RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/FOF/21480016 Pleasanton Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project FOF.docx Lester Family residences and dedication of land to the EBRPD, parking improvements, or improvements to the Oak Hills Congregational Church access would occur. No improvements to Dublin Canyon Road, including the traffic signal and turn lane, would be constructed. xx Alternative 3–Alternative Site: The Alternative Site Alternative (Alternative 3) would utilize a different project site based on the sites identified in the City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory, Site 26 – St. Augustine (Site 26). Site 26 was selected as the alternative site due to its potential to accommodate 28 residential units and the absence of any other entitlement applications. Rezoning of Site 26 would be required. Alternative 3 would include the construction of 28 new detached single-family residential units, where operations are anticipated to be the same as the proposed project. Because of its location, Alternative 3 would not involve implementation of a new public trailhead, traffic signal, water pump, or road improvements. Furthermore, no demolishment of the two existing Lester Family homes or the annexation of the 2.5-acre church site and associated parking lots would occur. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Draft EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. (See e.g., Draft EIR, Table 6-1, Summary of Alternatives). The primary purpose of this analysis is to provide decision-makers and interested agencies, organizations and individuals with information about a reasonable range of potentially feasible project alternatives, which could avoid or reduce any of the proposed project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives analyses are noted below: x An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; x An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; x Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: - Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives identified in Section 1.3.2; - Infeasibility; and - Inability to avoid significant environmental effects. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative: Under the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), the proposed project would not be constructed and existing operations on the project site would continue at the capacity of existing on- site buildings and infrastructure. No new grading or development would occur, potentially resulting in lower environmental impacts. As such, this alternative would result in lesser impacts with respect to aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; energy; geology, soils, and seismicity; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; utilities and services systems; roadway safety hazards; emergency access; bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities; and wildfire.