20 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

January 13, 2009 Page F California have done, Such a plan should include an inventory of current greenhouse gas emissions, specific emissions targets that are consistent with AB 32. and enforceable greenhouse gas control measures. The resources discussed above (see pp. 6-7) provide examples of mitigation measures that can he employed as pan of a Climate Action Plea In addition. the plan shout(. include monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that mitigation measures arc impleincntcd and effective. Finally. the Climate Action Plan should allow for thc City to review and update mitigation measures as needed. I f dnnc pruperly and in tandem with thc General Plan Update and final environmental impact repon, the Climate Action flan could be thc cornerstone of the City's climate change mitigation strategy. 13. Alternatives The DE1R examines only three alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update. none of which consider significantly reducing business development or significantly increasing reside trial development CEQA requires a local agency to identity and study a reasonable range of alternatives that would attain most of the basic objectives of the project," The fundamental purpe c of alternatives analysis is to examine alternatives that can eliminate or teduce significant environmental impacts_` An EIR must meaningfully compare the alternatives as they contribute to glooal warming and an E(R should compare the alternatives' greenhouse gas emissions. Further. the differences in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the various alternatives should figure into the lead agency's identification of the env imnmcntally superior alternative. Here, the City does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives. and it foils to evaluate the climate change impacts associated with any of the alternatives considered in the DRIR. All three nitcrnatives allow for significant (growth in employment generating development, while limiting residential development to the 29.000 units prescribed by the 'lousing Cap.` One of the altcmntivcs is a no project alternative, which assumes the 1996 general plan remains City policy. the 0 her two alternatives. "Dispersed Growth" and Concentrated Residential /Mixed llse" allow for the same number of housing units. but locate those units in different pans of the City." Both of these alternatives allow for slightly more retail, office, industrial. and research and development than the proposed General Plan U !9 'P P P pdalc, Re only mention in the alternatives sectio t of the jobs/lxtusing imbalance, which causes increased VMT, is as follows: `The Concentrated Residential/Mixed Use Alternative has slightly higher non-residential development potential than the proposed General Plan and could thcrcfnre result in higher employment Fruwt t. The gnnvth in employment coupled with a cap on residential development, could result in a potentially significant impact because it could cause a substantial increase in traffic volumes as per ions not living in the Planning Area conic to work within thc Planning Area. 'Ihc City 14 Ca. Code Reg'. *15126.6. "!d. s6 §I5I26.ri(b). See 4 Cat, Cede Rsgs. p 15126:6 (e1t21, DF..II; at 5.1, Table 5.1 Id. a'5 -1. w !J