Laserfiche WebLink
The No Project Alternative <br />Description <br />An EIR is required to consider a "No Project" alternative. In the case of the Oak Grove <br />Planned Unit Development, the no project scenario takes as its starting point the <br />existing planning designation applicable to the site. As described in the DEIR, the <br />562-acre site carries two designations: On the 489-acres within the Urban Growth <br />Boundary (UGB), the designation is Rural Density Residential (RDR), which allows no <br />more than one dwelling unit per five gross acres, or 98 dwelling units. On the 73 acres <br />outside the UGB, the designation is Public Health and Safety, which allows no <br />development other than asingle-family dwelling unit on existing private lots of record. <br />(There is no existing lot of record for this area.) <br />The Oak Grove Planned Unit Development is consistent with the level of development <br />the General Plan contemplates as the Original Project proposes exactly the maximum <br />number of residential units that the General Plan allows. The No Project Alternative <br />would be a project similarly consistent with the General Plan (i.e., a residential project of <br />98 units) but possibly configured in a different manner from the Original Project. <br />A project of 98 units of a different design to the Original project has the theoretical <br />potential of serving as the no project alternative. Such a project, however, could require <br />an extensive road network that, together with water lines, sewer lines, and provisions for <br />drainage, would be not only expensive to the applicant but also undesirable and <br />burdensome to the City as well as involving environmental impacts that could not be <br />mitigated. <br />Finding Infeasible <br />Implementing the No Project Altemative would be inconsistent with the direction of the <br />Pleasanton General Plan, which calls for preserving large blocks of open space land by <br />encouraging the clustering of development (Program 4.4) and for using clustered <br />development as one of a number of site planning and design techniques to minimize <br />impacts to water quality, including minimizing land disturbance, minimizing impervious <br />surfaces, preserving open space, and maintaining riparian areas with buffer zones to <br />reduce runoff into waterways (Program 17.4). Further, with a project of 98 lots, in the <br />potential absence of significant clustering, the environmental impacts of such an <br />alternative could be less susceptible to mitigation. The No Project alternative is, <br />therefore, found to be infeasible. <br />The No Development Alternative <br />Description <br />The Oak Grove Planned Unit Development site in its current condition comprises the no <br />development alternative. <br />Page 9 of 45 <br />