2382 - Laserfiche WebLink

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. 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 the Project would not be approved and indus- trial/commercially zoned lands would be rezoned to residential uses. The Residential Community Alternative is inconsistent with the Land Use and Housing Element policies of the General Plan. Demand for community services would grow without increased revenues generated by indus- trial and commercial development. The Residen- tial Community Alternative has the potential to generate significant adverse air, traffic, and energy effects as a result of continued out- commute. d.3 Fact. The street and utility infrastructure has been completed and sized for development of uses and intensities as planned. Liens resulting from assessments to finance the infrastructure mandate development of commercial and industrial uses at proposed densities. E. Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative. e.l Findinq. The Reduced intensity of Development Alternative is infeasible. e.2 Fact. Under the Reduced Intensity of Develop- ment Alternative, neither the Amendment nor the Project would be approved. City would adopt amendments to the Land Use and GME Elements whereby alJ_owable intensity of development in the North Pleasanton area would be reduced. Goal 2 of the Growth Management Element states that development should occur in an efficient, logical and orderly fashion. Given projected demand, reduced intensity of development would 21.