09 ATTACHMENT 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brian.Swift July 2g, 2004 .Page 4. • ]and use: relocation of residential uses from Spotorno Upper Valley to Spotorno Flat, and increase in density at Spotorno Flat; realignment of the Bypass Road; ^ biology: biological resources to be affected by changed location of development and Bypass Road, with known resources including a pond (in the road alignment), a major seep (at the west end of the Spotorno Flat), and vegetation possibly including heritage trees (in the road alignment); ^ noise: increase in ambient noise resulting from the realignment of the Bypass Road,•. ^ geology and soils: consideration of soils and stability issues relating to the new site plan. Issues to be addressed include cut, fill, and landslide repair. It also appears that the Alquist Priolo area overlays part of the Bypass Road corridor (and possibly part of the Spotorno Flat, another issue that needs to be addressed; ^ cultural resources: reconnaissance and evaluation of cultural resource issues in .connection with the proposed realignment of the Bypass Road (the Spotorno Flat area was addressed in the earlier EIR); and • visual resources: the potential for either or both of the Greenbrier project elements -higher density residential development in the Spotorno Flat Area and realignment of the Bypass Road - to create adverse visual impact or to result in inconsistency with City policies with regard to visual resources. Other issues may be identified as implications of the project are considered in the course of updating the EIR, but these five are expected to be the principal CEQA concerns. "Statutory" sections of the earlier EIR are not expected to require significant revision. Specifically: Planning Consistency: The 1996 General Plan remains in effect. Although a General Plan update is in progress, the Specific Plan/General Plan relationship that applied in 1998 would still apply. Alternatives: In view of the fact that the earlier EIR addressed a land use/transportation network that was not found to have impacts on noise, cultural resources, or visual resources, we do not see a need to re-examine alternatives. Growth Induction: It does not appear that the capacity of Pleasanton for growth would materially change as a consequence of the Specific Plan revision, unless Pleasanton's public services and utility capacity has markedly altered since 1998. Cumulative Impacts: It seems likely that cumulative impacts on noise, cultural resources, and visual resources (issues to be addressed in the update which were not found to pose significant impacts in the earlier EIR) can be handled in brief narrative additions to the cumulative section of the EIR. Proposal Supplement to EIR, Hoppy Valley Specific Plan Page 4