RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 44 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 transportation-related design features specifically adopted to avoid and reduce hazards from project design or the location of incompatible uses, thereby reducing potential significant cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from the proposed project combined with cumulative projects. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-18). With respect to Impact TRANS-4, the provision of adequate emergency access is site-specific and would not combine with other projects. Moreover, the proposed project, together with projected cumulative projects anticipated in the General Plan, would be consistent with the City’s Emergency Plan, and there are no cumulative projects within a two-mile radius of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects must comply with local standard requirements for adequate emergency access specifically adopted to avoid or reduce the potential for inadequate access. Therefore, no significant adverse cumulative impacts would result. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-18). With respect to Impact TRANS-2, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on VMT because the proposed project would still require an additional 40.91 percent reduction in VMT to result in less than significant impacts, even after implementation of all feasible VMT reduction strategies. This finding is consistent with the City’s Housing Element Program EIR, which analyzed the project site as a candidate housing site and concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable even after application of all feasible VMT reduction strategies. Therefore, although project design features such as off-street parking spaces and multimodal infrastructure would reduce project-generated VMT to the extent feasible, it would not do so to a level below significance. As such, the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to VMT. (Draft EIR, 3.14-14). 1.8 - Findings Regarding Alternatives 1.8.1 - Introduction This section presents findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project and a summary and discussion of the feasibility of the following alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR: xx 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. x Alternative 2–No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative: Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative (Alternative 2), the project site would be redeveloped with uses allowed by-right for the existing zoning districts on each parcel. This alternative would not include annexation of the project site into the City. As such, permitted development would be subject to the County’s zoning code. On the project site, each of the five existing parcels would develop one single-family dwelling unit consistent with existing zoning. Since APN 941-2600-002-6 is over 25 acres in size, the development of a secondary dwelling unit would be constructed on that parcel under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in the development of five total dwelling units and one secondary dwelling unit. No demolishment of the existing