6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Summary of Impacts Impacts in the following areas were found to be of no significance or less than significant, with mitigation: • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Cultural, Historic and Tribal Resources • Geology and Seismicity • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality • Land Use, Population and Housing • Noise and Vibration • Public Facilities and Recreation • Traffic and Transport1 • Utilities Impacts in the following areas were found to be significant and unavoidable: • Air Quality • Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Alternatives The EIR also evaluates potential cumulative and growth-inducing effects of the Proposed Plan, and alternatives to the Plan. The CEQA-required "No Project" alternative will evaluate the impacts resulting from continued implementation of existing plans, policies, and regulations that govern the planning area. Other alternatives that would avoid or lessen significant environmental effects related to the Proposed Plan are discussed; these include a "Reconfigured Site Plan," and "Reduced Development" alternatives. The EIR considers the following alternatives to the proposed project: • "No project" Alternative: Under this alternative the updated Downtown Specific Plan would not be adopted, and the 2002 DSP would remain in effect. This alternative would not include redevelopment of the Civic Center site. • Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed site plan for the redevelopment of the civic center site would be modified to extend Peters Avenue to Bernal Avenue and to accommodate a new parking structure at St. Mary Street and Peters Avenue. This alternative allows decision-makers the opportunity to understand the relative impacts of alternate circulation options for the site. The objective of the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would be to improve connectivity through the proposed Town Square District and provide increased access to the arterial network by continuing the street grid for all travel modes. It is noted that there is a typographical error in Table ES-3:Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Policies that Reduce the Impact, page ES-58, Impact 3.12-1, Traffic and Transport, which identifies that there would be a significant and unavoidable traffic impact. In fact, and as reflected in Chapter 3.12 of the Draft EIR, Impact 3.12-1 wit be less than significant with the proposed mitigation measures. Downtown Specific Plan: Draft EIR Planning Commission 4 of 5 owledge of patterns of development. The Draft EIR for the Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan identifies the potential for significant effects in the following impact areas: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources; Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Geology and Seismicity; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality; Land Use, Population, and Housing; Noise; Public Facilities and Recreation; Traffic and Transportation; and Utilities and Service Systems. As described in the DEIR, although many of these impacts can be fully mitigated, some cannot, and they would remain significant including Air Quality; and Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Resource topics that are not addressed in the EIR include Mineral Resources and Agricultural and Forestry Resources due to a lack of these resources in the planning area. Downtown Specific Plan: Draft EIR Planning Commission 3 of 5 tes adding one park in the new Town Square District. The Proposed Plan Downtown Specific Plan: Draft EIR Planning Commission 2 of 5 eral Plan identifies land use compatibility standards for different land uses. For instance, noise levels between 60 and 75 decibels on the day-night equivalent level (Ldn) are considered conditionally acceptable in single-family residential