|
ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
<br /> ADDENDUM
<br />
<br />
<br />62 FCS
<br />Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx
<br />Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion
<br />The proposed project would occur in the same location as the County Project. There are no scenic
<br />resources, as defined by the City’s General Plan, located on the project site. Scenic resources
<br />identified by the City’s General Plan include the hillsides, wildlands, and open space areas adjacent
<br />to the City’s western, southern, and eastern borders, which are located between 2 and 4 miles from
<br />the project site. Views of these areas are visible from the project site intermittently and are partially
<br />obstructed by existing development and vegetation. The project site is bounded to the north by Lake I
<br />of the Zone 7 Chain of Lakes and to the east by vacant land. As such, there are no sensitive
<br />viewpoints located adjacent to the project site from which views of the scenic hillsides, wildlands, and
<br />open space areas adjacent to the City’s western, southern, and eastern borders would be obstructed.
<br />Additionally, the maximum height of the proposed project would be 30 feet, and the proposed project
<br />would comply with the setback requirements of the PUD-MDR zone. As such, views of these areas
<br />from neighboring properties would not be obstructed.
<br />Construction equipment would be present on the project site intermittently throughout the construction
<br />period and could be visible from public viewpoints located within nearby scenic resources, such as
<br />the hillsides, wildlands, and open space areas adjacent to the City’s western, southern, and eastern
<br />borders, although since its presence would be temporary, it would not result in a substantial impact on
<br />public views from any scenic resources. The project site, which is relatively flat in elevation, vacant,
<br />and graded, does not contain any scenic ridges, hillsides, rock outcroppings, or other designated
<br />scenic resources, which would be damaged or affected by the proposed development. As such,
<br />consistent with the conclusions in the Prior FEIR, implementation of the proposed project would not
<br />result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project would not
<br />introduce new significant impacts or create substantially more severe significant impacts than those
<br />previously identified in the Prior FEIR. No additional analysis is required.
<br />b) State Scenic Highways
<br />Would the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
<br />to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
<br />Scenic Highway?
<br />Prior FEIR Conclusions
<br />As stated above, the Prior FEIR found that the project site does not contain any officially designated
<br />scenic resources as defined by the Alameda County General Plan and ECAP, including significant
<br />trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within or adjacent to a State Scenic Highway. The
<br />project site is relatively flat in elevation and is vacant and graded. The nearest designated State
<br />Scenic Highway is I-680, approximately 3 miles away, while the nearest highway eligible for State
<br />Scenic Highway designation is I-580, approximately 1.4 miles away; neither of which are visible from
<br />the project site due to distance and intervening development. The Prior FEIR determined that the
<br />County Project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway.
<br />Therefore, the Prior FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant for the County Project
<br />and under Alternative 2, Annexation to City of Pleasanton. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-15, 6-11).
|