11 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

CEQA does not call for consideration of "an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 (f)(3)). Further, an alternative site would not meet any of the objectives of the project sponsor, primary among which is the development of this site. Finding: Infeasible For the reasons stated above an alternative site is not considered a feasible alternative. Summary of Findings Relation to Alternatives CEQA Guidelines section 15126(e)(2) requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The EIR consideration of alternatives found that the No Project Alternative, No Development Alternative and Alternative 3 would be infeasible and, therefore, incapable of mitigating the significant impacts identified for the Project. The EIR found Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 to be feasible. The array of impacts they would generate is similar in character and extent to those of the Original Project. In particular, the Original Project, and Alternative 1, and 2 would all result in the same significant and unavoidable impact on transportation. Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the Original Project and to Alternatives 1 and 2 because its pre-mitigation environmental impacts are of a lesser degree than those of the other site plans. The reduction in impacts is the consequence primarily of the smaller development footprint (66 acres vs. 80 for the project and 58 for Alternatives 1 and 2); the smaller number of housing units (51 for Alternative 4 compared with 98 and 80 for the other site plans) is a secondary source of improvement in the environmental outcome. The following is a summary of the environmental improvements provided by Alternative 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Alternative 4 utilizes a smaller part of the site, so that the change in what is seen from offsite is diminished. Additionally, because the applicant has committed to the same number of mitigation trees for Alternative 4 as for the Original Project, these plantings can be more concentrated for screening use. Air Quality. While the Original Proiect would not result in a significant impact to air quality based upon the air quality impact criteria of the regional air quality management agency, Alternative 4's smaller number of units would contribute a lower volume of regional criteria pollutants. Biological Resources. Alternative 4 improves on the Original Project by greatly reducing fill of ephemeral streams. Page 10 of 43