2380 - Laserfiche WebLink

A. No Project Alternative to the Amendment. a.1 Findinq: The No Project Alternative to the Amendment is infeasible. a.2 Fact. The No Project Alternative to the Amend- ment would maintain the present judicial inter- pretation of the GME. The Project would not be approved absent either (i) an alternative amendment to the General Plan (see, e.g., dis- cussion of Tri- Valley Employment Center and Increased Residential Capacity Alternatives) or (ii) an amendment to the Project (see, e.g., Reduced Intensity of Development, Partial Ap- proval and Mixed Use Alternatives). Each of these Alternatives is infeasible. Absent adop- tion of one of the foregoing Alternatives, the No Project Alternative to the Amendment results in the No Approval of Project Alternative which is infeasible (see Section XII.F). B. Tri Valley Employment Center Alternative. b.1 Findinq. The Tri Valley Employment Center Al- ternative is an alternative to the Amendment. The Project would be built as provided in the PUD. Because of Pleasanton's location, the Tri Valley Employment Center Alternative could miti- gate potential significant regional traffic, air quality and energy effects identified in this Exhibit A. However, the Tri Valley Employment Center is infeasible and unnecessary because the significant effects which could be mitigated by the Tri Valley Employment Center Alternative are substantially lessened by the mitigation mea- sures incorporated into the Project. b.2 Fact. The Tri Valley Employment Center Alter- native would be inconsistent with Goals 1 and 3 of the GME. C. Increased Residential Capacity Alternative. c.1 Finding. The Increased Residential Capacity Alternative is infeasible. c.2 Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alter- native is an alternative to the Amendment. Under this Alternative, City would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow the number of housing units in Pleasanton to be 20.