SR 06:142 - Laserfiche WebLink

Finding: Infeasible This alternative is infeasible because a no development alternative would fail to make responsible use of a site that was acquired by the City for public use purposes. It would not comply with the direction of Pleasant on's General Plan to prepare and implement a Specific Plan for the development of the site, and it would fail to apply the directive given by Pleasanton's City Council, City commissions, and the community to pursue development on the Phase II site that would be "accessible by and to the public" consis- tent with Pleasanton Measure V, the Pleasanton Bernal Initiative, of November 2002. Alternative Proiect Site An alternative location was not assessed because such an analysis is not warranted for a specific plan project. Summarv of Findinl!s Relatinl! to Alternatives Section 15 I 26( e )(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The EIR consideration of alternatives found that Alternative 3 (No Project) and Alternative 4 (No Development) would be infeasible and, therefore, incapable of mitigating the significant impacts identified for the Project. The EIR did not find Alternatives 1 and 2 infeasible. The array of impacts they would generate is similar in character and extent to those of the Project. In particular, the Project, Alternative I, and Alternative 2 would all result in the same set of significant and unavoidable impacts on agriculture and on transportation. All of the other impacts associated with Alternative I and Altemative 2 are capable of mitigation via the same kinds of measures as those proposed for the Project, and the mitigation measures for these Alternatives 1 and 2 are as likely as those proposed for the Project of being incorporated into a Specific Plan. Therefore, while the effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 that would arise from the different mixes and locations of uses described above would differ from those of the Project, the differences are not so significant as to mandate a conclusion that Alternative 1 or 2 is environmentally superior to the Project. For these reasons, the Project, Alternative I, and Alternative 2 may equally be seen as environmentally superior alternatives. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR This section presents the Project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code Bernal Property Phase II Specific Plan and Bernal Community Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9 of 23