2_Exhibits I-J - Laserfiche WebLink

social,and technological factors."The CEQA statute(PRC Section 21081)and Guidelines(14 CCR Section 15019[a][3])also provide that"other"considerations may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility.Case law makes clear that a mitigation measure or alternative can be deemed infeasible on the basis of its failure to meet project objectives or on related public policy grounds. The EIR for the proposed Plan conducted a comparison of three alternatives: The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative,the Reduced Development Alternative,and the No Project Alternative,described below along with the findings relevant to each alternative. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative represents what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Plan were not approved and the Existing Specific Plan(as amended in 2014)was left unchanged and in effect.This alternative would maintain all current land use designations and definitions from the Existing Specific Plan as amended to date; there would be no new mixed-use land use designations and no new Active Ground Floor Use Overlay. Under the No Project Alternative, proposed new policies concerning topics such as mobility,design,historic preservation,public facilities,and economic vitality would not be implemented. Furthermore,the civic center would remain in its existing location and would not relocate, and the program of uses on the Bernal Property would remain as originally presented in the Bernal Phase II Master Plan.Projected development at buildout under this alternative would be reduced compared to the Plan,resulting in 1,530 housing units,4,200 residents,and 3,400 jobs. • Air Quality:The No Project Alternative would have similar significant impacts to the Plan in the area of air quality.While the No Project Alternative would result in a lower level of development, and therefore reduce construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants,this alternative would not include Plan policies aimed at reducing vehicle-related emissions or Mitigation Measures AQ- 1 through AQ-4. Emissions of PM2.5 and PKo would exceed BAAQMD thresholds, as with the Plan.Emissions of ROG would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds but would increase over existing conditions. Given that land uses would not change following implementation of the No Project Alternative, this Alternative would not locate any new sensitive receptors near stationary sources of air pollutants,resulting in a less than significant impact. • Cultural, Historic,and Tribal Cultural Resources:The No Project Alternative would introduce a new significant impact in the area of paleontological resources. Unlike the Plan,the impact of the No Project Alternative on paleontological resources could be significant and unavoidable as this Alternative would not include the Plan implementation program aimed at preventing the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. • Energy, Climate Change, and GHG Emissions: The No Project Alternative would increase significant impacts in the area of energy,climate change,and GHG emissions.While the No Project Alternative would result in a lower level of development and a lower population than the Plan, it does not include Plan policies aimed at reducing vehicle-related GHG emissions or mitigation measures (AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, GHG-1) supporting additional GHG reduction strategies, and therefore would generate more operational emissions than the mitigated Plan.As with the Plan, per service population emissions under the No Project Alternative would exceed the efficiency metric of 1.7 MTCO2e per service population which constitutes "sufficient progress" towards achieving the goals established under SB 32 and EO S-3-05.Therefore,the No Project Alternative would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment due to GHG emissions and would conflict with plans aimed at reducing GHGs.Additionally,the No Project Alternative does not provide new policies requiring the attainment of strategies established by the City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan to reach the targets of SB 32 and EO S-3-05.Implementation of the No Project 20 (MERV)filters. 13