Laserfiche WebLink
agriculture may be limited by its proximify to the non-agricultural uses that surround <br /> <br /> d. The ECAP establishes an Urban Growth Boundary, outside of which <br />agriclfltural uses are appropriate and encouraged, but inside of which agricultural land <br />may be converted if consistent with overall ECAP policies. The project area is one of <br />the largest, centrally located, undeveloped sites within the East County Urban Growth <br />Boundary. This site is also within the Pleasanton Urban Growth Boundary, earmarked <br />for conversion to urban uses. <br /> <br /> e. The site is completely surrounded by urban uses and transportation elements <br />that hinder integration of the area with off-site agricultural operations. Utilizing the <br />site for intensive agricultural purposes would be difficult due to the site's remoteness <br />fxom other agricultural uses and location within an urban area. <br /> <br /> f. None of the alternatives considered in the EIR, except the No Project <br />Alternative, would avoid or reduce this 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 /> <br />]3. Transportation and Circulation <br /> <br />1. LlitP.~R~. Project traffic would contribute to t~eeway traffic volumes that exceed <br />acceptable levels on the regional transportation system. <br /> <br />Men~ure J3, Require the project sponsor to pay regional transportation impact fees, <br />when such fees are adopted by the Tri-Valley Council. <br /> <br /> Finding,: Specific economic, social; or other considerations make infeasible mitigation <br /> measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would reduce this <br />- impact to a loss than significant level. <br /> <br />Facts in Su~oort of Finding: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitisate the impact to a loss than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. The Project's compliance with Mitigation Measure J10, included in PUD <br />Condition , ensures that it contributes towards regional plans for transportation <br />improvements. The Project thus incorporates the feasible mitigation measure <br />recommended in the EIR. It is not possible for this one project or the City of <br />Pleasanton to solve the regional transportation impacts. This authority lies with the <br />Tri-Valley Transportation Commission and other state and regional agencies. The Tri- <br />Valley Council adopted the regional fees in September 1998. <br /> <br />52 <br /> <br /> <br />