AgdaPkt 2009-01-26 clsd and reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment 4 PEIR Process Summary Table: Step 1 of 2-Step General Plan The consultant agreement did not anticipate a 2-step General Plan process. Accomplishment of Step 1 would bring forward long-range planning for about 20,000 of the City's 21,000 Acres and is substantially similar in scope to a 1-step process for the sake of preparing a Programmatic EIR. Consequently, the PEIR Project and alternatives for Step 1 of a 2-step process would be very similar to the process presented in Attachment 3 for a 1- step process. The Project and alternatives would not include the Cargill salt crystallizers, but would leave this property in its existing configuration with Urban Reserve and Open Space designations until Step-2 can be accomplished. Policies included in the Step 1 General Plan elements would pertain to future Step 2 planning forthe Cargill Saltworks property and would provide direction for the Step-2 PEIR, as described in Attachment 5. For example, it is anticipated that policies about water supply, flood control, sea level rise, affordable housing, and other topics would be in place to guide the Step 2 work. Unlike the 1-step process, there would not be any consideration of an optional alternative relative to a development application for the Cargill Saltworks property. I Technical Models 2-Step Process - Step 1 Within EIR Scope = ,(; Outside EIR Scope = X PEIR - Project and Alternatives Land T Air GHG Use Traffic ' Quality Emissions Noise Other Project: The project description and all environmental analysis (e.g. land use, ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( population, geology, utilities. noise, etc.) will be based on the draft New General Plan and draft Land Use Study Map. The Cargill site would be held in its existing 1990 General Plan categories. I Two cumulative analyses could be conducted. The first would consist primarily of projects and growth associated with adjacent communities. The second would consider growth impacts associated with any proposal for the Cargill site and could be conducted only if more information from the ! developer is received. The second analvsis it out of the project scope. No Project Alternative: Year 2030 build out of existinq General Plan ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( Reduced Intensity (Environmentally Superior) Alternative: Land use ,( * X X X X designations would be substantially similar to project with decreases in I densities and intensities of some land use designations as compared to the I Project. I , Alternate Growth Strategies: The I I draft Land Use StUdy Map would allow ,( * X X X X for more change in land use I designations than the Project as well as i increases in densities and intensities of I some land use designations as compared to the Proiect. * One additional traffic model run is included in the scope of work. Which alternative it is used for ;s dependent upon results of the traffic model run for the Project condition. Cost for an additional run ;s anticipated to be about $15,000.