RES 00111A - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Impact K2. The project would contribute to regional emissions in excess of the thresholds of significance recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measures: Measure K2a. Implement measures to reduce vehicular travel Measure K26. Implement measures to reduce emissions related to residential land uses. Findine: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible project alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Facts in Suonort of Findine: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. a. PUD Condition _ requires that the GHCBI Project comply with the City of Pleasanton's Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. The GHCBI PUD will incorporate "Green Building" practices, and will also encourage "natural gas fireplaces, fireplace inserts, and certified wood stoves to reduce fireplace emissions. Wood-burning fireplaces shall be limited to 1 per dwelling unit." The Specific Plan Air Quality Policy 1, Guidelines 1.1 to 1.5, also incorporate these and other practices. Thus, feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the GHCBI Project. b. The PUD plan sites commercial/office uses proximate to regional transportation systems, as well as to neighborhood and community residents, in order to provide employment opportunities that can reduce regional and local traffic impacts. The circulation pattern and street design emphasize the pedestrian and bicyclist by providing a centrally located commercial /office area, as well as a looped network of streets and pedestrian routes, some of which will feature "calmed" traffic at low volumes to encourage a vaziety of alternative modes of travel. c. Given the level of development and associated tratYic generation under each alternative, except the No Project Alternative, the contribution to regional emissions would be similar. The GHCBI Project greatly reduces the number of residential units, which will provide for a reduction in air quality impacts and traffic volume, but the impacts may stil] remain at a significant level. The No Project Alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsor s objectives nor would it fulfill any of the City's objectives for this site, including provision of additional housing, open space, affordable housing, an elementary school site and public improvements. 56