RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

There are two principal reasons why the environmental analysis did not find adverse impacts of the General Plan Update on the housing supply. First, the provision for Pleasanton's Mure housing supply is not significantly different from that of the 1986 General Plan. Second, provision of housing beyond that planned could potentially result in a deterioration of environmental and public service conditions. A. The housing supply provisions of the 1996 Generat Plan update are not significantly different from those of the 1986 General Plan. 1. The 1996 General Plan Update would acccmmodate a housing inaease of approximately 8,100 units (S,071) over the plaming period, from 21,180 units in 1995 to a projeded 29.257 in approximately 2010. This is an inaease of 38 percent. (Soun:8S: 19ge GenentI AM. pp. 0.11 and 1V-2. and GetwnI"'" DElR. Table 2. p. 11.) 2. The 1986 General Plan would have provided approximately S,9OO units (S,899) over the same period. from 21,'80 units in 1995 to a projected 30,079 units in approximately 2010. This would be an increase of 42 percent 3. The change in the amount of the increase is 822 units. This level of change, amounting to roughly 55 units per year over the 15-year period, is not significant. 4. Pleasantan's planned reduction at 822 W1its in its future hoUSing potential amounts to less than 3 percent at the projected future housing stock under the 1986 General Plan (30,079 units as presented in the DEIR, p. 19). 5. The subregion is planning far a substantial incr8- in housing over the period from 1995 to 2010. The housing stack in the Tn-Valley area, encom- passing the Cities of Dublin, Uvermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon and proximate areas of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, is expected to increase by n percent over this period. (Sources: Tti-VaUey PlaMing CommittH. ~ PeI>>'''', ~ and /trtfIIIdy 01 LtNn~. June 21,1"5. P. 2 and Table 1.1: same author. T1I-V8IJey SUbregIiDn8I Planning Sb.tegy. 0C:taber 30.1_. P. 3.) 6. Pleasanton's planned reduction of 822 units in its future housing potential is negligible in view of the overall housing levels planned for the Tri-Valley by 2010. While almost 8,100 units would be added to the City's housing stock, an addition of roughly 54,000 units is projected for the Tn-Valley region. (Source: Warldng Paper.' dted in Item 4 gives a year 2010 household caunt of 138,340 as campared with a year 1105 count of 16.060. yielding an inc:nue in h0USe- holdS of 51.380 over the 15-year period. /UI ine:I'8aM of 51.380 householdS implieS an inc:rU5e of 56,Oa. hOusing unitS given a vacancr .uowanc:e of 5 percent.) 2