process in order to give the agencies concerned <br />the opportunity to respond to the report and to have all the <br />technical information in a CEQA document that the people can <br />support. <br /> <br /> - 16 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.