RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 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 applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-8 to 3.1-11). Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts: The City finds that the proposed project would have less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-16 to 3.1-18). Impact BIO-4: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-44). Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The City finds that there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-46). Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. The City finds that there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-25). Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-26 to 3.4-27). Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts: The City finds that the proposed project would have less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-29 to 3.4- 32). Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-28 to 3.6-29). Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The City finds that there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-32). Cumulative Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts: The City finds that the proposed project would have less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to geology, soils and seismicity. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-35 to 3.6-37). Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-18 to 3.8-19). Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-19 to 3.8-20).