PC-2026-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 46 FirstCarbon Solutions 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 This alternative would result in similar impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources. Because of the location of the project, which is located within an area where existing VMT per resident already exceeds the impact threshold according to the findings of the City’s Housing Element Program EIR, VMT impacts would also be similar to the proposed project and therefore would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11). Although this project would result in the least environmental impact, this alternative would either partially meet or fail to meet project objectives related to: 1. Provide a well-designed residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community and connection with adjacent open space. 2. Encourage redevelopment of underused sites containing available infrastructure as identified in the Pleasanton General Plan Housing Element. 3. Develop a residential community consistent with Measures PP and QQ. 4. Provide open space areas across the project site and dedicate land to the EBRPD to be permanently preserved. 5. Provide public access, including a public parking/staging area and a trail connection, to Pleasanton Ridge. 6. Preserve the open space character at the edges of the City, in accordance with the City of Pleasanton General Plan Community Character Element. 7. Improve Dublin Canyon Road to increase access and safety by constructing roadways, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Finding: Based on the discussion in the EIR and all other evidence before it, the City finds that the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives, and would thus represent a less desirable policy outcome as compared with the proposed project, which would fully meet the project objectives and is an active development proposal that would bring the City of Pleasanton all of the benefits set forth in Section 1.14, Statement of Overriding Considerations. As previously mentioned, the No Project Alternative would also not mitigate any of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and would conflict with the goals of the City’s Housing Element Update for increasing its housing stock. As such, this alternative would not fully realize the objectives of the City’s Housing Element Update, Statewide housing goals, and Plan Bay Area 2050. Furthermore, it would be ĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘ For all of these reasons, the Lead Agency rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible.