Laserfiche WebLink
ALAMo-hA COUNTY <br />LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COlVIii3 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 99-01 <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br /> LAFCO FINDINGS AND EXPLANATION <br />PURSUANT TO CEQA AND CEQA GUIDELINES REGARDING <br />TIlE CITY OF PLEAS~ON <br /> HAPPY VALLEY ANNEXATION NO. 144 <br /> <br />As part of the Happy Valley Specific Plan and Related Planrang and Deveiopment Actions. <br />including. inter alia. General Plan Amendment. Specific Plan. Pre-zoning. and Annexation of lands <br />that would be affected by the above noted proposal. the City of Pleasanton, acung as lead agency. <br />prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) entitled "Environmental Impact Report for Happy <br />Valley Specific Plan and Related Pla.v, mng and Development Actions," State Cleannghouse No. <br />97032034. <br /> <br />The E~ among other things anajyzes the sigm~cant environmental impacts that could result from <br />the aforemenuoned discreuonary entitlemerits. The Alameda County Local Agency Formation <br />Commission finds that the EIR is adequate to satisfy the requirements related to its approval of this <br />change of organization involving the annexation of terntory. to the City of Pleasanton. and has been <br />prepared in compliance wnh the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA~ and State and local <br />CEQA Guidelines. The Finchrigs and Statements of the City of Pleasanton are incorporated herein <br />by reference. <br /> <br />The ?dameda County Local Agency Formation Corrm'assion has reviewed and considered. inter <br />alia. al the reformation contained in the E1R and other supporting documents. b) the LAFCo <br />Executive Officer's Report. and c/the City of Pleasanton's General and Specific Plan. <br /> <br />The EIR idenu~ed a ~hmber of sigm~cant environmental effects. rmtigat~on measures and project <br />altemauves. Except for al no project option as discussed below. ,:rod b~ rmtigat~on measures that <br />would be ~mplemented by approving this change of organization. each and every. change or <br />alterauon to the project as identified in the EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen the <br />sig'nificant effects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of agencies other than the Alameda <br />Count.',' Local Agency Formanon Cornnussion. These measures have been. or can and should be, <br />adopted by other agencies. <br /> <br />The Alameda County Local Agency Fortnation Corarmssion has only broad scope planning powers <br />relating to local governmental agency boundaries and lacks the power to control the specifics of a) <br />conditions of land use approvals. b) design of public works or infrastructure or. c] provisions of <br />local agency services or controls in a manner that could cause implementation of nmigation <br />measures or project altemaUves as may be specified by the EIR (except for the no project option and <br />mitigation measures implemented by approving the change of organization}. <br /> <br />The Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission finds that the no project alternative is <br />infeasible because it is in conflict with the City of Pleasanton's General Plan and Happy Valley <br />Specific Plan. <br /> <br />Page I of 2 <br /> <br /> <br />