Laserfiche WebLink
43 Alternatives Ana!yzed,' 1 the OR <br />4.3.1 - No Prof ect Alternative:. Existing q Coniditions <br />u" �ri. niia�.r�rrn�i.r�.>_ <br />Deseription .of the Alternative This alternative would involve maintaining <br />�iir. irtrwii.inw.iinnnnwiwu.�i�.ui�� <br />existing conditions by curtailing all development on the Pro ` ect site.. The roe would <br />� property �_ <br />remain as open space. None of the proposed infrastructure improvements would be <br />made. <br />Cone arson. of the Alternative to the Pro j ect: This alternative would result in <br />slight reductions in most e nvironmental <br />impacts when cony Proj ect. No aced to the Proj <br />p p j <br />additional cumulative impacts to traffic, biologylecology, air or water quality would result <br />from this alternative. , If the Project site were not developed, additional people would not <br />be exposed to seismic risk (at least, not at this site. <br />Because the Project site could be* developed for office space under existing <br />approvals, including the existing development agreement, however, .it is not feasible to <br />maintain the site as open space.. Furthermore, this alternative would not .meet an y of the <br />Project objectives. The City's plans for the Redwood Peninsula incorporate a range of <br />uses, including office uses, in order to ensure that the City's n p 's tax base and e to rnent <br />y <br />opportunities are sufficient. If the .Project site remained undeve the Cit General <br />p �' <br />Plan would not be implemented, <br />The City hereby finds that the No Project (Existing Conditions) alternative .is <br />environmentally superior to the Project. The C i t y further finds, however, that this <br />alternative is infeasible and would net meet the obj ectives of the P ro' ect, <br />4.3.E No Pro' ect Alternative; .Devclo �'nrsuant to Existia ARProv als <br />DescriRtion of. the Alternative; In addition to the No Project (Existing <br />Conditions) alternative, CEQA also requires a discussion of „ what would be reasona <br />expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on <br />c urrent plans - md consistent with the a infrastructure and co. aunity services," <br />(CEQA Guidelines, § 15.1264) This alternative would involve the develop of the <br />Project site pursuant to existing plans and approvals. <br />If the Project were not approved, the project site could be developed in a mann <br />consistent with an existing d - lopment agreement between the City.and Redwood <br />.Shores Properties ("RSP"'), which was a roved :b the City* 1982. RSP has assi ed <br />pp gn <br />:its rights under that development agreement to develop up to 885,00 0 s oars feet of <br />q <br />off ce space on the Project site to the Project applicant. Without the Project approvals, <br />however, the office carnpus configuration guration would not be possible. The existin master <br />g <br />plan included 35-foot high professional off ce buildings fiGnmediately adjacent to the <br />o- <br />FNDNGP 1.DOC <br />5130/96 10:51.AM <br />