Laserfiche WebLink
b. None of the alternatives considered in the EIIL except the No Project <br />Alternative, would avoid or substantially lessen this impact. The commercial and <br />residential development levels propbs~ ~1er ~ach 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 /> <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 /> <br />2. !i~3l!!!tg.[~. Project traffic would cOntribute to cumulative traffic growth on the <br />regional transportation system. <br /> <br />Me~sure J10. Require the project sponsor to make a fair share contribution to regional <br />transportation improvements by paying impact fees, when such fees are adopted by the <br />Tri-Valley Council. <br /> <br />Fi~i~:' 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 />Facls in Suvoort of Finding,: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. This impact is the same as Impact J3 and the findings thereunder are <br /> incorporated by reference. Feasible Mitigation Measure J10 has been incorporated <br /> into the Project. <br /> <br /> b. None of the alternatives considered in the EIIL except the No Project <br /> Alternative, would avoid or substantially lessen this impact. The No Project <br /> Al~rnative is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsor's <br /> objectives nor would it fulfill any of the 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 /> 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 /> <br />53 <br /> <br /> <br />