Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations <br /> <br /> <br />12 FirstCarbon Solutions <br />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 <br />performance objectives for police protection. The City finds that impacts would be less than <br />significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 to 3.12-15). <br />Impact PUB-3: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts <br />associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or <br />physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant <br />environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other <br />performance objectives for schools. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft <br />EIR, pp. 3.12-15 to 3.12-16). <br />Impact PUB-4: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts <br />associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or <br />physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant <br />environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other <br />performance objectives for parks. The City finds that there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12- <br />16 to 3.12-17). <br />Impact PUB-5: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts <br />associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or <br />physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant <br />environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other <br />performance objectives for other public facilities. The City finds that impacts would be less than <br />significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-18). <br />Cumulative Public Services Impacts: The City finds that the proposed project would have less than <br />significant cumulative impacts with respect to public services. The City finds that impacts would be <br />less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-19 to 3.12-22). <br />Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy <br />of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City finds <br />that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-11 to 3.14-12). <br />Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric <br />design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm <br />equipment). The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-14 to <br />3.14-15). <br />Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The City <br />finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-15 to 3.14-16). <br />Cumulative Transportation Impacts (Conflict with a Transportation Policy or Plan, Design Hazards, <br />Emergency Access): The City finds that the proposed project would have less than significant <br />cumulative impacts with respect to conflict with a Transportation Policy or Plan, design hazards, and <br />emergency access. The City finds that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-16 <br />to 3.14-18). <br />   <br /><br /> <br /> <br />