Laserfiche WebLink
Me~ure QI. None. <br /> <br />FAlllli~: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation <br />me~ures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. <br /> <br />Facts_ in S _ ~u~x~ of Findin_u: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mit~gate the impact to a less than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. The Greenbriar PUD Plan must conform to the policies and programs of the <br />Plea~anton General Plan, inclusive of those which address seismic concerns. In <br />addition, all construction in the study area must conform to the Uniform Building <br />Code and other applicable state and local seismic safety regulations. These <br />requirements mitigate potential risk to development from seismic events to the <br />maximum extent feasible based on current knowledge and technology. The level of <br />safely meets the City's acceptable risk policy. All project plans will be closely <br />reviewed by the City for compliance with these standards. <br /> <br /> b. The likelihood for seismic and geologic hazards will be evaluated during the <br />development review process, and state-of-the-art soil engineering/construction <br />standards designed to reduce seismic risk are to be implemented. <br /> <br /> c. The PUD Plan requires preparation of detailed geotechnical investigations <br />prior to approval of new development. Applicable recommendations from these <br />investigations must be incorporated into the development, and local building codes <br />must be followed in the process of siting, designing, and consl~ucting habitable <br />structures. <br /> <br /> d. The standardized requirements in the local building code ensure that sound <br />engineering practices will be followed so that all soils following grading will support <br />the Project improvements to' the maximum extent feasible. <br /> <br /> e. Pleasanton adopted a finding of overriding considerations for seismic safety <br />in 1996 as it adopted its General Plan. <br /> <br /> f. The development proposed under all the alternatives would be exposed to <br />impacts from seismic events. The No Project Alternative is rejected because it would <br />not meet any of the Project Sponsor's objectives nor would it fulfill any of the City's <br />objectives for this site, including provisiol~ of additional housing, open space, <br />affordable housing, an elementary school site and public improvements. <br /> <br />65 <br /> <br /> <br />