PC 2006-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commuter Express (ACE) Train Station off-site across Bernal Avenue. It differs from the Project in the following ways: (1) The arrangement of the three soccer fields in the Bernal Community Park would be different. The Project places the soccer stadium to the north, adjacent to Bernal Avenue, with the two soccer fields south of it. (See Figure 29 in the Responses to Comments, simulating the view of the soccer playing areas from Bernal Avenue under the Project.) Alternative 1 would reverse that configuration, placing the two soccer fields side-by-side adjacent to Bernal Avenue. (2) Alternative 1 devotes a larger portion of the Central Area to the Grand Meadow open space than does the Project. The Project would devote the entirety of sub-area 6 south of Valley Avenue to lakes, ponds, and expanded wetlands. Thus, Alternative 1 would not have the expanded area of water features proposed under the Project. (3) Alternative 1 would not have any agricultural use west of I-680 (sub-area 16 would be designated for open space). Under the Project, sub-area 16 would be designated for agricultural use. (4) Alternative 1 proposes tennis courts in the area between Pleasanton Avenue and the football/lacrosse field. Under the Project, that portion of sub-area 2 would be slightly smaller and no tennis courts would be provided. (5) Alternative 1 proposes enhanced pedestrian access between the Bernal Property site and the ACE Train Station across Bernal Avenue. It also provides for sharing of some Bernal Property parking with the train station. The Project site plan does not make this provision. Findin¢: Feasible Alternative 1 is similar to the Project in the potential locations of some land uses, but differs with respect to others: Aesthetic: The reconfiguration of the soccer fields would result in a less "open" area along Bernal Avenue. From Bernal Avenue, the foreground would be more fully occupied by playfields, and more punctuated by illumination poles and fixtures. The level of change in these visual effects was not, however, found to result in adverse environmental impacts. Noise: The difference between the site plans in terms of noise sensitivity and noise generation would not be significant. Noise mitigations provided for in the Specific Plan (see Specific Plan Figure 7-1) would also be applicable to Alternative 1. Traffic: Overall peak hour trips would be about the same as the project, would have the same general impacts, and would require the same mitigation measures. Bernal Property Phase II Specific Plan and Bernal Community Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 5 of 24