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