Laserfiche WebLink
Based on the facts set forth below. an the information in the Final EIR, pages 3-11 to <br />3-15. the City Council finds and determines that Alternative 5 is less desirable than the Project. <br />and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: <br /> <br /> 1. Land Use Impacts. The proposal for 480 homes would significantly increase <br /> housing density. while decreasing the number of acres of vineyards. This would <br /> not adequately preserve the agricultural element of a vineyard-lined corridor. and <br /> impacts aesthetics for the City's southern gateway. <br /> <br /> 2. Earth Resources. The area to be graded and the volume of earth moved would <br /> both be increased under this alternative. This would result in increased erosion <br /> and sedimentation. <br /> <br /> 3. Hvdrologv and Water Quality. Storm water run-off would increase under this <br /> alternative because of the rise in impermeable surfaces. There would also be <br /> increases in urban uses in the area, resulting in degradation in water quality. <br /> <br /> 4. Biological Resources. More wildlife habitat would be disturbed under this <br /> alternative, as the increased housing units would be located in areas which are <br /> currently undeveloped grasslands and oak woodlands. <br /> <br /> 5. Noise. Increased traffic from the additional housing units provided for in <br /> Alternative #5 would result in increased noise levels from project-generated <br /> traffic. <br /> <br /> 6. Air QualiW. Because Altemative #5 anticipates more housing units and vehicle <br /> traffic, it would result in greater deterioration of air quality. While there would be <br /> some offset due to the elimination of mining on Lot 21, overall air quality <br /> emissions would double under this altemative. <br /> <br /> 7. Traffic. There would be an increase of vehicle trips generated by this altemative, <br /> in the amount of 233 a.m. peak and 291 p.m. peak trips. While level of service <br /> would remain acceptable at all studied intersections, this alternative generates <br /> significantly more traffic. <br /> <br /> 8. Water and Sewer. There would be a substantial increase on demand for water <br /> supplies due to increased housing density, and commensurate demand for <br /> additional sewer treatment facilities and export capacity <br /> <br /> 9. Visual Resources. This alternative would create greater impacts on visual <br /> resources in the hillside area, and reduce flexibility in siting homes due to <br /> increased density. <br /> <br />Exhibit B 6 <br /> <br /> <br />