02 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 53 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480022/FOF/21480022 Pleasanton Housing Element FOF.docx development within this site would occur beyond the UGB. Once the City receives a development application for this site, it would be reviewed by the City for compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan, including Policy 22. City of Pleasanton Measures PP and QQ: Measure PP limits the placement of housing units and structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. Aside from Site 1 (Lester), the sites are not located near slopes of 25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline and they are not near scenic hillsides. Site 1 (Lester) may contain slopes of 25 percent or be within 100 feet of a ridgeline. Pursuant to Measure PP and Program 21.3 of Chapter 2, Land Use Element, of the General Plan, no development within this site would occur on slopes of 25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. The City has received a residential development application for Site 1 (Lester), and, prior to the issuance of building permits, it would be reviewed by the City for compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan, including Program 21.3. On this basis, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with Measure PP. Consistent with the General Plan, individual development projects would be required to undergo project-specific discretionary environmental review to determine consistency with Measure PP. Measure QQ aims to (A) preserve scenic hillside and ridge views of specific ridges (i.e., Pleasanton, Main, and Southeast Hills); (B) study the feasibility of preserving large open space areas in the Southeast Hills; and (C) protect large contiguous areas designated as Open Space in the General Plan. Review for conformance with Objective Design Standards and application of existing and future design guidelines and standards would help to preserve those views and ensure development would not conflict with or diminish the existing scenic quality. None of the sites include large open space areas in the Southeast Hills or are designated as Open Space in the General Plan. Consistent with the General Plan, individual development projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review to confirm their consistency with Measure QQ. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Sites 12 (Pimlico Area, North side), 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton), 15 (Rheem Drive Area, southwest side), 21a and b (Kiewit) are located within the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan’s Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is coterminous with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission Hazard Prevention Zone. None of the potential sites for housing are within an Airport Protection Area. Pursuant to Goal 6, Policy 20, and Program 20.1 of Chapter 5, Public Safety, of the General Plan, the developments within the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan (ALUPPs) AIA would be required to undergo federal, State, and local regulatory review processes specific to airport noise, airspace safety, and other land use compatibility standards, including 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 regulations for the safety, efficient use, and preservation of navigable airspaces. Sites 12 (Pimlico Area, North side), 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton), 15 (Rheem Drive Area, southwest side), 21a and b (Kiewit) would be evaluated for consistency with the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). In reviewing individual project applications, the City would determine which policies and actions apply and whether project modifications would be required to ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site during the development review process. Buildings within the ALUCP AIA would be