SR 05:205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Selection of the Preferred Plan The City Council, at its meeting of June 21, 2005, generally chose Site Plan "Option l" (with the ACE train station removed) as its preferred plan. It is that plan that will be the "project" addressed in the Phase II Bemal Specific Plan EIR. Although the Council has given clear direction for the content of the Specific Plan, it is recognized that the Plan will be implemented over many years and that not all uses would be developed in the near term. Detailed planning (scale, specific siting, features) of uses to be developed in future years will take place at the time development of those uses is ready to proceed. The Specific Plan is intended to permit some flexibility with respect to these future uses so that changes not basic to the Plan as a whole can occur without requiring a citizens' vote on each such change Alternatives The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental impact reports (EIRs) consider alternatives to a proposed project. The alternatives considered should be capable of reducing the impacts associated with the proposed project. Some alternatives are called for, or implied in, State law: · No action alternative. The "no action" alternative is no development, which leaves the site in its existing condition. This alternative is needed as the basis of the environmental analysis, so that the EIR can provide a comparison between the plan and the existing condition (rather than just a comparison of the outcomes of multiple plans). · No project alternative. In this case, the "no project" is the Phase I Specific Plan, which is the partial planning direction for the site already established. · Alternative location. For a typical development project, an EIR normally considers a different location for the project, especially in cases where the same project would have fewer or less severe impacts, or both, if located at a different site. In this case, consideration of an alternative location would not contribute to the consideration of the project's environmental effects because the rationale underlying the project is the City's ownership of this site, central to the population of Pleasanton and adjacent to the downtown. There is no equivalent undeveloped site elsewhere in Pleasanton, and there is no other site in City ownership that can serve the same functions at a central location. Therefore, the EIR need not provide a detailed environmental analysis of an alternative location: a different site for Option 1 would not serve the purposes of the project. Other alternatives could be delineated based on principles or directions that were considered in the planning process that culminated in the selection of Option 1 as the preferred plan. It is suggested that these alternatives be defined by the City Council in terms of major conceptual differences fxom the preferred plan. Bem,~d Property/ Proposal Phase Il Specit~c Pla. £IR Page 3 Mundie & ~ssociates