Laserfiche WebLink
improvements in an around the Project area. Although the <br />number of jobs would remain the same, the number of residents <br />in this alternative would decrease to about 1900, thereby <br />causing the City's jobs to housing balance to grow worse. <br />Also, no school site would be provided. <br /> <br /> This alternative does reduce certain environmental <br />impacts. Because there would be fewer dwelling units and <br />fewer residents, a smaller number of people and residences <br />would be affected by potential geological hazards. There <br />would be a reduction in traffic and traffic noise due to <br />fewer people and the absence of a school. Public services <br />would be less in demand. The removal of the school site and <br />the concentration of the high density residential on the <br />western side of the Plan area would significantly reduce <br />potential problems with airport operations. Other impacts, <br />however, such as loss of agricultural soils and the loss of <br />agricultural character of the land, would be about the same <br />as the proposed Project. <br /> <br /> 2. Findings. <br /> <br /> The City Council finds that the low density <br />Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project <br />and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: <br /> <br /> a. Mitigation measures incorporated <br />into the Project, or conditions of approval which will be <br />improved upon specific approvals for development of the <br />Project site, have substantially mitigated, or will <br />substantially mitigate, all of the environmental effects of <br /> <br /> 20 <br /> <br /> <br />