Laserfiche WebLink
a.5 Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development <br />Alternative, No Project Alternative, Increased <br />Residential Capacity Alternative, Partial <br />Approval Alternative or Mixed Use Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the potential sig- <br />nificant effect. However, each of these <br />Alternatives is infeasible and unnecessary <br />because the mitigation measures which have been <br />incorporated into the Project substantially <br />lessen the effect. <br />a.6 Fact. See Section XII (for infeasibility of <br />these Alternatives). <br />a.7 Finding. See Sections III.a.2, III.a.4 (Air <br />Quality and Traffic Mitigations). <br />B. Significant Effect. Generation of regional vehicular <br />emissions related to commute trips in a non- attain- <br />ment area for oxidant pollution. <br />b.1 Finding. The Traffic Conditions will sub- <br />stantially lessen the effect. <br />b.2 Fact. The Traffic Conditions will reduce <br />regional traffic volumes, thus reducing vehicu- <br />lar emissions both by reducing volume and <br />improving level of service. <br />b.3 Fact. The Tri-Valley balance of jobs to housing <br />as demonstrated in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR <br />should cause a lessening of vehicle miles tra- <br />velled and a concurrent reduction of vehicular <br />emissions. <br />b.4 Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development <br />Alternative, No Project Alternative, Increased <br />Residential Capacity Alternative, Partial Ap- <br />proval Alternative or Mixed Use Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the potential effect. <br />However, each of these Alternatives is infeasi- <br />ble and unnecessary as Traffic Conditions will <br />substantially lessen the effect. <br />b.5 Fact. See Section XII (for infeasibility of <br />these Alternatives). <br />b.6 Fact. See Sections III.b.2 and III.b.3 (Traffic <br />Mitigations; Tri Valley Jobs/Housing Balance). <br />6 <br />