My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-92-66
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC-92-66
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:56 AM
Creation date
5/4/2005 2:38:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/22/1992
DOCUMENT NO
PC-92-66
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-91-13
NOTES
CHANG SU-O LIN
NOTES 3
122 SF HOMES/18-HOLE GOLF COURSE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
<br />Section 2: Findings Concerning Alternatives <br /> <br />The City Council hereby finds that the following alternatives, identified and described in the Final <br />EIR, were considered and are found to be infeasible for the following specific economic, social, <br />or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(c). <br /> <br />NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />This alternative would involve denial of the project and leaving the site as undeveloped open <br />space. The FEIR notes that the No Project Alternative would likely be an interim condition, as <br />market demand and development pressure would lead to another development request. FEIR pages <br />11-1, 11-2. <br /> <br />Finding: infeasible. This option assumes that the project as proposed would not be built <br />on the site. The No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. The City's General Plan has designated residential development to occur on part <br />of the site. The permanent retention of the entire site in open space is thus <br />inconsistent with adopted City policy for this site. <br /> <br />2. With the proposed project, most of the site would be retained as open space, as <br />documented in the FEIR. Thus, the project incorporates substantial protection of <br />land as open space, while meeting the City's General Plan residential land use <br />objectives for the site. <br /> <br />RESIDENTIAL / NO GOLF COURSE ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />With this option, the golf course would be deleted from the project, while the residential <br />component would be retained. This alternative would have the same number of units. Traffic <br />generation would be reduced due to the elimination of golf course trips. Visual impacts associated <br />with the golf course would be reduced. Vegetation and wildlife impacts would be substantially <br />redu~ed, with a reduction of 58 acres in tree loss in comparison with the applicant's plan. Water <br />supply and geology/soils impacts would also be reduced. However, there would be no beneficial <br />impacts regarding golf course recreational benefits. FEIR pages 11-2. <br /> <br />Finding:: infeasible. It is in the City's interest to provide an additional golf course in this <br />location. There is a demonstrated demand for this additional golf course, as documented <br />on page 7-15 of the FEIR. The FEIR notes that there are not enough public or private golf <br />courses to satisfy the demand of the golfers in the area. FEIR page 7-15. <br /> <br />MITIGATED SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE. FEIR page 11-3. <br /> <br />With this alternative, about 98 lots are included, and the golf course is deleted. The removal of <br />the golf course, coupled with other mitigation measures, would reduce the impact on trees to an <br />insignificant level. Land use and planning concerns would be similar to the proposed project, in <br />terms of general conversion of the site from grazing use to residential development. Traffic <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />II I I . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.