RES 10340 - Laserfiche WebLink

the smaller development footprint (66 acres vs. 80 for the project and 58 for Alternatives 1 and 2); the smaller number of housing units (51 for Alternative 4 compared with 98 and 80 for the other site plans) is a secondary source of improvement in the environmental outcome. The following is a summary of the environmental improvements provided by Alternative 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Alternative 4 utilizes a smaller part of the site so that the change in what is seen from offsite is diminished. Additionally, because the applicant has committed to the same number of mitigation trees for Alternative 4 as for the Original Project, these plantings can be more concentrated for screening use. Air Quality. While the Original Proiect would not result in a significant impact to air quality based upon the air quality impact criteria of the regional air quality management agency, Alternative 4's smaller number of units would contribute a lower volume of regional criteria pollutants. Biological Resources. Alternative 4 improves on the Original Project by greatly reducing fill of ephemeral streams. Geology. Soils, and Seismicity. Alternative 4 improves on Alternatives 1 and 2 by eliminating the eastern estate lots, thereby eliminating construction in an area of potential landslides. Noise. Because Alternative 4 only includes 51 homesites, less noise would be generated following buildout due to a lower volume of traffic, and less noise would be generated during construction due to the construction of fewer individual homes. Open Space. Alternative 4 provides a greater open space benefit than the Original Project because the land area potentially to be set aside as permanent open space is greater: up to 496 acres as compared with 482 acres for the Original Project. Police and Fire (Emergency Access). Alternative 4, with public access via Hearst Drive, an emergency fire road from the existing City water tank to the cul-de-sac by Lot 51, and an emergency access route from the Grey Eagle Estates subdivision to the Project site would have acceptable access under emergency conditions. Alternatives 1 and 2, with the five eastem estate lots, would not. Transportation. The analysis of traffic under the Original Project and the alternatives shows that congestion on Pleasanton's road network would exist without the Original Project and, in fact, that the Original Project would have virtually no impact on congestion as measured by intersection levels of service and little discernible effect on congestion as measured by seconds of delay. Nevertheless, the fact that Alternative 4 has a lower number of housing units means that average daily traffic would be substantially reduced as compared with the Original Project, and even the relatively Exhibit A Page 11 of 45 Ordinance No. 1961 PUD-33, Oak Grove