RES 00111A - Laserfiche WebLink

the geographical isolation of [he Bernal Property from other agricultural uses. The ECAP acknowledges that, "in spite of this area's prime soil desigtation, its value for agriculture may be limited by its proximity to the non-agricultural uses that surround it." d. The ECAP establishes an Urban Growth Boundary, outside of which agricultural uses aze appropriate and encouraged, but inside of which agricultural land may be converted if consistent with overall ECAP policies. The project area is one of the largest, centrally located, undeveloped sites within the East County Urban Growth Boundary. This site is also within the Pleasanton Urban Growth Boundary, earmarked for conversion to urban uses. e. The site is completely surrounded by urban uses and transportation elements that hinder integration of the area with off-site agricultural operations. Utilizing the site for intensive agricultural purposes would be difficult due to the site's remoteness from other agricultural uses and location within an urban area. E None of the alternatives considered in the EIR, except [he No Project Alternative, would avoid or reduce this impact. The No Project Alternative is rejected because i[ would not meet any of the Project Sponsor's objectives nor would it fulfill any of [he City's objectives for this site, including provision of additional housing, open space, affordable housing, an elementary school site, and public improvements. B. Transportation and Circulation 1. Impact J3. Project traffic would contribute to freeway traffic volumes that exceed acceptable levels on the regional transportation system. Mitieation Measure: Measure J3. Require the project sponsor to pay regional transportation impact fees, when such fees are adopted by the Tri-Valley Council. Findine: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts demonsrrate that it is not feasible to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. a. The GHCBI Project's compliance with Mitigation Measure J10, included in PUD Condition _ and Specific Plan Transportation Improvement Policy 5, Guideline 5.1, ensures that it contributes [owazds regional plans for transportation improvements. The GHCBI Project thus incorporates the feasible mitigation measure recommended in the EIR. It is no[ possible for this one project or the City of Pleasanton [o solve the 53