Laserfiche WebLink
3.C.2. Finding| The "No Project" alternative is <br /> infeasible. <br /> <br /> Fact: See 1.a 2. above. <br /> <br /> 3.c.3. Fi~d~: The "Reduced Lot Yield" and <br /> "Mitigated Site Plan" alternatives have effects <br /> similar to the revised development plan. <br /> <br /> Fact: Some tree removal and potential <br /> endangerment is unavoidable in bringing <br /> streets which meet City standards to the <br /> site. The "Mitigated Site Plan" <br /> alternative would require more tree <br /> removal than the revised plan, and the <br /> "Reduced Lot Yield" alternative avoids <br /> more trees, but requires street <br /> grades/widths not meeting City <br /> standards. <br /> <br />3.D. Significant ~f~ect: There would be increased night <br /> lighting and possible glare. <br /> <br /> 3.d.1. Findina: The revised plan and project <br /> conditions of approval substantially lessen <br /> this effect. <br /> <br /> Fact: Street lighting is proposed to be low <br /> intensity and screened from the valley <br /> by street tree planting. <br /> <br /> Fact: The revised plan removes at least 12 <br /> lots whose lights would have been <br /> visible from the valley, including the <br /> highest elevation lots, and also deletes <br /> Equus Court above its existing terminus. <br /> <br /> Fact: Lot 3 has been revised to avoid direct <br /> Foothill Road line-of-sight. <br /> <br /> 3.d.2. ~| Project alternatives are either <br /> infeasible or do not improve the mitigation <br /> beyond that provided by the revised plan. <br /> <br /> Fact: Seel.a.2.,3.a.l.,3.a.2.,and3.c.3. <br /> <br />3.E. Significant Effect: Inappropriate fencing could <br /> diminish the visual qualities of the site. <br /> <br /> 3.e.1. F~nd~na: The revised plan has been changed to <br /> avoid this impact. <br /> <br />2/21/89 -4- <br /> <br /> <br />