Laserfiche WebLink
January 13. 2009 <br /> Page S <br /> does not discuss VMT or the climate change impacts associated with the other two alternatives. <br /> Even 'vithout that evaluation, the DEIR concludes that none of the alternatives will have a <br /> significant effect on climate change_ Ultimately, the City finds the proposed General flan <br /> Lpdat: to be enviromnenta]ly superior to the other altematives." <br /> In drafting the final environmental impact report for the General Plan Update, the City <br /> must Lt the very least identify one alternative that reduces the Project's climate change impacts <br /> an alts mative that reduces rather than exacerbates the City's current jobsihousing imbalance, In <br /> addition, the City should compare the alternatives' greenhouse gas emissions and that <br /> comparison should inform its choice of the environmentally superior alternative. <br /> Local leadership is vital to the state's effort to reduce global warming and build a <br /> sustainable California. Pleasanton's environmental review shirks its responsibility to fully <br /> analy. :c and address the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from its proposed development <br /> plans Ind 15 therefore legally inadequate. <br /> Cenci wino <br /> Pleasanton's General Plan Update presents the City with a great opportunity. City <br /> leaders can chart a vision of growth for Pleasanton that is sustainable, improves energy <br /> cflicitney, reduces vehicle miles traveled. freeway congestion. global warming pollution and <br /> fossil fuel consumption, all the while promoting a rich and elegant urban environment. <br /> I urge the City to seize this oppomtnity. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> W)(4061.9R j <br /> cc: Jennifer liosterrnan, Mayor of Pleasanton <br /> Cheryl Cook- Kallio. Vice Mayor <br /> Cindy McGovern. Councilmembcr <br /> ■fan Sullivan. Councilmember <br /> J;rry Thorne, Councilmembcr <br /> "'ia al 54, Table 5 -4. <br /> 4 id ai 5.25. <br />