Laserfiche WebLink
1. Facts. <br /> <br /> As summarized at pages 60 to 62 of the DEIR, this <br />alternative would lead to a significantly higher number of <br />residences on the site, thereby exposing a significantly <br />higher number of people to airport operations, as well as to <br />seismic movement. Because such alternative would eliminate <br />most of the service/light industrial uses contemplated by the <br />proposed Project, the number of jobs would be reduced in <br />half. Although traffic would be reduced because of a loss of <br />jobs, noise levels from traffic would remain about the same; <br />furthermore, more persons would be subject to noise from 1- <br />580, and a sound wall or sound proofing of buildings would be <br />required to reduce noise levels. Air quality impacts would <br />be about the same, but other impacts, such as use of water <br />and energy, the production of solid waste and waste water, <br />and demands for public services, would increase. Finally, by <br />virtue of the development of high density residential along <br />1-580, a sound wall would be required, thereby diminishing <br />further the views from the freeway. <br /> <br /> 2. Findinqs. <br /> <br /> The City Council finds that the high density <br />alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the <br />Project, and rejects this alternative, for the following <br />reasons: <br /> <br /> a. Mitigation measures incorporated <br />into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be <br />imposed upon specific approvals for development of the <br /> <br /> 16 <br /> <br /> <br />