AgdaPkt 2010-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A Attachrr g 51 5-35 (Table 5-4)) However, except for those impacts considered to be significant and unavoidable (see below), all of these impacts would be less than significant under the New General Plan after implementation of the mitigation measures described in the DEIR. (See DEIR at pp. 7-3 to 7-4 (Section 7.2 Unavoidable Significant Effects)) Alternative 3 would be expected to result in slightly more severe impacts relating to noise, population and housing, and park and recreation facilities, as compared to the New General Plan. (DEIR at p. 5-34 to 5-35 (Table 5-4)) In all other impact categories, Alternative 3 is expected to result in similar levels of impacts as the New General Plan. (DEIR at p. 5-34 to 5-35 (Table 5-4)) Alternative 3 would not be expected to substantially reduce or avoid any of the potentially significant and unavoidable effects of the mitigated New General Plan. Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would pose the same potential conflict with BAAQMD air quality planning efforts as the New General Plan (see DEIR at p.5-28). As explained in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR (see DEIR at p. 5-32), the slight decrease in development allowed under Alternative 3 would not be expected to result in a significant reduction in City-wide vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled, so the severity of the impact of Alternative 3 relating to traffic generation would be comparable to the severity of this impact under the New General Plan. Because Alternative 3 would be expected to generate slightly less non-residential development, but slightly more residential development, than the New General Plan, Alternative 3 would not be expected to avoid or substantially reduce the New General Plan's significant and unavoidable impact relating to the City's potable water supply deficit. (See DEIR at p. 5-33) Unlike the New General Plan, Alternative 3 would retain the current `Open-Space' designation for the entire Abernathy Site, which is located adjacent to Redwood Creek in an area vulnerable to a 16-inch rise in sea level. Because the New General Plan would re-designate a portion of the Abernathy Site (approximately 7.5 acres) for development, the New General Plan could be expected to result in slightly greater risks associated with rising sea level than Alternative 3. As explained in the DEIR, however, the risks associated with rising sea level depend to a significant extent on the increase in sea level. Existing studies indicate that sea level could increase up to 55 inches by the year 2100, and the areas in the City that may be vulnerable to flooding due to an increase of 16 inches (which could occur by the year 2050) extend well beyond the Abernathy Site and are already largely developed. The slight decrease in risks associated with rising sea level under Alternative 3 would not substantially reduce or avoid this significant impact, and so even under Alternative 3,this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 would be expected to achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to nearly the same degree as the New General Plan. To the extent that Alternative 3 is expected to produce slightly more housing and population growth, Alternative 3 would be ex p ected to achieve the City goals relating to housing availability to the same or a Yg g sli hti greater degree as the New General Plan. To the extent that Alternative 3 would g be expected to produce slightly fewer jobs and non-residential development, it would be expected to achieve the City's goals with respect to employment and economic growth to a slightly lesser degree as the New General Plan. Alternative 3 would implement all the ATTY/RESO/RESO.2055/ATTACHMENT1.A 3 7 1016110