RES 09265 - Laserfiche WebLink

review period began on April 16, 2008 and ended on June 4, 2008. In addition to the comments received at a public hearing conducted by the City Planning Commission on May 14, 2008, comment letters were submitted by various public agencies and organizations. Responses to all comments received were prepared and included in the Final EIR (Responses to Comments document), which was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the guidelines for implementation of CEQA. Additional public concerns regarding Stoneridge Drive prompted the City to hold a special meeting on February 24, 2009 on the issue of whether Stoneridge Drive should be extended as part of the project consistent with the General Plan and the existing Specific Plan, or whether the Specific Plan should be amended to delay extension of Stoneridge Drive. After receiving public comments on the issue, the City approved the project without an amendment to the Specific Plan that would have delayed extension of Stoneridge Drive. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE EIR During the preparation of the EIR for the proposed Project, the City evaluated several alternatives. A description and a finding for each alternative are presented below. No Project Alternative (No Build) Description The existing Project Area would remain as it currently exists. None of the project components (i.e., auto mall, senior continuing care community, commercial center, community park, and neighborhood park/detention basin) would be constructed. With the No Project Alternative, the existing Project Area would remain undeveloped, thereby failing to satisfy the project objective to develop the site with economically beneficial land uses. It is unlikely that the Project Area would remain undeveloped far into the future, since development of the area has already been approved as part of the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan; however, in the short term for the purposes of this alternative, the area would remain unbuilt. Finding: Infeasible By preventing development of the Project Area, the No Project Alternative would avoid or substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project to aesthetics and visual quality, air quality, and traffic. This alternative is infeasible, however, because it is inconsistent with the City's planning goals. A no development alternative would fail to make responsible use of a site that has been planned by the City for urban uses for almost 20 years. It would not comply with the direction of Pleasanton's General Plan for urban uses of the project site and would fail to substantially implement a Specific Plan that has already been approved by the City. Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment and Staples Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 of 47