2382 - Laserfiche WebLink

f.3 Fact. The increased Residential Capacity Alter- native is inconsistent with current General Plan Land Use Element designations. G. Tri-Valley Employment Center Alternative. q.l Finding. 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. g.2 Fact. The Tri-Valley Employment Center Alter- native would be inconsistent with Goals 1 and 3 of the GMF.. H. Monitoring of Development Alternative. (Final EIR Comment K). h.l Finding. A suggested mitigation, phase de- velopment in City by monitoring development and resricting growth to two million square feet every five years, is unnecessary as environ- mental impacts will be mitigated. h.2 Fact. The recommended mitigation is unnecessary because (1) environmental impacts of development are mitigated by mitigation measures and condi- tions of approval as described in Sections I through X of this Resolution and (2) City poli- cies allow for control of development on a building-by-building basis with respect to traffic, air and public services impacts. XIII. Growth Inducement. A. Significant Effect. Growth-inducing impacts asso- ciated with provisions of basic employment, removal of flood hazards, generation of more jobs than em- ployees can be housed locally, and construction of 22.