Laserfiche WebLink
accommodated due to the Hacienda Rezoning. However, this alternative would not result in <br /> additional housing units beyond the 1,128 units that have already been constructed in the City <br /> before 2014. <br /> Since the City must plan for its RHNA allocation and implement actions to comply <br /> with that allocation pursuant to the 2010 Settlement Agreement, it is not legally permissible to <br /> select the No Project Alternative, thus ignoring the proposed Housing Element and the need to <br /> rezone enough of the potential sites for rezoning to meet the RHNA mandated figure. Further, <br /> the No Project Alternative would not meet the requirements of the 2010 Settlement Agreement, <br /> which requires the City to adopt a Housing Element for the 2007-2014 planning period within <br /> 90-days of receiving comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development. <br /> Under the No Project Alternative, the Draft CAP would not be adopted and its <br /> GHG reduction measures would not be implemented. For Pleasanton, this means that it would <br /> not meet the goals AB 32, of 15 percent below 2005 baseline by 2020 (306,311 MT CO2e <br /> below base line). However, even under the No Project Alternative, the City would get credit from <br /> several high-impact state-wide measures including in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, which are <br /> estimated to be 194,017 MT CO2e. With the addition of projected impact of rising fuel prices on <br /> driving behavior described in the Draft CAP, which is estimated to translates to a equivalent to <br /> annual emissions reductions of 18,729 MT CO2e, Pleasanton would left with the challenge of <br /> reducing city-wide emissions by an additional 93,585 MT CO2e per year below business-as- <br /> usual by 2020 under the No Project Alternative. <br /> Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would <br /> not meet many of the objectives for the Housing Element and associated General Plan <br /> amendment and rezonings to increase the City's inventory of land available for the development <br /> of housing to ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RNHA at all <br /> income levels. Further, the No Project Alternative would not meet the requirements of the 2010 <br /> Settlement Agreement, which requires that the City adopt a new Housing Element and all <br /> related General Plan amendments and rezonings and a Climate Action Plan by February 17, <br /> 2012. <br /> Alternative 1, Large Properties <br /> Alternative 1, Large Properties, would result in the development of a total of <br /> 2,232 housing units to fulfill 100 percent of the RHNA and improve Pleasanton's jobs/housing <br /> balance as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. Like the proposed project, Alternative 1 <br /> would include rezoning to accommodate future residential growth. Alternative 1 would rezone 8 <br /> of the 17 potential sites, specifically the sites that could accommodate larger developments. The <br /> larger properties could more easily address neighborhood compatibility issues through site <br /> design, and also provide high quality open space as other amenities. Alternative 1 would permit <br /> residential development on: <br /> • Site 1 BART Site with 300 units <br /> • Site 3 Stoneridge Mall with 300 units <br /> • Site 6 Irby-Kaplan-Zia with 180 units <br /> • Site 7 Gateway with 279 units <br />