ORD 1109 - Laserfiche WebLink

b.3 Fact. Under this alternative, more Pleasanton workers would commute to Pleasanton. There would almost certainly be a lower jobs/housing index, i.e. more jobs than housing. The exist- ing General Plan Review Committee is currently considering the ramifications of commercial and industrial development in addition to the ap- proved projects. Proposals for additional de- velopment will be considered, with appropriate environmental review after that process is completed. C. Increased Residential Capacity Alternative. c.l 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 increased. The Amendment would not be adopted but the Project could be approved. The In- creased Residential Capacity Alternative might result in less regional traffic congestion if the average commute distance were reduced (as a result of substantial numbers of Pleasanton workers choosing to live in Pleasanton). This alternative would increase traffic on local roadways and increase demand on community ser- vices. The increase in City's fiscal base may be insufficient to finance services and improve- ments required by the increased residential development. c.3 Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alter- native is inconsistent with current General Plan Land Use Element designations. c.4 Fact. Due to existing general plan policies the annual residential growth rate may not exceed two percent (2%). D. Residential Community Alternative. d.l Finding. The Residential Community Alternative is infeasible. d.2 Fact. Under the Residential Community Alter- native, the Amendment would not be approved and 21.