ORD 1246 - Laserfiche WebLink

F. Significant Effect The Project will result in increased employment with an increase in demand for housing and associated impacts (noise, traffic, etc.) f.1 Finding. Adopting the Pleasanton Residential Review Committee's recommendations for increased housing opportunities in the City of Pleasanton will lessen the impact. f.2 Fact. The Pleasanton Residential Review Committee has recommended that the holding capacity be increased to 28,159 dwelling units, with a population benchmark of 79,475 residents and 83,480 jobs. The City's draft revised General Plan incorporates much of the dwelling unit increase. f.3 Finding. Land use authority on a regional level is the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can and should be addressed by such agencies. f.4 Fact. Enabling statutes allow neighboring cities and counties to establish zoning and growth management procedures if required. f.5 Fact. Other jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley Area will need to conduct land use studies, zoning ordinance revisions and general plan amendments to respond to the demand for added housing and growth management procedures within each jurisdiction, even without Project approval. f.6 Finding. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially lessen associated impacts. f.7 Fact. See Section III (Transportation and Circulation); Section V (Noise Mitigation); Section IV (Air Quality Mitigation) and Section VI (Public Services Mitigation). f.8 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Mixed Use Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative, which could partially mitigate or delay the significant effects, are infeasible. f.9 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). G. Significant Effect. Pressure for more detailed General Plans/Specific Plans north of 1-580. g.1 Finding. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR are subject to the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can and should be adopted by such agencies. - 3 -