PC-2010-11, ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY

Finding: Infeasible The Open Space Alternative would have slightly fewer water supply, water quality, visual, noise, air quality and traffic impacts, and would likely create more opportunities for wildlife habitat than the preferred project. The majority of the preferred project's impacts in these categories, however, will be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures. Moreover, the Open Space Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen the preferred project's significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, air quality, noise, and traffic. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable if the Open Space Alternative were adopted by the City. The Open Space Alternative is also infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City's goals and policies regarding the Community Park. On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved a conceptual Staples Ranch Park Master Plan for the Community Park. The Master Plan represented the results of an extensive community planning process begun in October 2006. On September 2, 2008, the City adopted core objectives concerning the proposed uses of the Community Park. The Master Plan and the core objectives contemplate active recreational uses of the Community Park, including sports fields, tennis courts, and an ice skating facility. The Open Space Alternative is infeasible because it conflicts with the active recreation goals and policies of the City by limiting the Community Park to passive uses that do not include sports fields, tennis courts or an ice skating facility. The Open Space Alternative would therefore fail to provide the economic and social benefits associated with an ice center facility identified in the Existing Specific Plan Alternative findings above. SEIR Four -Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative The Four -Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative is similar to the preferred project in that it would stripe Stoneridge Drive traffic lanes so that two traffic lanes would cross each bridge in each direction. It is different, however, than the preferred project because it contemplates the traffic lanes over each bridge to be striped initially to allow two lanes of traffic in each direction. Finding: Infeasible The Four -Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative would initially have slightly greater noise and traffic impacts than the preferred project due to the Stoneridge Drive bridges being striped initially with two lanes of traffic in each direction. The City finds the Four -Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative, without the phasing modification, infeasible because it fails to provide the City the flexibility it desires in managing its roadways. Concerns have been expressed by some members of the community about the impacts that will exist when the bridges over Stoneridge Drive are restriped to allow two traffic lanes in each direction. The Four -Lane Concurrent Extension Alternative, without the phasing modification, would prevent the City from exercising its discretion as to when -the bridges over Stoneridge Drive should have two lanes of traffic in each direction after consideration of changing traffic conditions, the is Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations