ORD 1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Finding: Infeasible The Oak Grove site is designated fo General Plan. As noted above in the reasonably be assumed that, if the alternative proposal would be brought feasible alternative under CEQA. r residential development under the Pleasanton discussion of the "no project" scenario, it may current proposal should not be approved, an forward. No development is, therefore, not a Alternative Proiect Site A custom lot project on vacant land in Pleasanton may be possible at another site, but no site that has the physical, locational, and planning characteristics of the Oak Grove site -its size, its residential/rural density designation, and its location at the City's rural edge -has been identified. While a 98-unit project could conceivably be built at a site not on the edge of the City, a more centrally-located site is likely designated for higher density than the rural residential density that applies to this site. The combination of the General Plan designation, the size of the site, and the location make this site unusual (possibly unique) among Pleasanton's current inventory of residential sites. CEQA does not call for consideration of "an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 (f)(3)). Further, an alternative site would not meet any of the objectives of the project sponsor, primary among which is the development of this site. Finding: Infeasible For the reasons stated above, an alternative site is not considered a feasible alternative. Summary of Findings Relation to Alternatives CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The EIR consideration of alternatives found that the No Project Alternative, No Development Alternative, and Alternative 3 would be infeasible and, therefore, incapable of mitigating the significant impacts identified for the Project. The EIR found Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 to be feasible. The array of impacts they would generate is similar in character and extent to those of the Original Project. In particular, the Original Project, and Alternative 1 and 2 would all result in the same significant and unavoidable impact on transportation. Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the Original Project and to Alternatives 1 and 2 because its pre-mitigation environmental impacts are of a lesser degree than those of the other site plans. The reduction in impacts is the consequence primarily of Exhibit A Page 10 of 45 Ordinance No. 1961 PUD-33, Oak Grove