PC-2026-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 50 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 The primary difference between this alternative and the proposed project is that this alternative would not result in off-site multimodal improvements or the preservation of open space. Therefore, this alternative would not provide beneficial improvements to the regional park system and would not advance the City’s long- range transportation goals identified in the General Plan Circulation Element to the same degree as the proposed project. Additionally, most of the environmental impacts identified under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, with even greater impacts with respect to construction noise and air quality. Despite the site’s ability to accommodate a similar number of units, this alternative site is not owned by the project applicant, who would need to acquire the property in order to develop this alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), this is considered a key factor in determining whether an off-site alternative is potentially feasible. For all of these reasons above, individually and cumulatively, the Lead Agency rejects the Alternative Site Alternative as infeasible. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Each of the three project alternatives would lessen the environmental impacts relative to the proposed project to a certain degree (as described above and further in the EIR). If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative—which is the case here as it avoids all project impacts but fails to satisfy any of the project objectives—the EIR must also identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Overall, based on these Findings, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, even though it fails to fully implement many of the project objectives and is therefore infeasible. 1.9 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the proposed project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. As discussed above, except as to Traffic (VMT), all cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant or can be mitigated to below significance. As discussed above in Section 1.7, there are no feasible mitigation measures for cumulative VMT impacts and therefore the Lead Agency finds that the project’s impact on VMT would be significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable. 1.10 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth-inducing factors might be the