RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

With regard to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor, this area has been subject to extensive swdy, reflected in the large number of land use subalternatives to the existing General Plan DEIR: six alternatives to the existing General Plan for the Corridor were addressed, deriving respectively from the General Plan Steering Committee (GPSC) recommendation, the GPSC minority report, the earlier "Vineyard Village" plan, a plan representing property owners' preferences, a plan reflecting staffs composite of planning concepts for the area, and an alternative GPSC minority report. The presentation in the General.Plan DEIR Chapter 4 makes it . clear that these alternatives are being given pl;mning-Ievel CEQA consideration: "The review presented in this chapter is at the General Plan level. Where potential impacts are identified, mitigation in some cases is recommended to be specified at that future time when a particular project or improvement is further defined and proposed for implementation." (DEIR, p. 105) The fact that full mitigation of potential featureS of a particular Vineyard A venue Corridor subalternative is not specified in the General Plan EIR simply reflects the fact that the General Plan EIR is addressed to planning-level concerns, and specifically to the issue of which of the seven subalternatives to the existing condition (shown in Figure 11 of the DEIR) should be made part of the 1996 General Plan. The narrative descriptions of these subalternatives indicate that Vineyard A venue would be proposed for realignment under Subalternatives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. A conceptual realignment is shown in the Response to Comments document as Figure 17 (p. 15). It is appropriate for a conceptual realignment to be described at the General Plan and General Plan ElR stage; it is also appropriate, and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, to provide detailed CEQA review at a subsequent stage once a specific realignment project is defmed. While realignment of Vineyard A venue is ~icated as a feature of Subaltematives 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it is by no means the only characteristic in which these subalternatives differ from the existing General Plan (or each other). As DEIR Table 20 (p. 133) illustrates, the housing unit counts of these subaltematives vary widely over a range from 90 to 700 new units, and as Figure 11 (pages 135 and 138) shows, the land use designations vary in use, extent, and location. Decisions on land use would have to be 5