RES 83501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Project and the Amendment. In addition to the preceding findings and analyses, the City finds as follows: A. No Project Alternative to the Amendment.3 a.1 Finding: The No Project Alternative to the Amendment is infeasible. a.2 Fact. The No Project Alternative to the Amend- ment would maintain the present judicial inter- pretation of the GME. The Project would not be approved absent either (i) an alternative amendment to the General Plan (see, e.g., dis- cussion of Tri-Valley Employment Center and Increased Residential Capacity Alternatives) or (ii) an amendment to the Project (see, e.g., Reduced Intensity of Development, Partial Ap- proval and Mixed Use Alternatives). Each of these Alternatives is infeasible. Absent adop- tion of one of the foregoing Alternatives, the No Project Alternative to the Amendment results in the No Approval of Project Alternative which is infeaslble (see Section XII.F). B. Tri-Valley EmploVment Center Alternative. 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. Fact. The Tri-Valley Employment Center Alter- native would be inconsistent with Goals 1 and 3 of the GME. The No Project Alternative to the Amendment and the No Approval of Project Alternative are sometimes collectively referred to as the "No Project Alternative".