PC 2006-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternative 3: No Proiect Description An EIR is required to consider a "no project" alternative. In the case of the Phase II Specific Plan for the Bernal Property, the no project alternative does not equate to a lack of development in the Specific Plan area, but to development in accordance with the previous plan for the area: the Bernal Property Phase I Specific Plan, which provided initial land use designations for Phase II lands. The Phase I land use designations were similaz to those of Phase II with two exceptions: Golf: In the Western Area, the lands in Phase II sub-areas I 1 through 16 that are designated for open space and other public uses are designated for "Potential Golf Course" in the Phase I land use diagram. Residential: In the Central Area, lands in Phase II sub-area 3 and part of sub-area 6 that aze designated for open space are designated for "Optional Residential" in the Phase I land use diagram. Finding: Infeasible The City finds that it is infeasible to implement Alternative 3 because, subsequent to the adoption of the Bernal Property Phase I Specific Plan, the possibility of adopting a plan for the Phase II Specific Plan area that incorporates either golf or residential use or both has been impeded or eliminated by subsequent events: Golf: Pleasanton has developed a municipal golf course in the Happy Valley area that opened for play in 2005. As a consequence of the decision to proceed with that course, the importance of golf on the Bernal Property diminished and direction given by the City Council, City commissions and citizen task forces became more focused on other kinds of public uses. Residential: Measure V (citizens' initiative, November 2002; see Draft Specific Plan Appendix 1) mandates the permanent retention of the Bernal Property Phase II planning area under ownership by the City of Pleasanton and prohibits constmction of housing within the 318-acre azea. A no project alternative would return the site to the planning direction given in the Bernal Property Phase I Specific Plan. That planning direction was incomplete with respect to the Phase II lands. In addition, public initiatives and other City actions since the adoption of the Phase I Specific Plan in 2000 have created significant barriers to the implementa- tion of some of the uses contemplated by the Phase I Specific Plan. Alternative 3 is, therefore, concluded to be infeasible. Bernal Property Phase II Specific Plan and Bernal Community Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 8 of 24