Laserfiche WebLink
That having been said, the question for the decisionmakers is whether it is preferable, in <br />determining which alternatives to study, to start with the 1996 General Plan (and its <br />assumptions) or to start with the existing street network/land uses, before considering changes to <br />the street network. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS <br /> <br />Both processes will result in an environmental document that compares the impacts of the <br />existing General Plan with the impacts of alternative General Plans. This is required under <br />CEQA and would be legally sufficient from a CEQA point of view. If, however, under Option <br />B certain street network changes shown in 1996 General Plan are not added for analysis, the <br />analysis of the 1996 General Plan at buildout will still need to be included; that potentially <br />could lengthen the process. <br /> <br />Staff is seeking direction at this workshop for which process to follow. Should the Council <br />select Option A, it should schedule a series of workshops as outlined below: <br /> <br /> A. Option A. <br /> <br /> i. Additional discussion on street widenings and extensions. <br /> <br /> 2. LOS Model Runs (Step 2, above). <br /> <br /> 3. Iterative Solutions and Mitigations (Step 3, above). <br /> <br />Should the Council select Option B, the following topics would need to be discussed at the <br />future workshops: <br /> <br /> B. Option B <br /> <br /> 1. Presentation of existing traffic conditions (from 2003 Baseline Traffic <br /> Report). <br /> <br /> 2. Direction to staff on what street and land use changes to add to existing <br /> conditions, to be examined at a future workshop. <br /> <br />3. Steps 2 and 3, as outlined in Option A <br /> <br />4. Comparison of results to 1996 General Plan. <br /> <br />SR 05:034 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />