would be limited potential physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities due to increased use. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to recreational and park facilities would be less than significant.
Overall Level of Cumulative Significance
Significant and unavoidable.
P. RECREATION
See Public Services above.
Q. TRANSPORTATION
(Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-44 – 3/12-45)
The transportation impact analysis (see Appendix E) prepared for the proposed plan also accounts for future land use for the entire travel model area, which includes VMT on Contra Costa County roadways that originates within and outside of the County. Adjacent development considered part of the cumulative analysis includes the projects and plan listed in Table 3-1 (refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis).
Vehicle Miles Traveled
OPR provides the following guidance regarding cumulative impacts analysis and VMT:
When using an absolute VMT metric, i.e., total VMT (as recommended below for retail and transportation projects), analyzing the combined impacts for a cumulative impacts analysis may be appropriate. However, metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa.
The year 2040 total countywide VMT per service population (all residents and employees) is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. These metrics reflect VMT generated by all trips by all land uses in Contra Costa County, as well as non-County generated trips traveling on County roadways (i.e., all VMT within the Contra Costa County boundary).
As shown in Error! Reference source not found., Countywide boundary VMT per service population would decrease with the proposed plan, reflecting the travel efficiency that generally results from more dense, mixed-use development provided with the proposed plan.
While VMT per service population would decrease countywide, based on OPR’s guidance, included above, cumulative impacts would be commensurate with plan-level impacts.
Because the analysis for the proposed plan is based on Home-Based VMT and Home-Work Findings
VMT, the significant VMT impact finding implies that the proposed plan would also have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Since projectlevel significance thresholds were designed to support long-term environmental goals, they inherently also address potential cumulative VMT impacts. As such, VMT would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable.
Compatibility with Programs, Plans, Ordinances, and Policies Related to Circulation Cumulative plans and projects, including the proposed plan, would be required to comply with local regulations and policies. The plans’ incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Roadway Safety and Emergency Vehicle Access
Roadways constructed as part of the proposed plan in conjunction with other cumulative plans and projects listed in Table 3-1 would be constructed to meet current design standards in respective cities. Modifications to public rights-of-way would be consistent with appropriate regulations and design standards set forth by the respective city’s applicable plans, programs, and policies. Similarly, cumulative development would also be required to comply with the respective city’s regulations and policies. Trucks necessary to construct cumulative development would utilize truck routes designated by the respective cities and would not conflict with the automobile traffic and bicycle and pedestrian activity along respective city streets. If cumulative development would redesign city streets in such a way that would significantly impact roadway safety, they would be required by the respective city to mitigate such impacts. Nevertheless, Pleasant Hill’s contribution to potential cumulative roadway safety impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, driveways and emergency vehicle access points associated with cumulative development would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code and other applicable regulations related to roadway safety and emergency access. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to roadway safety and emergency vehicle access would be less than significant.
Overall Level of Cumulative Significance
Significant and unavoidable.
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
See Cultural Resources above.
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
(Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 – 3.13-34)
The geographic scope of the cumulative utilities and service systems analysis is the CCWD, EBMUD, Central San, Pleasant Hill Public Works, and Republic Services service areas. Because of differences in the nature of the utility and service system topical areas, Findings
they are discussed separately. The cumulative analysis considers the nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future plans and projects listed in Table 3-1 (refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis) located in Lafayette, Martinez, Clayton, Danville, Orinda, Pittsburg, Moraga, and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and Plan Bay Area 2050.
Water Supply Infrastructure and Facilities
CCWD and EBMUD provide potable water to residents and businesses within the Contra Costa and the East Bay, including Pleasant Hill. Both CCWD and EBMUD considered the existing capacity and future demand for capacity to determine needed updates to water facilities. In the course of preparing the UWMP, both providers estimated water demand of future development in the service area and forecast the needed facility upgrades. The forecast included supply facility upgrades needed to accommodate growth in the service area, including Pleasant Hill. The CCWD and EBMUD prepared UWMPs that considered the buildout potential across the service area. The UWMPs determined that the CCWD and EBMUD would be able to provide adequate water supplies to the City during normal years and single dry years but would see shortfalls during multiple dry years which would be offset through planned water supply purchases. However, while the development facilitated by the proposed plan would result in additional population beyond the projected population within Plan Bay Area 2040, adherence to the General Plan policies would reduce per capita water use. In addition, future developments that meet certain criteria under Senate Bill 610 will be required to prepare a project-level water supply assessment, which identifies and verifies water supply availability under normal water year conditions, single dry year conditions, and multiple dry year conditions. Furthermore, cumulative plans and projects listed in Table 3-1 would be required to comply with provisions of the respective municipal codes and California Green Building Code related to water conservation. Cumulative impacts related to operations of water infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant. However, as discussed above, there is potential that infrastructure upgrades may be required to accommodate future growth. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to water supply infrastructure expansion and construction would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to water supply infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities
Central San provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the residents and business in Pleasant Hill. Central San recently updated its Sewer System Management Plan which, the purpose of which is to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in the City’s sanitary sewer collection system and to enhance compliance with the applicable permits, laws, and regulations as related to sanitary sewer overflows. The plan includes treatment facility upgrades needed to accommodate growth in the service area and maintain compliance with applicable regulatory standards for wastewater treatment and discharge.
Cumulative plans and projects would generate volumes of wastewater. The Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, Clayton, Danville, Orinda, Pittsburg, Moraga, and unincorporated Contra Costa County anticipate development in the respective cities and determined that capacity would exist to service the demand for wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, Findings
the cumulativeCumulative impacts related to impactoperations related toof wastewater infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant. However, as discussed above, there is potential that infrastructure upgrades may be required to accommodate future growth. Therefore, the cumulative impacts related to wastewater infrastructure expansion and construction would be significant and unavoidable.
Stormwater Infrastructure and Facilities
Cumulative plans and projects predominantly consist of residential and commercial uses.
The cumulative plans and projects would be located in urban areas that would be served by existing municipal storm drainage systems. Consistent with measures in the Lafayette, Martinez, Clayton, Danville, Orinda, Pittsburg, Moraga, and Contra Costa County Municipal Codes, development in the cities would incorporate a stormwater control plan and stormwater collection systems into the development that would in turn reduce the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that cumulative development would generate.
Therefore, the cumulative impact related to stormwater infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant.
Solid Waste Facilities
Keller Canyon and Acme Landfills operate solid waste landfills and oversee regional waste diversion programs as well as solid waste and recycling collection services. Keller Canyon anticipates it would be able to absorb future growth. Cumulative plans and projects listed consist predominantly of residential and commercial uses. However, as with the surrounding areas, new cumulative development (residential and non-residential) would increase demand on solid waste facilities to receive, process, and store solid waste. The Keller Canyon Landfill has a maximum throughput of approximately 3,500 tons per day and anticipated closure date of December 31, 2050. The anticipated waste volume of development in the plan area represents approximately 1.4 percent of the throughput of the Keller Canyon Landfill. Existing solid waste facilities provide sufficient capacity to serve development anticipated in the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, Clayton, Danville, Orinda, Pittsburg, Moraga, and unincorporated Contra Costa County as well as existing, planned, and probable future land uses in the respective cities for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
Overall Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant.
T. WILDFIRE
See Hazards and Hazardous Material above.
Findings
SECTION VI.
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
SECTION VII.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines that that growth inducement must not be assumed.
SECTION VIII.
ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while Findings
also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA.
Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record.
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and Findings
comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR) :
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM DETAILED
ANALYSIS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project:
Adopted General Plan Buildout (i.e., “No Project”)
Increased Intensity in Non-western Areas
25 Percent Residential Reduction
Finding: The City Council rejects the Click to enter text alternatives, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternatives do not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternatives would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that Click to enter text.
Therefore, these alternatives are eliminated from further consideration.
D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
Alternative 1: Adopted General Plan Buildout (i.e., “No Project”) (Draft EIR) Alternative 2: Increased Intensity in Non-western Areas (Draft EIR) Alternative 3: 25 Percent Residential Reduction (Draft EIR) Findings
1. Alternative 1: Adopted General Plan Buildout Alternative Description: The Adopted General Plan Buildout Alternative (or Alternative 1) assumes that the current land use and zoning designations would not change from the City’s adopted 2003 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan would not be adopted. Current land uses for residential units and commercial, office, school, industrial, and semipublic/institutional area would remain unchanged under Alternative 1. Future buildout would continue to follow the current designations. For purposes of the environmental analysis, it was assumed that the number of persons per household would still be 2.4.
Based on this, the Pleasant Hill population increase estimate would be 41,300, which represents a relative population decrease of 4,819 compared to the proposed plan (see Table 5.1). Alternative 1 would not update the Pleasant Hill General Plan. Without the 2040 General Plan, Pleasant Hill would lack a long-term blueprint for redevelopment throughout the General Plan area and not meet its RHNA requirements.
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under to the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. As such, there would be less new sources of light or glare within the General Plan area that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. While the existing (2003) Pleasant Hill General Plan does not contain a policy requiring the City to adopt lighting standards intended to maintain ambient lighting levels and minimum glare, individual future projects would be required to mitigate lighting levels as applicable. There would also be less potential for visual character of the General Plan area to be altered, as development facilitated by the existing General Plan would follow current policies that would prevent this impact. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics). Alternative 1 would lesser aesthetics impacts compared to the proposed plan due to the lower overall potential for light, glare, and visual character alterations within the General Plan area but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level. However, this alternative would not meet the plan objectives that focus on smart and sensitive development given that infill development would not be maximized.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Temporary construction-related air quality impacts from grading and construction and longer-term air quality impacts from building operation (energy usage, maintenance), would be lower than under Findings
the proposed plan. While individual future project mitigation could result in construction-related criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions, such projects would be required to mitigate emissions as applicable as well as comply with BAAQMD basic control measures to comply with standard permit conditions. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.2, Air Quality). Alternative 1 would result in lesser levels of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emission generation impacts compared to the proposed plan but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level. However, this alternative would not meet the plan objectives that focus on smart and sensitive development given that existing land uses within the General Plan area would not be updated with more modern facilities in compliance with latest building codes and, thus, would not promote greater energy efficiency nor maximize infill development.
Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Development changes related to wildlife, habitat, and waters of the United States conservation policies would follow the existing (2003) General Plan guidelines. Similar to the proposed plan, areas under the current General Plan currently developed with residential and non-residential uses likely are not suitable habitat for special-status species, wetlands, agricultural land, and forests. This alternative would follow the current mitigation measures in place to reduce the impact of significance level on biological, agriculture, and forestry resources. Therefore, Alternative 1 biological, agriculture, and forestry resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to biological, agriculture, and forestry resources would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources). Alternative 1 would have a similar impact on these resources. However, this alternative would not meet the proposed plan objectives for smart and sensitive development in terms of development construction activities potentially affecting sensitive wildlife species during construction activities. Additionally, the proposed plan allows for conservation plans to update alongside local, regional, and government conservation policy update, which the existing General Plan would lack.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. The Patrick Rogers Farm and buildings 45 years or older are identified as existing cultural resources in the General Plan Findings
area (see Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources). These and other not-yet-identified historic resources could be altered as part of buildout of the existing (2003) General Plan. Therefore, even with mitigation identified for the proposed plan, Alternative 1 cultural and tribal resources impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to Cultural and Tribal Resources would be significant and unavoidable even after mitigation (see Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources). Alternative 1 would have reduced cultural resources impacts compared to the proposed plan due to the decrease in buildout potential but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level. However, this alternative would not adopt measures to revise the General Plan to adopt policies related to assessing and protecting historical, archaeological, and unanticipated cultural resources. Consequently, this alternative would not meet the plan objectives for smart and sensitive development in terms of development construction activities potentially affecting the significance of known and not-yetidentified historic resources during construction activities.
Geology/Soils, and Mineral Resources
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. The 2040 General Plan policy to protect paleontological resources would not be implemented and would result a lack of protection for paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 1 geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to geology/soils and mineral resources would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources). Alternative 1 would have a greater impact level compared to the proposed plan based on the lack of a paleontological resource protection policy that would have to be adopted in order to avoid future individual project adverse impacts. Without the adoption of this policy, this alternative would not meet plan objectives for smart and sensitive development in terms of development construction activities potentially affecting paleontological resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions generation and energy consumption would occur with development under the existing (2003) General Plan and/or as impacts occur from current population growth rates. However, Pleasant Hill does not have a Climate Action Plan and would, thus, not meet the State goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, regardless of alternative implementation, the latest BAAQMD CEQA thresholds Findings
for GHG emissions would not be met. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to GHG emissions and energy would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy). The existing General Plan buildout would have a lesser impact compared to the proposed plan, given less development would occur. However, due to the lack of a Climate Action Plan and, thus, consistency with the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions, the significant impact level would remain the same. This would hinder this alternative’s ability to meet the proposed plan objective to foster economic diversity and sustainability.
Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the plan objectives that focus on smart and sensitive development given that existing land uses within the General Plan area would not be updated with more modern facilities in compliance with latest building codes and, thus, would not promote greater energy efficiency nor maximize infill development.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Impacts would occur based on the construction and operational activities following the current adopted General Plan. However, portions of the General Plan area are located in and near a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a Local Responsibility area, and areas of vegetated open space. Similar to the proposed 2040 General Plan, compliance with applicable codes and regulations would not fully reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire associated with development under the current General Plan.
Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hazards would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire).
Alternative 1 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan due to the area being in and near a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a Local Responsibility area, and areas of vegetated open space. However, the current General Plan would not meet project objectives due to the lack of a plan to adopt a new General Plan policy to conduct project design review for wildlife risk reduction, which the proposed 2040 General Plan would implement in order to ensure the public safety project objective.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Ground-disturbing construction activities that could potentially affect water quality from sedimentation or accidental spills Findings
would occur following current adopted zoning. Any changes related to hydrology, water quality, watersheds and drainage patterns, flood and inundation hazards, and ground water resource management caused by changes in existing development would follow the same adopted standards. Therefore, in comparison to the proposed plan, a similar level of hydrology and water quality impacts would occur under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). The adopted General Plan’s buildout would have a similar less than significant impact on this resource. However, this alternative would not meet the proposed plan smart and sensitive development objective due to the lack of hydrology and water quality enhancement that would be implemented by the 2040 General Plan beyond the existing General Plan in order to meet the most recent Contra Coast Water District and San Francisco Bay Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board plans’ standards.
Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations would continue to be implemented across the General Plan area.
However, the existing (2003) General Plan did not account for the increase in potential sites for housing and non-residential development. This is evident in the existing General Plan’s Potential Sites for Housing, 1999-2006 (Table H22) that only identifies 81.2 acres of vacant or underutilized land, of which 65 acres were deemed available for commercial development potential. This acreage is smaller compared to the 102 acres of vacant or underutilized land identified in the proposed 2040 General Plan, most of which is identified for single-family development (approximately 80 acres) and accounts for the addition of dwelling units that would come with the increase in population. This alternative would not include allowance for future population and development growth or plan for updated maximum buildout, which the 2040 General Plan would have. Therefore, Alternative 1 land use, population, and housing impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to land use/planning and population/housing would be less than significant (see Section 3.9, Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing). Alternative 1 would have a greater impact related to land use planning, population, and housing compared to the proposed plan due to the most recent State-mandated RHNA requirements not being met. In addition, this alternative would not meet the balanced growth plan objective due to the lack of planning for anticipated population and balanced development growth.
Noise
Findings
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Temporary noise generation or level increase from 2040 General Plan-facilitated future projects would be lesser than under the proposed plan. However, Contra Costa Boulevard/North Main Street was identified as an area with increased mobile noise due to continued development in the area, making impacts potentially significant. Because of this, impacts to noise would still be significant even if no construction were to occur under the adopted plans. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.10, Noise). Alternative 1 would have a similar impact level related to noise compared to the proposed plan. While this alternative would not generate any new and significant noise levels, it would also not have the proposed plan’s attempt to mitigate the issue. Without mitigation, the proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development would not be met in terms of development potentially affecting noise-sensitive groups.
Public Services and Recreation
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. The population increase resulting from development facilitated by the existing (2003) General Plan would occur as projected as would an increased demand and usage of public services and recreational facilities. Without adoption of the proposed plan, this population growth enhanced by future, unanticipated for population growth and accompanied by the increased use of public services, increased demand for new recreation, and potential increased demand for school services would be unaccounted for.
However, due to the project population growth being lower than compared to the estimated population under the proposed project, Alternative 1 public services and recreation impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to public services and recreation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation).
The existing General Plan buildout would have a reduced impact of less than significant compared to the proposed plan due to Alternative 1’s relative decreased projected population growth. However, this alternative would not meet the proposed plan objectives to provide balanced growth and ensure public safety due to the lack of planning for increase in demand and potential new construction for public facilities.
Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, Findings
consistent with allowed existing zoning. The Transportation Impact Analysis for this “No Project” alternative included in Appendix E (see Tables 2 and 3) concluded that VMT per resident would be 11 (which is greater than under the proposed plan) and that VMT per employee would be 14 (which is the same as under the proposed plan). Changes in VMT per resident and per employee would follow current zoning development standards; however, there would be no plans implemented to ensure a transportation demand management (TDM) plan is created to reduce VMT generated by an individual project, as the current adopted plans do not include any. Therefore, Alternative 1 transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.12, Transportation). Alternative 1 would have a greater impact related to transportation compared to the proposed plan due to the lack of mitigation measures and/or plans towards reducing any future individual project VMT increases. This alternative also would not meet the proposed plan goal of encouraging smart and sensitive development, as impacts related to transportation (specifically VMT) would not be accounted for or managed.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 1, fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage development would be developed than under the proposed plan, consistent with allowed existing zoning. Increased demand for stormwater drainage, water supply, or wastewater treatment would be consistent with the projected population increase in the existing (2003) General Plan. There would also be an increase in demand as the City’s population continues to naturally grow. The existing (2003) General Plan would not account for this increase in demands at the level that the proposed plan has anticipated, including with regard to the increase in demand for water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities.
Therefore, Alternative 1 utilities and service systems impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed 2040 General Plan’s impacts related to utilities and service systems would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems). The existing General Plan buildout would have lesser impact compared to the proposed plan due to the existing plan’s fewer residential units and less non-residential gross square footage having less of a potential impact compared to the proposed plan’s larger population projection but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level. This alternative would not meet the proposed plan’s smart and sensitive development objective due to the lack of population increase anticipation compared to what the proposed plan have projected.
Attainment of Project Objectives: No
Findings
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: Adopted General Plan Buildout (i.e., “No Project”), on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to aesthetics and agriculture; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to geology, soils and mineral resources, land use planning, population, and housing resources, as well as transportation (VMT); and (4) the alternative is infeasible.
2. Alternative 2: Increased Intensity in Non-western Areas Description: The Increased Intensity in Non-western Areas Alternative (or Alternative 2) would adopt the 2040 General Plan with an increase in density and intensity development in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Alternative 2’s residential and non-residential development totals would be similar to the proposed plan’s buildout projections (see Error! Reference source not found.). For purposes of the environmental analysis, it is assumed that the maximum density allowed anywhere within the General Plan area would be 100 units/acre, similar to the proposed plan. However, the average density, and in turn the average floor area ratio (FAR), under this alternative would increase with concentrating the same total amount of General Plan buildout development as under the proposed plan within approximately 66 percent of the General Plan area (compared to within 100 percent of the General Plan area under the proposed plan). For purposes of the environmental analysis, it is assumed that the number of persons per household would still be 2.4. Based on this, the population would be 46,119, same as under the proposed plan. Alternative 2 would update the Pleasant Hill General Plan but via a different physical configuration and average density resulting in changes to the identified housing opportunity sites, compared to the proposed plan. This alternative would be focused on further enhancement of public safety protection.
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would be focused in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Development would be located along transportation corridors in the eastern portion rather than along commercial corridors and/or consist of infill development throughout the entire General Plan area. There would be an overall FAR increase that would potentially affect visual character in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Available scenic vistas, such as hills west of Pleasant Hill, could be impacted by the building height increases with development concentrated in the eastern and central areas. As a result, this alternative would require mitigation to comply with the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Title 18, Planning and Land Use. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation.
Findings
The proposed plan’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics). Alternative 2 would have a greater level of aesthetics impact compared to the proposed plan due to the increased height having potential adverse effects on scenic vistas but not to the extent of increasing the impact significance level. This alternative would not meet proposed plan objectives for smart and sensitive development, as it would result in increased FAR and building heights that could result in development to block scenic vistas.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. There would be similar levels of overall construction-related and operation-related emissions. There would be a temporary increase in emissions from construction activities and similar operational emissions and odors that would require mitigation measures similar to the proposed plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.2, Air Quality). Alternative 2 would have a similar level of impacts compared to the proposed plan with impacts requiring mitigation measures available to further construction-related and operation-related impacts.
Alternative 2 would meet the proposed plan objective of smart and sensitive development, as this alternative would adopt proposed plan policies to help address air quality impacts from construction and operational activities.
Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area.
Development would be required to implement the same federal, State, and local regulations to not impact agricultural, forestry, and most biological resources in the area. However, development in this area could result some potential direct or indirect impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats. As a result, the same mitigation measures (MM BIO-1 and BIO-2) would be required for development under Alternative 2 to occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 biological, agriculture, and forestry resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources). Alternative 2 would have a similar impact level on biological resources compared to the proposed plan. This alternative would achieve the proposed plan objective related to the adoption of the proposed 2040 General Plan Environment Element update and Environment Element Program.
Findings
This alternative would also encourage smart and sensitive development that would also meet proposed plan objectives.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would be focused in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Because this development would be more concentrated in these areas, potential impacts related to historical resources, such as buildings over 45 years old or older, would be reduced. However, this alternative would still require the same mitigation (MM CR-1 and CR-2) related to potential alteration of historic and archeological resources due to potential development. Therefore, even with mitigation identified for the proposed plan, Alternative 2 cultural and tribal resources impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to Cultural and Tribal Resources would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources). Alternative 2 would have lesser impacts compared to the proposed plan due to a relative decreased footprint of potential historic resources affects but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level. However, this alternative would meet the proposed plan objective for smart and sensitive development due to the increase in FAR resulting in concentrating development in central and eastern portions of the General Plan area, which would decrease the potential for a historic resource to be impacted by development construction-related activities.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. The central and eastern portions of the General Plan area are mostly underlain by sediments ranging from the Holocene to the Paleocene, with the older sediments being at a higher paleontological sensitivity level. Therefore, these paleontological resources would experience ground-disturbing activity due to construction efforts resulting from Alternative 2, which has the potential to adverse impact the sediments.
However, this alternative includes the adoption of the proposed plan’s mitigation measures to incorporate a paleontological resources protection policy (MM GEO1). Therefore, Alternative 2 geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to geological, soil, and mineral resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources). Alternative 2 would have a similar level of geological, soil, and mineral resource impacts compared to the proposed plan with MM GEO-1 implemented. Incorporation of the proposed plan and its Findings
mitigation measures would help this alternative meet proposed plan objective for smart and sensitive development in terms of the measures taken to reduce the chance of development construction activities potentially affecting paleontological resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. There would be construction activities that would occur in order to increase development within the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Due to the increase in development density and intensity in a smaller portion of the General Plan area, mobile GHG emissions could be reduced. However, there would still not be a defined strategy as to how the City would meet the goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2045. Without a clearly defined outline for this goal, the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions would not be met. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to GHG emissions and energy would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy). Although the impact level of mobile GHG emissions could be lessened related to potentially lower VMT, Alternative 2 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan due to the lack of consistency with the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions. This would hinder this alternative’s ability to meet the proposed plan objective to foster economic diversity and sustainability. Furthermore, the proposed plan objectives to encourage smart and sensitive development and ensure public safety would not be met in terms of emissions of GHGs.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Due to development being more concentrated in the central and eastern portion of the General Plan area further away from vegetated open space areas and State and locally designated wildfire risk areas (the southwestern portion of the City Limits and the western and southwestern portions of the Sphere of Influence outside of City Limits) wildfire exposure risk would be reduced. Additionally, this alternative would adopt the proposed plan’s mitigation measure (MM HAZ-1) to implement a new General Plan policy to conduct project design review for wildfire risk reduction, which would further decrease potential wildfire impacts under this alternative. In addition, impacts related to potential exposure to hazardous materials and non-wildfire hazards (flooding) would be less than significant similar to the proposed plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related Findings
to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hazards would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire).
Alternative 2 would have a lesser impact level compared to the proposed plan due the increase in development density within the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area and incorporation of the proposed plan’s hazards mitigation measures to the extent of reducing the impact significance level to less than significant with mitigation. Alternative 2 would also meet the proposed plan objective to ensure public safety by locating development farther from designated wildfire risk areas and adopting measures to review project designs to ensure that wildfire risk reduction measures are incorporated.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. With concentration of development in a smaller portion of the General Plan area, increased FAR would occur. This similarity in construction plans would also result in the similar potential effect on hydrology, water quality, watersheds and drainage patterns, flood and inundation hazards, and ground water resource management. Alternative 2 would also implement applicable hydrology and water quality enhancements similar to the proposed plan that the existing (2003) General Plan would lack. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Alternative 2 would have a similar impact level of less than significant. This alternative would meet proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development, as it would implement the 2040 General Plan policies to meet the most recent water quality standards.
Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. Increased density and intensity development would occur in the central and eastern portions and would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.
The increase in density through increased FAR instead of additional building development would avoid any physical divide in community areas and potential displacement. Alternative 2 would also accommodate and plan for population growth and any development. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related to land use planning, population, and housing would be less than significant.
Findings
The proposed plan’s impacts related to land use and population/housing would be less than significant (see Section 3.9, Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing). Alternative 2 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan. This alternative would meet plan objective to support diverse housing options due to residential and non-residential development remaining at maximum assumed buildout.
Noise
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area.
Construction to increase building heights throughout the proposed area would occur, likely causing new noise sources due to construction activities. While this alternative would adopt the proposed plan’s mitigation measures to reduce new noise production (MM NOI-1), impacts on noise would still be significant due to the temporary increase in noise levels during construction potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive receptors and exceeding noise standards. Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.10, Noise). Alternative 2 would have a similar significance level compared to the proposed plan due to noise from construction activities temporarily exceeding noise standards. This alternative would meet the proposed plan’s smart and sensitive development objective in terms of noise management decreasing potential effects on sensitive receptors.
Public Services and Recreation
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. The increase in development similar to the proposed plan with increased FAR would cause a population increase, specifically among school-aged children. This increase would result in a higher demand for old and new public services, such as schools. As a result, the large amount of net new school facilities anticipated under this alternative would result in significant construction impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and VMT. These impacts would be similar to the proposed plan’s impacts, resulting in Alternative 2 public services and recreation impacts being significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to public services and recreation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation).
Alternative 2 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan.
This alternative would meet the proposed plan objectives to provide balanced growth and ensure public safety, because the increase in demand and potential new construction for public facilities would be accounted for.
Findings
Transportation
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. There would be an increase in FAR that could lead to a decrease in VMT per resident and employee as people move into these new spaces for work and living purposes.
While future buildout still anticipates the same development total similar to the proposed plan buildout projections (see Error! Reference source not found.) resulting in an increase in population, the increase in development density would contribute to an overall VMT reduction. Furthermore, development buildout under this alternative would be planned more proximate to transportation corridors in the eastern and central portions of the General Plan area. As a result, VMT-related impacts would be reduced. However, similar to the proposed plan, Alternative 2 transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the lack of a specific TDM plan with TDM programs to ensure reduction and mitigation of VMT impacts.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.12, Transportation). Alternative 2 would have a lesser impact compared to the proposed plan due to the reduction in VMT per resident and employee but not to the extent of reducing the impact significance level.
However, this alternative would meet the proposed plan objective to provide barrier-free mobility due to the increase in FAR and concentrated location of development resulting in a potential decrease in VMT per resident and employee across the General Plan area.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 2, the same total amount of residential and non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, but development would occur only in the central and eastern portions of the General Plan area. There would be in an increase in demand for water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities compared to existing conditions with this alternative’s increase in population. Construction-related impacts due to potential need for new or expanded utility infrastructure and facilities would be significant and unavoidable, as there would be significant and unavoidable construction impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, paleontological resources, and noise.
Therefore, Alternative 2 utilities and service systems impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to utilities and service systems would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems).
Alternative 2 would have a similar significant and unavoidable impact level compared to the proposed plan due to impacts associated with construction and operation of new or expanded facilities. However, this alternative would meet the proposed plan balanced growth objective due to the population and related Findings
utilities demand increase being planned for with implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan under this alternative.
Attainment of Project Objectives: No
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Increased Intensity in Non-western Areas Alternative , on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to aesthetics and agriculture; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to cultural resources, transportation, GHG emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems, and aesthetics; and (4) the alternative is infeasible.
3. Alternative 3: 25 Percent Residential Reduction
Description: The 25 percent Residential Reduction Alternative (or Alternative 3) would reduce residential buildout by 25 percent compared to the proposed plan’s projected buildout. Compared to the proposed plan, the number of multi-family residential units would decrease by 3,016 units, and single-family (including ADUs) residential units would decrease by 1,787 units (see Error! Reference source not found.). Nonresidential gross square footage amount and type breakdown would be the same as under the proposed plan. This alternative would have the same overall footprint (but lower residential density and height) across the General Plan area as the proposed plan while not falling below the RHNA requirements or changing the identified housing opportunity sites. For purposes of the environmental analysis, it is assumed that the number of persons per household would still be 2.4. Based on this, there would be a 11,528- population decrease under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would update the Pleasant Hill General Plan but via a reduced residential growth scenario. This alternative would be focused on smart and sensitive growth while still meeting RHNA requirements.
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. The decrease in residential development would result in a reduced impact on views, nighttime lighting, and shadow, as there would be less residential uses on-site than the proposed plan anticipated This would result in a less than significant on aesthetic resources.
However, due to this alternative having the same footprint as the proposed plan, impacts would be similar to the proposed plan’s impacts on aesthetics and a mitigation measure (MM AES-1) would be incorporated. Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation.
Findings
The proposed plan’s impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics). Alternative 3 would have a similar impact on aesthetics due to the similarity in development footprint compared to the proposed plan; however, the impact level would be incrementally reduced due to the relative decrease in residential development decreasing potential impacts on scenic vistas. This alternative would meet the proposed plan objective to provide balanced growth, due to the overall impacts related to aesthetics being lesser while providing an increase in development potential.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. The decrease in residential development could result in less mobile-related emissions compared to the proposed plan. However, construction is still anticipated under this alternative and would result in the generation of criteria air and toxic air contaminant emissions during construction of individual future projects that could in turn affect regional air quality and local respiratory health. As a result, this alternative would still implement proposed plan mitigation (Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3).
Therefore, Alternative 3 air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 3.2, Air Quality). Alternative 3 would have a similar level of impacts compared to the proposed plan, due to the same development footprint as the proposed plan and, thus, the same amount of development grading and other construction activities impacting air quality. Implementing proposed plan mitigation to adopt General Plan policies to reduce construction-related emissions (MM AQ-1), reduce operation-related emissions (MM AQ-2), and implement construction health risk assessments (MM AQ-3)would result in this alternative meeting the proposed plan objective to ensure public safety given that implementation of these policies would result in decreased impacts related to public health.
Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. This development would be required to implement the same federal, State, and local regulations to not impact agricultural, forestry, and most biological resources in the area. However, there is the potential for development to result in direct or indirect potential impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats. As a result, the same mitigation measures (MM BIO-1 and BIO-2) would be required for development under Alternative 2.
Therefore, Alternative 3 biological, agriculture, and forestry resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Findings
The proposed plan’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources). Alternative 3 would have a similar level of impact related to biological resources compared to the proposed plan. This alternative would achieve the proposed plan objective for smart and sensitive development, due to the adoption of updated regulations for biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. Construction similar to the proposed plan’s projections would occur but would develop less residential units compared to the proposed plan. However, the same development footprint as the proposed plan is still anticipated, meaning development under this alternative could result in substantial adverse change on historical resources identified as buildings over 45 years old. The proposed plan’s mitigation measure could be implemented by preparing historical resource evaluations to reduce significant historical resource impacts before construction (MM CR-1), assessing archeological resources before future project approval (MM CR-2), and stopping construction in the event of an unanticipated discovery (MM CR-3). However, even with mitigation implementation, existing historical resources could still be materially impaired by individual future projects and the loss of historical fabric could not be readily compensated for by commemorative mitigation. Therefore, Alternative 3 cultural and tribal resources impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to Cultural and Tribal Resources would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources). Alternative 3 would have a similar level of significant and unavoidable resource impacts compared to the proposed plan. However, this alternative would meet the proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development because the projected residential buildout reduction would reduce the potential for development to impact historic resources.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. The decreased residential buildout construction would be underlain by sediments ranging from the Holocene to the Paleocene, with the older sediments being at a higher paleontological sensitivity level. Therefore, these paleontological resources would experience ground-disturbing activity due to construction efforts resulting from Alternative 2, which has the potential to adverse impact the sediments. Therefore, this alternative would adopt the proposed plan’s mitigation measure to incorporate a paleontological resources protection policy (MM GEO-1). Alternative 3 Findings
geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to geological, soil, and mineral resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (see Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources). Alternative 3 would result in lesser geological, soil, and mineral resource impacts compared to the proposed plan with MM GEO-1 implemented due to the decreased number of units resulting in a decrease in potential cases of impacts on paleontological resources but not to the extent of decreasing the impact significance level. Implementing the proposed plan and its mitigation measures would help meet the proposed plan objective encouraging smart and sensitive development, due to the decreased potential of development construction activities affecting paleontological resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. While this alternative would adopt the GHG mitigation measures from the proposed plan to combat any impacts, there would still be the issue of the need for a defined strategy as to how City would meet the goal to reduce emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2045. However, with mitigation measures in place (MM GHG-1 and GHG-2), the decrease in residential unit construction would lessen GHG emissions impacts compared to the proposed plan. Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to GHG emissions and energy would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy). Alternative 3 would have a lesser impact level due to the decrease in residential buildout. However, with the need to implement mitigation measures for this plan to be consistent with BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. This would hinder this alternative’s ability to meet the proposed plan objective to foster economic diversity and sustainability. Furthermore, the proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development would not be met with regard to emissions of GHGs.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. Construction plans and operational activities would likely follow guidelines and regulations to avoid significant effects from hazardous material transportation, emission, and/or exposure. However, this alternative would be built out throughout the entire Findings
General Plan area, including the southwestern portion of the City Limits and the western and southwestern portions of the City Sphere of Influence outside of City Limits, which are in and near a High Fire Severity Zone and Local Responsibility Area. Although this alternative has decreased development, its overall footprint would be the same as the proposed plan’s footprint, resulting in the same siting of development in and near wildfire risk zones. Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would still be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hazards would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.7, Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire).
Alternative 3 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan due to the area being in and near a High Fire Severity Zone, a Local Responsibility Area, and areas of vegetated open space. Alternative 3 would meet plan objective with policy incorporation (MM HAZ-1), which would ensure public safety by reducing the risk of wildfire impacts through project design assessment.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. Water quality standards, drainage patterns, flood and inundation hazards, and water management plans would be similar to the proposed plan’s impact due to the similarity in development footprint. However, less residential units under this alternative and implementation applicable hydrology and water quality enhancements over the 2003 adopted General Plan would reduce the impact level. Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Alternative 3 would have a similar less-than-significant impact on these resources but at a lesser level due to the decrease in residential units. This alternative would meet proposed plan objective for smart and sensitive development, due to the implementation of proposed plan policies to meet the most recent water quality standards.
Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. This change in development could result in a change of zoning designations that potentially could not fully align with the land use plans, policies, and regulations currently in place.
However, this impact would remain at a less than significant impact level with updates to the Zoning Code that follow General Plan implementation. Therefore, Findings
Alternative 3 land use, population, and housing impacts would be less than significant at a greater impact level.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to land use would be less than significant (see Section 3.9, Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing). While still a less-than-significant level, Alternative 3 would have greater land use planning, population, and housing impacts, due to the Zoning Code update to follow the General Plan update. This alternative would still achieve the development variety due to the proposed 2040 General Plan implantation remaining under this alternative, which would fulfill the plan objective to support diverse housing options.
Noise
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. Development under this alternative could result in new noise sources. Although there would be a decrease in construction activities for residential units, development would still occur under this alternative, meaning impacts related to noise would remain significant due to the temporary increase in noise levels during construction potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive receptors and exceeding noise standards. As a result, this alternative would adopt the proposed plan’s mitigation measures to reduce new noise production (MM NOI-1). Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to noise would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.10, Noise). Alternative 2 would have a similar significance level compared to the proposed plan, due to noise associated with construction activities temporarily exceeding noise standards. This alternative would meet the proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development via management of noise increase.
Public Services and Recreation
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. While residential development would be decreased under this alternative, the population is still projected to increase by 34,591 persons (see Error! Reference source not found.). This would include an increase in school-aged children, which would result in a higher demand for old and new public services, such as schools. As a result, the large amount of net new school facilities anticipated under this alternative would result in significant construction impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and noise. Therefore, Alternative 3 public services and recreation impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Findings
The proposed plan’s impacts related to public services and recreation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation).
Alternative 3 would have a similar impact level compared to the proposed plan, though slightly reduced due to fewer residential units. This alternative would also meet the proposed plan objectives to provide balanced growth and ensure public safety, because the increase in demand and potential new construction for public facilities would be accounted for.
Transportation
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. The relative decrease in residential development would result in a relative decrease in population (see Error! Reference source not found.), which in turn would result in a relative decrease in VMT compared to the proposed plan. As a result, there would be an incremental decrease related to transportation impacts under Alternative 3.
However, without an implemented TDM plan, Alternative 3 transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.12, Transportation). Alternative 2 would have lesser impacts compared to the proposed plan due to the relative decrease in VMT as a result of the relative decrease in projected population but not to the extent of changing the significance level. In addition, this alternative would not meet the proposed plan objective to encourage smart and sensitive development due to the lack of an implemented TDM plan to further ensure VMT reduction.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 3, 25 percent fewer residential units and the same total amount of non-residential development would occur as under the proposed plan, and overall development would have the same footprint. There would be a decrease in residential development, which would result in a reduced demand for stormwater drainage, water supply, and wastewater treatment in comparison to the proposed plan. However, because development and population increase would still occur under this alternative, construction-related impacts due to the need for new or expanded utility infrastructure and facilities that comes from an increase in population would be significant, due to the significant and unavoidable construction impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, paleontological resources, and noise. Therefore, Alternative 3 utilities and service systems impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed plan’s impacts related to utilities and service systems would be significant and unavoidable (see Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems).
Alternative 3 would have a similar impact level to the proposed plan, due to impacts associated with construction of new or expanded facilities. However, this Findings
alternative would meet the proposed plan objective regarding smart and sensitive development due to the planning and implementation of this alternative accounting for the population and related utilities demand increase.
Attainment of Project Objectives: No
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3 25 percent Residential Reduction Alternative , on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to aesthetics and agriculture; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to cultural resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities, greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) the alternative is infeasible.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Draft EIR) the Adopted General Plan Buildout alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
SECTION IX.
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to aesthetics resources, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality – operations, and transportation/traffic. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from the Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the Project.
In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceeding.
Findings
The City Council therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to accomplish the Plan Objectives noted below:
Encourage smart and sensitive development.
Foster economic diversity and sustainability.
Support and provide diverse additional housing opportunities. Foster economic improvements to provide additional and improved housing and commercial opportunities for existing and future residents of the City. Provide additional and improved housing opportunities for existing and future residents of the City in a balanced manner while ensuring public safety to the greatest extent feasible.
Increase mobility throughout the City and support alternative methods of travel and compact development to help to provide barrier-free mobility and smart development.
Findings
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SEE ATTACHMENT N OF THE
MAY 18, 2023 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT