Laserfiche WebLink
3.c.2. Find n The "No Project" alternative is <br />infeasible. <br />Fact: See 3.a.1. above. <br />3.c.3. Finding: The "Reduced Lot Yield" and <br />"Mitigated Site Plan" alternatives have effects <br />similar to the revised development plan. <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 />3.D. Significant Effect: There would be increased night <br />lighting and possible glare. <br />3.d.1. Finding: The revised plan and project <br />conditions of approval substantially lessen <br />this effect. <br />Fact: Street lighting is proposed to be low <br />intensity and screened from the valley <br />by street tree planting. <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 />Fact: Lot 3 has been revised to avoid direct <br />Foothill Road line-of-sight. <br />3.d.2. Finding: Project alternatives are either <br />infeasible or do not improve the mitigation <br />beyond that provided by the revised plan. <br />Fact: See 3.a.1. and 3.c.3. <br />3.E. Significant Effect: Inappropriate fencing could <br />diminish the visual qualities of the site. <br />3.e.1. Finding: The revised plan has been changed to <br />avoid this impact. <br />-4- <br />