CCMIN081605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen did not believe any extra alternatives would be evaluated during the EIR process. He noted that CEQA guidelines do not state how many alternatives need to be evaluated; however, the two alternatives as mentioned in the staff report need to be evaluated. Staff believed it was not necessary to go beyond the two minimum alternatives. He did not believe less than the two alternatives would be acceptable. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that Alternative 1 included the Dog Park next to the agricultural area, which was not a compatible use. Mr. Rasmussen noted that the Dog Park could be relocated if that was Council's desire. Ms. McGovern asked how much flexibility is allowed with each of the alternatives once the EIR has been conducted. She asked if Council's preferred alternative needed to be set in stone now as opposed to after the completion of the EIR? Mr. Rasmussen noted the EIR allows Council flexibility because the EIR needs to evaluate the various uses that will be going into the final adopted plan. Since the entire list of potential uses have been included and will be evaluated in the EIR process, Council could pick and choose from any of these. If an EIR is conducted on Council's Preferred Plan, Ms. McGovern asked if Council would be allowed to change the Preferred Plan by either removing or adding particular uses? Mr. Rasmussen said yes as the uses would have been covered in the alternatives. Ms. McGovern noted that an overall description for the west basin was not included in the alternatives. She asked if would be appropriate for Council make changes at a later date? Mr. Rasmussen said yes and noted that the intent is to expand the wetland area that surrounds both storm water detention basins. If Council decided to select the Preferred Plan concept, Mr. Thorne asked if the lacrosse fields could be moved to the location where the athletic fields are shown and replaced with tennis courts? Mr. Rasmussen said yes and some of the changes that Council is discussing were not significant. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. There being no public comments, she closed the public comments. Mr. Fialho suggested that the issue of the incompatibility of the Dog Park be handled through the EIR process because any more changes made to the plans cost money to institute. It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Mr. Thorne, to direct City staff and envlornmental consultants to evaluate the four EIR alternatives as outlined in the staff report. Pleasanton City Council 24 08/16/05 Minutes