Laserfiche WebLink
c.2 Fact. Due to assessment liens, land costs, and <br /> development costs, it is economically infeasible to <br /> develop at the reduced intensity posited. <br /> <br /> c.3 Finding. The Reduced Intensity Alternative may <br /> exacerbate impacts regionally, thus not truly <br /> acting as a mitigation measure. <br /> <br /> c.4 Fact. Development pressure would create <br /> development elsewhere in the local region, <br /> eliminating efficient use of planned infrastructure <br /> and lessening the likelihood of transit <br /> alternatives. <br /> <br /> c.5 Fact. Reduced tax base with similar service <br /> demands may reduce service levels. <br /> <br />D. Mixed Use Alternative <br /> <br /> d.1 Finding. The Mixed Use Alternative is infeasible. <br /> d.2 Fact. The Project is located near the junction of <br /> two freeways. Noise, air and traffic impacts from <br /> the freeways, major arterials and in-tract <br /> collector streets would have a negative impact on <br /> the quality of life expected for a residential <br /> development. In addition, the Project is located <br /> in the middle of an area planned for industrial and <br /> commercial development and would be relatively <br /> isolated from schools, some types of retail <br /> shopping and other community services generally <br /> desired to be close to residential developments. <br /> Liens resulting from assessments to finance the <br /> infrastructure mandate development of commercial <br /> and industrial uses at proposed densities. <br /> <br />E. Increased Residential Capacity Alternative. <br /> <br /> e.1 Finding. The Increased Residential Capacity <br /> Alternative exacerbates impacts and is not a <br /> mitigation measure in the sum of its effects. <br /> <br /> e.2 Fact. This alternative would increase traffic on <br /> local roadways and increase demand on community <br /> services. The increase in City's fiscal base may <br /> be insufficient to finance services and <br /> improvements required by the increased residential <br /> development. <br /> <br /> e.3 Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity <br /> Alternative is inconsistent with current General <br /> Plan Land Use Element designations and growth rate <br /> policies. <br /> <br /> e.4 Fact. Existing and planned General Plan policies <br /> balance the need for housing against all other <br /> <br /> - 16 - <br /> <br /> <br />