My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
2382
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
2382
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2009 12:38:23 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 11:43:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/1983
DOCUMENT NO
2382
DOCUMENT NAME
GP-81-30
NOTES
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND CALLAHAN-PENTZ
NOTES 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF A 573 ACRE PORJECT HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK
NOTES 3
PLEASANTON
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
amendment to the General Plan (see, e.g., dis- <br />cussion of Tri-Valley Employment Center and <br />increased Residential Capacity Alternatives) or <br />(ii) an amendment to the Project (see, e.g., <br />Reduced Intensity of Development, Partial Ap- <br />proval and Mixed Use Alternatives). Each of <br />these Alternatives is infeasible. Absent adop- <br />tion of one of the foregoing Alternatives, the <br />No Project Alternative to the Amendment results <br />in the No Approval of Project Alternative which <br />is infeasible (see Section XII.F). <br />B. Tri-Valley Employment Center Alternative. <br />b.l Finding. The Tri-Valley Employment Center Al- <br />ternative is an alternative to the Amendment. <br />The Project would be built as provided in the <br />PUA. Because of Pleasanton's location, the Tri- <br />Valley Employment Center Alternative could miti- <br />gate potential significant regional traffic, air <br />quality and energy effects identified in this <br />Exhibit A. However, the Tri-Valley Employment <br />Center is infeasible and unnecessary because the <br />significant effects which could be mitigated by <br />the Tri-Valley Employment Center Alternative are <br />substantially lessened by the mitigation mea- <br />sures incorporated into the Project. <br />b.2 Fact. The Tri-Valley Employment Center Alter- <br />native would be inconsistent with Goals 1 and 3 <br />of the GME. <br />C. Increased Residential Capacity Alternative. <br />c.l Finding. The Increased Residential Capacity <br />Alternative is infeasible. <br />c.2 Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alter- <br />native is an alternative to the Amendment. <br />Under this Alternative, City would amend the <br />Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow <br />the number of housing units in Pleasanton to be <br />increased. The Amendment would not be adopted <br />but the Project could be approved. The in- <br />creased Residential Capacity Alternative might <br />result in less regional traffic congestion if <br />the average commute distance were reduced (as a <br />result of substantial numbers of Pleasanton <br />workers choosing to live in Pleasanton). This <br />alternative would increase traffic on local <br />roadways and increase demand on community ser- <br />20. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.