RES 00111A - Laserfiche WebLink

III. UNAVOIDABLE, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS These findings identify those project impacts that, even with mitigation, cannot be reduced [o a less than significant level. These significant, unavoidable impacts aze acceptable when balanced against the considerations set forth below and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The infeasibility of alternatives (Cooperative Plan, the Preferred Plan, the No Golf Course Plan and the County adopted Specific Plan) analyzed in the EIR is discussed below. A. Land Use 1. Im acp t A3: Convetion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses Mitieation Measure: None. Findine: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Suooort of Finding: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. a. By definition, if a soil meets the Soil Conversation Service's criteria for designation as prime farmland, removal or disruption of that land constitutes a significant, adverse impact. Because approximately 500 out of 510 acres on the Bernal Property site are designated as prime agricultural farmland, implementation of the GHCBI Project, both at the project and cumulative level, cannot avoid [his outcome. b. Converting the land's use from that of agriculture [o one of an urban nature has been anticipated in the City's planning process since 1965, when the Genera] Plan proposed the site be developed with industrial uses. In 1986, the newly revised General Plan designated the Bernal Property as "Specific Plan", allowing for development of the site in mixed use. I[ is not possible to develop the property with a mixed use development and preserve any agricultural use of the site given the incompatibility ofagricultural uses with urban residential, commercial and currently unplanned future public uses. Pleasanton adopted a finding of overriding consideration for converting this azea to urbanized uses in 1996 as it adopted its General Plan. c. The Alameda County EIR, prepared in 1995 for the Bernal Property Specific Plan proposed in that time, includes a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the East County Area Plan (ECAP). While the ECAP typically considers the conversion of prime agricultural lands a significant, adverse impact, it also recognizes 52