3_Exhibit C_ADDENDUM ONLY - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Stoneridge Mall Residential Project CEQA Checklist Section 15183 Checklist/15164 Addendum 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480017/Consistency Checklist/21480017 Stoneridge Mall Residential Project Checklist Addendum_Updated.docx The Prior EIR concluded that potentially adverse visual character effects related to new development would be reduced through the Design Review process, as required by Chapter 18.20 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Although potential new development would incrementally increase density, new development would comply with the policies in the General Plan and the zoning ordinances to ensure compatibility with the context of each site and the City in general. In addition, all new development would be required to adhere to City policies designed to reduce visual impacts and preserve view corridors, including Chapter 17.16 of the Municipal Code regarding tree preservation. Overall, the Prior EIR concluded changes to visual character would not be substantial. Analysis of Proposed Project The proposed project is consistent with the land use and intensity evaluated in the Prior EIR because the proposed 360 units, at 60 units per acre, is within the number of units estimated for Site 3 (210 to 400 units) and would be consistent with the assumed density range (more than 30 units per acre; see Supplemental EIR Table 3-3). The proposed project would also be subject to Design Review and City staff review for conformance to the 2012 Housing Design Standards and Guidelines, which would ensure consistency with the architectural style, heights, and massing of the surrounding area, as well as consistency with Chapter 17.16 of the Municipal Code regarding tree preservation. These standards aim to promote high quality, amenity-rich residential neighborhoods that utilize high quality and varied materials, attractive landscaping, compatible and well-articulated building design, while meeting housing needs.18 For example, development standard A3.2 requires a minimum 10- foot setback, and Design Guideline C4.d requires that high quality materials, such as concrete, masonry, or tiles, should be used at important locations to articulate building façades. Therefore, visual character impacts due to new development would be less than significant and the proposed project would not introduce any new impacts to visual character that were not previously disclosed. Impacts would continue to be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary, consistent with the Prior EIR There are no proposed changes, new circumstances, or new information that would cause new or more severe impacts. Since the certification of the Prior EIR, the CEQA Appendix G Checklist question has been updated to the following: In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Because the City utilizes the most recent version of the CEQA Guidelines in formulating thresholds of significance, the following analysis is provided for informational purposes. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and as previously discussed, would be consistent with applicable zoning, as examined in the Prior EIR, and other regulations governing scenic quality, such as design review and municipal code consistency. As such, impacts would continue to be less than significant. 18 City of Pleasanton Community Development Department. August 21, 2012. Housing Site Development Standards and Design Guidelines.