2756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2"156 February 12, 1986 Page 2 c.3 Finding. The Reduced Intensity Alternative may exacerbate impacts regionally, thus not truly acting as a mitigation measure. c.4 Fact. Development pressure would create development elsewhere in the local region, eliminating efficient use of planned infrastructure and lessening the likelihood of transit alternatives. c.5 Fact. Reduced tax base with similar service demands may reduce service levels. D. Mixed Use Alternative d.l Finding. The Mixed Use Alternative is infeasible. d.2 Fact. The Project is located near the junction of two freeways. Noise, air and traffic impacts from the freeways, major arterials and in-tract collector streets would have a negative impact on the quality of life expected for a residential development. In addition, the Project is located in the middle of an area planned for industrial and commercial development and would be relatively isolated from schools, some types of retail shopping and other community services generally desired to be close to residential developments. Liens resulting from assessments to finance the infrastructure mandate development of commercial and industrial uses at proposed densities. E. Increased Residential Capacity Alternative. e.l Finding. The Increased Residential Capacity Alternative exacerbates impacts and is not a mitigation measure in the sum of its effects. e.2 Fact. This alternative would increase traffic on local roadways and increase demand on community services. The increase in City's fiscal base may be insufficient to finance services and improvements required by the increased residential development. e.3 Fact. The Increased Residential Capacity Alternative is inconsistent with current General Plan Land Use Element designations and growth rate policies. e.4 Fact. Existing and planned General Plan policies balance the need for housing against all other constraints; negative impacts are minimized with the compromises contained in the General Plan.