Reso 2002-064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 3 FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, No Development, Housing Emphasis, and Industrial Emphasis. The City Council hereby finds that the four alternatives identified and described in the EIR were considered and finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 210$1(c). NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR pp. V-S-V-7. Finding_ Infeasible. This alternative allows development to continue under the existing general plan. Although it would avoid all the environmental impacts of the project, the no-project alternative is found to be infeasible because it does not consider existing (and emerging) public policy issues in the City. The current Land Use Diagram is outdated and does not provide the guidance needed to lead the City into the 21st Century. The Plan's horizon year (2000) has already passed, and the update is needed to ensure the plan remains legally defensible. Maintaining the current plan could present an obstacle to achieving the goals and visions articulated by San Leandro residents incorporated into this Plan Update. NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. DEIR pp V-7-V-. Finding_Infeasible. This alternative, required to be analyzed by CEQA, assumes that no change in the physical setting for the project will occur . Preventing further development, this alternative would eliminate environmental impacts that would occur under the Project, such as transportation, air quality, and noise. However, the No Development alternative could have unintended negative consequences, particularly at the regional level. Moreover, this alternative would hamper the City in its basic goals and visions for the future, and create hardships for the community and its residents. Without new economic activity, local revenue sources could be adversely affected, and new job and housing opportunities could be lost. Only with regional policies to support this approach could its environmental benefits be realized. HOUSING EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE. DEIlZ pp. V-8-V-10. Finding: Infeasible. This alternative assumes that the major opportunities or new development and reuse of existing sites are devoted to housing opportunities. However, the GPAC considered housing at the various sites analyzed in this alternative and rejected them because they did not respond to the overall goals of the committee when compared to alternative land uses. Conflicting goals included the desire to create high-quality employment opportunities, to stimulate economic growth in certain areas, to avoid conflicts between residential uses and nonresidential uses, and to avoid further. overcrowding in local schools. INDUSTRIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATNE. DEIR pp. V-11-V-13. Finding: Infeasible. This alternative assumes that the major opportunities or new development and reuse of existing sites are devoted to fostering traditional industrial