Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comment 5 Given the significant regional transportation and air quality impacts associated with urban <br /> sprawl in the region, the EIR might, for example, have analyzed where the housing demand <br /> that would not be accommodated in Pleasanton would be diverted to instead. Your response <br /> fails to explain why such analysis is not necessary. <br />Response 5 Response 4 explains why the "diversion" impact bas not been found significant. <br /> Any diversion would be most likely to be experienced in those conununities that now provide <br /> residences for Pleasaflton workers. According oto the City's Growth Management Plan, about <br /> ooe-fourth of the CitYs current workers live in pleasantQD (25.5 percent), and another one- <br /> fourth in other parts of the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon). Another fourth live <br /> in the "Inner" Bay areas of Hayward (10.3 percent), FremontIMilpitas (4.5 percent), <br /> Bayfront Alameda and Contra Costa Colmties (5.4 percent), San Jose (3.0 percent), and San <br /> FranciscolPeninsu1a (2.7 percent). The last quarter live elsewhere in Contra Costa County <br /> (13.3 percent), in San Joaquin or Stanislaus County (8.1 percent), or in the North Bay <br /> counties, Sacramento, or elsewhere (2.2 percent). <br />Comment 6 The recent amendment to the County General Plan for the area carefully considered regional <br /> enviroomenta1 implications of development policies. and the Pleasanton decisionmakers, and <br /> the public, would benefit from a consistency analysis. The response that the Urban Growth <br /> Boundary in the County would not be inconsistent with the proposed City boundary does not <br /> address the many other policies that CEQA requires analysis of as part of the analysis of a <br /> project's consistency with applicable plans. <br />Response 6 See Response 2. The General Plan and the DEIR considered Pleasanton's General Plan <br /> Update within the context of planning for the subregion. <br />Comment 7 Finally, you have failed to explain how the DEIR finding$ regarding environmental impacts <br /> support the need for a reduction in annual housing approvals to protect the public health, <br /> safety or welfare of the population. <br />Response 7 11ris is not a comment on the DEIR. but a question about the rationale behind the change in <br /> the growth cap. <br /> . <br /> 3 <br />