PC-92-66 - Laserfiche WebLink

Section 2: Findings Concerning Alternatives The City Council hereby finds that the following alternatives, identified and described in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be infeasible for the following specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(c). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This alternative would involve denial of the project and leaving the site as undeveloped open space. The FEIR notes that the No Project Alternative would likely be an interim condition, as market demand and development pressure would lead to another development request. FEIR pages 11-1, 11-2. Finding: infeasible. This option assumes that the project as proposed would not be built on the site. The No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: 1. The City's General Plan has designated residential development to occur on part of the site. The permanent retention of the entire site in open space is thus inconsistent with adopted City policy for this site. 2. With the proposed project, most of the site would be retained as open space, as documented in the FEIR. Thus, the project incorporates substantial protection of land as open space, while meeting the City's General Plan residential land use objectives for the site. RESIDENTIAL / NO GOLF COURSE ALTERNATIVE With this option, the golf course would be deleted from the project, while the residential component would be retained. This alternative would have the same number of units. Traffic generation would be reduced due to the elimination of golf course trips. Visual impacts associated with the golf course would be reduced. Vegetation and wildlife impacts would be substantially redu~ed, with a reduction of 58 acres in tree loss in comparison with the applicant's plan. Water supply and geology/soils impacts would also be reduced. However, there would be no beneficial impacts regarding golf course recreational benefits. FEIR pages 11-2. Findin~: infeasible. It is in the City's interest to provide an additional golf course in this location. There is a demonstrated demand for this additional golf course, as documented on page 7-15 of the FEIR. The FEIR notes that there are not enough public or private golf courses to satisfy the demand of the golfers in the area. FEIR page 7-15. MITIGATED SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE. FEIR page 11-3. With this alternative, about 98 lots are included, and the golf course is deleted. The removal of the golf course, coupled with other mitigation measures, would reduce the impact on trees to an insignificant level. Land use and planning concerns would be similar to the proposed project, in terms of general conversion of the site from grazing use to residential development. Traffic 19 II . I _