SR 05:034 - Laserfiche WebLink

-/ow intensity alternative, full General Plan street network; - East Side Property owners' alternative, without the West Las Positas Boulevard interchange and without the Stoneridge Drive extension; and - Hacienda Transit-Oriented Specific Plan option using the full General Plan street network without the West Las Positas Boulevard intemhange. Step 3 - Iterative Solutons/Mifigations The model runs described in Step 2 will provide enough information to consider street network and land use alternatives, as well a potential policy changes, in Step 3. These new alternatives will be directed by the City Council after input from the Planning Commission and the public. At this time we would also consider specific intersections and/or routes to build mitigations into the model runs, such as modifications to intersection configurations and traffic-calming measures. THE ROLE OF CEQA One of the issues concerning what process should be followed is whether it is necessary legally to use the 1996 General Plan at buildout at all. The answer, under CEQA, is yes. CEQA requires a lead agency to select a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project," with the reasoning for that decision disclosed publicly. 14 CCR §15126.6(a) (the CEQA Guidelines). The alternatives should include those that "could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." 14 CCR § 15126.6(c). An EIR does not have to consider every conceivable alternative. 14 CCR § 15126.6(a). However, the lead agency is required to evaluate the "no project" alternative. This evaluation allows the decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. In the context of a General Plan Update, the "no project" alternative is the continuation of the existing 1996 General Plan into the future. See 14 CCR 15126.6(e)(3)(A). The "no project" alternative is not necessarily the description of the "baseline" environmental setting, which is also required in an EIR and describes the existing physical environmental conditions at the time the EIR notice of preparation is published. 14 CCR §15125(a). Accordingly, the EIR for the General Plan Update would need to include a discussion of a "no project" alternative that would assume that the 1996 General Plan remains in effect. This discussion would allow the decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the General Plan Update with the impacts of leaving the 1996 General Plan in place. SR 05:034 Page 5