Laserfiche WebLink
may be insufficient parking for BART patrons. The City will request and encourage BART to <br />provide that parking. Moreover, it is within the authority orBART itself to create additional <br />parking space for its riders. It is neither fair nor reasonable for Pleasanton to provide this parking. <br /> <br /> FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br /> A. Option I (No Proiect Alternative)- <br /> <br /> Option 1 represents the existing conditions which exist in Pleasanton today and assumes <br /> that no further development, whether under the 1986 General Plan or otherwise, will occur. As <br /> such, it is the no project alternative. <br /> The City Council finds that the no project alternative is less desirable than the Project and <br /> rejects the no project alternative for the following reasons: This alternative does not include any <br /> additional infrastructure or improvements; it includes no further housing; no additional <br /> commercial/office/industrial development; and no additional jobs other than those that might be <br /> created by existing businesses. This alternative eliminates the potential to create additional <br /> housing, eliminates the potential to create more jobs and would not include the Community <br /> Character, Economic and Fiscal, and Subregional Planning Elements, all of which either mitigate <br /> environmental impacts or enhance the social and cultural aspects of the community. <br /> <br /> B. Option 3 <br /> <br /> Option 3 would result at buildout in 30,346 housing units. This Option would result in a <br /> significantly higher number of residential units and a larger population than the buildout under the <br /> Project and even under the existing General Plan. Impacts - such as use of water and energy, the <br /> production of solid waste and wastewater, and demands for public services - would inzrease, <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br /> <br />