02 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 82 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480022/FOF/21480022 Pleasanton Housing Element FOF.docx and Built-up Land). However, the site is currently designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan and, as the site is within unincorporated Alameda County, the City does not provide zoning for the site. Alameda County does not specify a zoning designation for Site 22 (Merritt). The site is not currently utilized for agriculture, nor has it been recently irrigated or used for crops. Furthermore, as indicated by the residential land use designation, the City has planned the site for residential uses, and Site 22 (Merritt) has been designated for low density residential uses since the 1986 General Plan. The Housing Element Update would redesignate the site PUD-LDR, which is consistent with the low density residential designation because it would allow low density residential uses on-site. Therefore, any potential loss of Unique Farmland would likely occur with or without implementation of the Housing Element Update. Site 27 (PUSD-Vineyard) is within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Consistent with Section IV(D), the recorded deed of sale of all subdivided parcels and all property rental/lease agreements would include a statement to be signed by the future owner/tenant as provided in Measure D. Potential Agricultural/Non-Agricultural Use Conflicts of the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan and in the Draft Program EIR, Page 3.17-4. In compliance with Section V(E), at the time of subdivision map recordation for urban development projects within Site 27 (PUSD-Vineyard), a payment of a one-to-one ratio (agricultural mitigation fee) between the cost per acre for agricultural easements and the net acreage of potentially cultivable soils less than 25 percent in slope lost to development would be paid to the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust (now known as the Tri -Valley Conservancy) (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.17-6). Potential Effect Impact AG-2: Development consistent with the Housing Element Update, rezonings, and General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.17-7). Findings: Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Findings: Aside from Sites 1 (Lester), 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton), and 26 (St. Augustine), none of the potential sites for rezoning have existing zoning designations that would allow for agricultural uses. A portion of Site 1 (Lester) is pre-zoned A and Sites 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton) and 26 (St. Augustine) are zoned A (see Exhibit 2-4b in Chapter 2, Project Description). The proposed prezoning designation for Site 1 (Lester) is Planned Unit Development: Low Density Residential, Agriculture, Open Space. This prezoning designation would allow for agricultural uses on-site, consistent with the existing zoning. Sites 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton) and 26 (St. Augustine) are zoned for agricultural uses; however, Site 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton) is currently designated Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Site 26 (St. Augustine) is currently designated Public and Institutional (PI) by the General Plan, which would not allow the development of agricultural uses. The proposed Housing Element Update would redesignate Site 14 (St. Elizabeth Seton) as High Density Residential (HDR) with a Planned Unit Development: High Density Residential (PUD-HDR) zoning and would redesignate Site 26 (St. Augustine) as MDR with a Planned Unit Development: Medium Density Residential (PUD-MDR) zoning. These redesignations and rezonings would rectify the current inconsistencies between the General Plan land use designation and the zonings. None of the