RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

The environmental analysis presented in the General Plan Update EIR addresses the commute pattern that Pleasanton would experience given the jobslhousing balance implied in the General Plan. This pattern was not found to result in an adverse impact on regional air quality. Significance with respect to transportation impacts was found in the EIR: Impact 82 identifies excessive traffic loads on parts of 1-580 and 1-680 stemming in part from Pleasanton's pattern of employment and residence. Therefore, the conunenter's concerns are already reflected in the EIR analysis of regional impacts. Any local area impacts would be addressed as required under CEQA in the jurisdictions in which additions to the housing supply are proposed. Comment 4 The response also states that under the proposed General Plan amendment the reduction in the number of housing units that could be approved is "more theoretical than practical." That is not an accurate statement; the limit as proposed is absolute, and the regional housing supply could be correspondingly reduced in any given year as a direct result of that prohibition. In addition, other general plan amendments when read together would have the real effect of reducing and deferring housing construction in Pleasanton. Response 4 The Tri-Valley Subregion is expected to experience significant growth during the time horizon of Pleasanton's General Plan Update. In the four cities, that growth will amount to some 21,300 new households within the decade from 1995 to 2005, according to ABAG's Projections '96, as presented in the following table: ! Local Area. ~ Dublin : Livennore : Pleasanton : San Ramon T- To~'l f..i9.95........................r........7~.6.30............r.......iij"40...................2oj.60...........T.......i4~59o..........T.......6s~920......"'j :.......uu"...........................:"..................................~..............n............n.....~.......n...........................n~..............................n....~....................................: l 2005 ~ 14,500 ~ 29,780 ~ 25,990 ~ 16,940 : 87,210 ~ !.......~..%.~i.1995..t..............i90%.......1..............'129%......t.............."126%......1"..............i.i6%.......1.................1"32%....1 f......................................+..................................~...................................~...................................~...................................~..................................~ j 2015 ~ 23,210 : 37,640 . 31,160 : 18,050 : 110,060 ~ rm...~..%..~ii99.S..j.......m.....304%.......[...............i6i%......:...............iS2%......T.............i24%......-r.................167%.ml :-......................................:.nu................................:............n.....................~n....................................~.................................n-'..................................i ! · SOl or (in the case of San Ramon) "Other Subregional Area" I ~_._._ ..____~rce: 1fJAg. Proj!!.':.tiOfU r?~.._.._......._....__ ___....._...j If growth deferred under the amended growth cap were to amount to 300 units annually (the numerical maximum implied in the difference between 650 and 3~0 units), the cumulative units deferred would amount to 1,800 in the six years between 2000 and 2005. That is less than ten percent of the units projected to be added to accommodate household growth. This effect is not judged to be significant, because (1) it is a deferral, rather than a reduction in unit capacity, (2) it is small in proportion to the total units expected to be added in the subregion (roughly 8 percent), and (3) it cannot be certain that the amount deferred would even be as high as 300/year in view of the fact that Pleasanton has no obligation under its existing Growth Management Program to approve as many as 300 units a year. 2