Laserfiche WebLink
regional transportation impacts. This authority lies with the Tri-Valley Transportation <br />Commission and other state and regional agencies. The Tri-Valley Council adopted <br />the regional fees in September 1998. <br />b. None of the altematives considered in the EIR, except the No Project <br />Altemative, would avoid or substantially lessen this impact. The commercial and <br />residential development levels proposed under each alternative would generate traffic <br />levels that would result in the same impact. The No Project Alternative is rejected <br />because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsor's objectives nor would it fulfill <br />any of the City's objectives for this site, including provision of additional housing, <br />open space, affordable housing, an elementary school site and public improvements. <br />c. Pleasanton adopted a finding of overriding considerations in approving its <br />1996 General Plan for impacts growth would have on regional transportation systems. <br />This project is consistent with the planned growth contemplated at that time. <br />2. Impact J 10. Project traffic would contribute to cumulative traffic growth on the <br />regional transportation system. <br />Mitieation Measure: <br />Measure JI O. Require the project sponsor to make a fair share contribution to regional <br />transportation improvements by paying impact fees, when such fees aze adopted by the <br />Tri-Valley Council. <br />Findine: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible project <br />alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would reduce this impact to a less than <br />significant level. <br />Facts in Sunoort of Findine: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. <br />a. This impact is the same as Impact J3 and the findings thereunder aze <br />incorporated by reference. Feasible Mitigation Measure J10 has been incorporated <br />into the GHCBI Project. <br />b. None of the alternatives considered in the EIR, except the No Project <br />Altemative, would avoid or substantially lessen this impact.'Che No Project <br />Altemative is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsoi s <br />objectives nor would it fulfill any ofthe City's objectives for this site, including <br />provision of additional housing, open space, affordable housing, an elementary school <br />site and public improvements. <br />54 <br />