My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2006-21
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
PC 2006-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:37:30 AM
Creation date
10/2/2007 12:52:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/26/2007
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2006-21
DOCUMENT NAME
BERNAL PROPERTY PHASE II SPECIFIC PLAN/ COMM PARK
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Alternative 4: No Development <br />Descriution <br />The Bernal Property Phase II Specific Plan area in its current condition comprises the no <br />development alternative. <br />Findige: Infeasible <br />This alternative is infeasible because a no development alternative would fail to make <br />responsible use of a site that was acquired by the City for public use purposes. It would <br />not comply with the direction of Pleasanton's General Plan to prepare and implement a <br />Specific Plan for the development of the site, and it would fail to apply the directive <br />given by Pleasanton's City Council, City commissions, and the community to pursue <br />development on the Phase II site that would be "accessible by and to the public" consis- <br />tent with Pleasanton Measure V, the Pleasanton Bernal Initiative, of November 2002. <br />Alternative Proieet Site <br />An alternative location was not assessed because such an analysis is not warranted for a <br />specific plan project. <br />Summary of Findin¢s Relative to Alternatives <br />Section 15126(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires identification of the <br />environmentally superior alternative. <br />The EIR consideration of alternatives found that Alternative 3 (No Project) and <br />Alternative 4 (No Development) would be infeasible and, therefore, incapable of <br />mitigating the significant impacts identified for the Project. <br />The EIR did not find Alternatives 1 and 2 infeasible. The array of impacts they would <br />generate is similar in character and extent to those of the Project. In particular, the <br />Project, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would all result in the same set of significant and <br />unavoidable impacts on agriculture and on transportation. <br />All of the other impacts associated with Alternative I and Alternative 2 are capable of <br />mitigation via the same kinds of measures as those proposed for the Project, and the <br />mitigation measures for these Alternatives 1 and 2 are as likely as those proposed for the <br />Project of being incorporated into a Specific Plan. <br />Therefore, while the effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 that would arise from the different <br />mixes and locations of uses described above would differ from those of the Project, the <br />differences are not so significant as to mandate a conclusion that Alternative I or 2 is <br />environmentally superior to the Project. <br />Bernal Property Phase II Specific Plan and Bernal Community Park Master Plan <br />Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.