RES 12492 - Laserfiche WebLink

Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts and mitigation measures indicate that the impact will not be reduced to less than significant. 1. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element would result in a significant impact related to capacity overloads to Sunol Boulevard (First Street) under Year 2015 and 2035 conditions and Hopyard Road under 2035 conditions. Under 2015 conditions, traffic generated by development facilitated on potential rezoning sites would further degrade the existing LOS F on Sunol Boulevard between Vineyard Avenue and Stanley Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour and increase the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.03. Under 2035 conditions, the V/C ratio would increase by more than 0.03 on the same segment of Sunol Boulevard and on Hopyard Road between Owens Drive and 1-580. 2. Existing development surrounding these roadways would need to be removed in order to widen them, rendering such widening infeasible. 3. Improvements to nearby parallel corridors which would increase their capacity thresholds could create more attractive alternative routes and provide additional capacity, lessen the traffic volume on Sunol Boulevard and Hopyard Road. 4. Mitigation Measure 4.N-7 set forth in Table 6-1 of the Final EIR and listed in the MMRP is hereby incorporated by reference and described below: 4.N-7: Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the City shall require developers on the potential sites for rezoning to contribute fair-share funds through the payment of the City of Pleasanton and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees to help fund future improvements to local and regional roadways. 5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-7 would not reduce the impact to less than significant because the City cannot be assured that collected funds would be spent to specifically improve Sunol Boulevard or parallel corridors as they are collected by the regional agency; therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.N-30-4.N-32.) L. Alternatives CEQA Guidelines section 15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would obtain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the Project and that the EIR evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Case law indicates that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable range (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 56); and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 908). CEQA Guideline section 15126.6(f) states that the range of