Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet 04222026

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 53 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 The Draft EIR concludes that while the project would result in environmental changes, these would not be significantly inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful, and would be comparable to other residential developments in the region. The Lead Agency finds that the proposed project would not result in significant irreversible changes. 1.12 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting WƌŽŐĂŵ Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Guidelines Section 15091(d), the Lead Agency adopts the MMRP prepared for the proposed project, attached as Appendix A. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a COA of the proposed project. The MMRP is incorporated by reference in these Findings. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control. 1.13 - Findings Regarding Recirculation During the public review period after the Draft EIR was published, the Lead Agency received certain additional information. Lead Agency staff and consultants involved in preparing the various studies, reports and analyses included in the Draft EIR have also presented additional information since the publication of the Draft EIR. Some of this information was contained in comments submitted on the Draft EIR, and in responses to those comments contained in the Final EIR. Other information was presented at or before public meetings/hearings on the EIR. The EIR incorporates feasible mitigation, additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes, in response to comments and as determined appropriate by Lead Agency staff and required under CEQA. Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15088.5(a)(3)), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330): xx It is feasible; x It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; x It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and x It is not adopted. Recirculation is only required only if each of the above tests is met. (South County Citizens, supra at 330). As described in detail in the Final EIR, mitigation measures proposed during the public comment period are either (1) not necessary; (2) not feasible; (3) or are already included as mitigation. Minor edits were made to MM GEO-6a and MM GEO-6b to provide revised numerical references for the respective impact section and did not involve any modifications to the contents of