RES 02030 - Laserfiche WebLink

On March 8, 2001, the City convened a public scoping meeting to address the potential impacts on the environment. Numerous comments were received through the NOP and public scoping process. A report summarizing the comments received at the meeting was prepared and made available on the Ci~ of Pleasanton's website. Based partially on the NOP and public scoping process, the City prepared an EIR. which was published on August 17, 2001. The CEQA-mandated 45-day public review period began on August 17, 2001. and ended on October 2, 2001. In addition to the comments received at a public hearing conducted by the City Planmng Commission on September 26. 2001, eight comment len~rs were ~ubmined by various individuals. organizations, and public agencies. Responses to all comments received were prepared and included in the Final EIR which was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the guidelines for implementation of CEQA. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE EIR During the preparation of the EIR for the proposed prqject, the City evaluated several alternatives, including a no-project alternative. An alternative loc~tion was not assessed because such an analysis is not warranted for a specific plan prqiect. Section 15126(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires identification of the environmentally superior altemative. In this EIR, the environmentally superior alternative would be ~he Proposed Specific Plan. A description and a finding for each alternative are presented below. Alternative 1: No Project Description Because the Proposed Specific Plan would update an existing planned area. eliminating the Specific Plan would not equate to a lack of development in the Specific Plan Area. In the long term, development similar to the Proposed Specific Plan would likely occur in accordance w/th the 1989 Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan. although at a slightly higher density. Therefore, the long-term impacts of this alternative are similar to those reported for the Proposed Specific Plan. It is prqjected that this alternative would result in slightly increased traffic congestion and unmet demand for parking. As described in Chapter 4 of the EIR. the Proposed Specific Plan results in slightly less development potential than exiting conditions and includes provisions for servicing unmet parking demand. Finding: Infeasible The Ci~ finds that it is infeasible to implement Alternative 1 because it is not consistent with the recommendations developed by the Downtown Specific Plan Committee. This Committee undertook a thorough review of the 1989 Downtown Specific Plan Area and the surrounding residemial neighborhoods and formulated preliminary recommendations Downtown Specific Plan EIR Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideranons Page 3 of 9