2_Exhibits I-J - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternative would increase energy consumption and decrease energy efficiency, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact that would not be found under the Plan. • Traffic and Transportation: The No Project Alternative would contribute to level of service impacts at intersections 1 and 7, and queuing impacts at additional intersections. The same mitigation measures as identified for the proposed Plan for these intersections would be required to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.While the No Project Alternative does not include Plan policies promoting Complete Streets in the planning area, existing policies and the City's General Plan would serve to ensure that the roadway network in the planning area is consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan's (CMP's) goal to develop a complete streets network.As the bicycle facilities under the 2002 DSP are not consistent with those contemplated for the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, a plan amendment would be required to make this impact less than significant with mitigation. Overall, the impact on traffic and transportation would be lower than under the Plan due to fewer residents and less new commercial space,but would be less beneficial for bicyclists and pedestrians. Finding:The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would have a more limited ability to meet the objectives of the Plan and would result in a much lesser degree of improvement to the economic vitality and character of downtown Pleasanton. This alternative would not increase street connections, encourage pedestrian or bicycle mobility,or improve transit options to the same extent of the Plan.It would not meet the objective of providing a vision for the redevelopment of the existing civic center site to provide a"dynamic mix of community gathering places,retail,entertainment,visitor,residential,and employment uses" should the civic center relocation be approved by the voters. Furthermore, this alternative would introduce new potential impacts to paleontological resources and energy consumption and would provide no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the Plan. Alternative 1:Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative represents the relative impacts of alternate circulation options for the design of the Civic Center site in the event that relocation of existing uses is approved by Pleasanton voters.Under the Reconfigured Site Plan 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. The alternative would include all of the policies, land use designations and changes, and streetscape and other facilities improvements of the Plan. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would assume the same development standards as the Plan and the same policy to retain the library building in its current location. Projected development and population at buildout would be assumed to be the same as the Plan,resulting in 1,640 housing units,4,500 residents,and 3,500 jobs. • Air Quality:The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have similar significant impacts to the Plan in the area of air quality.This alternative would result in the same level of growth as the Plan and include all Plan policies.The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would improve the side-street LOS at the Old Bernal Avenue at Bernal Court intersection and would be expected to result in a corresponding reduction in air quality pollutants as compared with the Plan, but would not substantially reduce ROG emissions associated with automobile exhaust due to the cumulative nature of air pollutants and a similar VMT at buildout of this Alternative. Therefore, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would also generate emissions of ROG, PM2.5, and PM10 in excess of BAAQMD thresholds and result in a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would retain the Plan's land use designations and could have a significant impact on 21 20 (MERV)filters. 13