RES 12492 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternative 4, Increased Density Alternative 4, Increased Density, would result in the development of a total of 3,900 housing units to fulfill 100 percent of the RHNA and improve Pleasanton's jobs/housing balance as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. This alternative evaluates increased density on all the potential sites for rezoning, in the event that the City wishes to consider a higher density on one or more of the 17 sites. The same mixed use and single-family residential development assumptions, and acreage assumptions as shown in Table 3-3 of the SEIR apply to this Alternative. Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint and would not further attainment of all of the Project objectives. Specifically, because this alternative would allow maximum development on each of the potential sites for rezoning it would not meet the objectives related to sustainable growth, such as encouraging housing development where supported by existing or planned infrastructure while maintaining existing neighborhood character; it would not develop a plan for Pleasanton that supports sustainable local, regional, and state housing and environmental goals; and it would not provide new housing communities with substantial amenities to provide a high quality of life. Further, impacts to cultural resources and transportation and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable with this alternative. Other environmental resources would be less than significant impacted, similar to the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezonings. Environmentally Superior Alternative Alternative 2, Transit Oriented development, would be the environmentally superior alternative given its reduced residential development potential and associated environmental effects (as compared to development under the proposed development of all the potential sites for rezoning). Additionally, this alternative would not directly result in the significant and unavoidable impact on Site 21 related to demolition of a potentially significant cultural resource. The significant and unavoidable transportation impact on a regional roadway (Sunol Boulevard and Hopyard Road) for which the City would not be the Lead Agency for mitigation implementation would remain under this alternative. Further, the Transit Oriented Alternative meets all the key objectives and goals of the Housing Element and CAP, namely it would ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RHNA at all income levels or present the California Department of Housing and Community Development a housing element that meets the requirements of the settlement agreement, as well as reduce GHG emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through strategic rezonings. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. M. Growth-Inducing Effects A project may be growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly fosters economic or population growth or additional housing, removes obstacles to growth, taxes community service facilities, or encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g).) Under CEQA, induced growth is not considered necessarily detrimental or beneficial. Induced growth is considered a significant impact only if it directly or indirectly