My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2000-45
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
PC 2000-45
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:32:47 AM
Creation date
8/15/2001 6:14:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/9/2000
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2000-45
DOCUMENT NAME
CEQA Findings
NOTES
Bernal Property
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.