02 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-69 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480022/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480022 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments_TRACKS.docx Macy’s Inc. and Lowe (MACYS) Response to MACYS-1 The commenter asserts that the Draft Program EIR does not account for reasonably foreseeable density bonus units in the environmental analysis and requests that the City provide reasonable forecasts of the actual units to developed on each housing site. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, on page 2-27: Therefore, individual development applications could include a density bonus if they provide the required number of affordable housing units and be entitled to request waivers and/or concessions, typically relief from the typically applied development standards. Because no individual development applications are being considered as part of the Housing Element Update, it is infeasible and too speculative for the City to anticipate qualified applications, estimate the number of units that would be built pursuant to a density bonus, conjecture as to development incentives or concessions, or to identify where those units would be located with a degree of certainty necessary to conduct meaningful analysis. However, this Draft Program EIR conservatively analyzes impacts of the maximum development of all the potential sites for rezoning listed above. Given that not all sites are expected to develop at their maximum allowable density, due to site-specific constraints, and market-driven and other factors, additional units built pursuant to a density bonus would be accounted for within this EIR’s programmatic evaluation. Emphasis added. Although CEQA recognizes that drafting an EIR necessarily involves some degree of forecasting, “foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15144). Where, as is the case here for assessing unknown and speculative future development of density bonuses, there is no accepted methodology to assess an environmental impact, the lead agency may properly conclude that the impact is too speculative to reliably evaluate and is therefore unknown. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112, 1137. Additionally, when an assessment of a project's indirect effects would be speculative because it would require an analysis of hypothetical conditions, the lead agency is not obligated to evaluate the effect in an EIR. See, e.g., Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 CA5th 86, 105; Marin Mun. Water Dist. v KG Land Cal. Corp. (1991) 235 CA3d 1652, 1662. An agency need only use its best efforts to uncover and disclose what it reasonably can when addressing controversial issues that resist reliable forecasting. Planning & Conserv. League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 CA4th 210, 252. CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate reasonably foreseeable impacts in a way that results in a meaningful analysis. When a proposed action "is reasonably foreseeable in general terms," an environmental analysis should include a general discussion of the action and its environmental effects but need not include a detailed analysis of specific actions that cannot be reasonably foreseen at the time the analysis is prepared. Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 C4th 936, 954. An analysis of a speculative worst-case scenario is not required. High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 CA5th 102, 126.