PC-2009-15, DRAFT PLEASANTON GENERAL PLAN 2005-2025

interior noise to a less -than -significant level, the same as the proposed General Plan. However, under the existing General Plan, exterior noise on Saint Mary Street would not be subject to the program in the proposed General Plan to reduce noise -impacted areas through alternative street paving methods and materials. Thus exterior noise increases could be potentially significant. Vibration effects could be worse under the No Project Alternative because it does not contain a vibration reducing program, as does the proposed General Plan. Thus the No Project Alternative would have two potentially significant noise and vibration impacts compared to no such impacts with the proposed General Plan. Utilities: Development under the No Project Alternative would potentially violate AB 939 and Measure D solid waste diversion standards, a potentially significant impact, while the proposed General Plan would have a less -than -significant impact. This is because the proposed General Plan contains new Goal 10, Policies 25 and 26, and their programs that would seek to meet or exceed the waste diversion standards of AB 939 and Measure D, while the No Project Alternative does not contain such a goal with its policies and programs. Without such a goal and related policies/programs, there is a potential that the waste diversion standards of AB 939 and Measure D would not be met. Disbursed Growth Alternative Description The Dispersed Growth Alternative would result in a mix of lower -density and higher - density housing, with new housing located in East Pleasanton, and at other scattered locations around the perimeter of the city. Some additional housing would also be located in Hacienda and adjacent to the new West Pleasanton/Dublin BART station, although there would be fewer units than allowed in the two areas by the proposed General Plan. Retail, office, industrial, and R&D (research and development) uses would have slightly more square feet of development potential than under the proposed General Plan (35,556,000 square feet compared to 34,951,000 square feet). The buildout population of this alternative would be 78,200, the same as under the proposed General Plan, because the alternative proposes the same number of housing units. Finding: Feasible As with the proposed General Plan, the Dispersed Growth Alternative would include a new Energy Element with its focus on sustainability and conservation, a new Water Element with its focus on sustainability; a revised Air Quality and Climate Change Element with its focus on improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and revisions to all elements that would focus on quality of life and sustainability. Limiting population based on the housing cap while allowing and encouraging business development would be a cumulative effect of building out the Planning Area that is intrinsic to both the proposed General Plan and the Dispersed Growth Alternative. The 5