ORD 1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Alternative 4 would use two onsite balance fill areas for deposit of excess soils generated from grading the roads and lots. Finding: Feasible The DEIR identified several differences in the environmental effects of Alternative 4 as compared with the Original Project: • Aesthetics -With larger lots, Alternative 4 could allow larger homes and thus may have a greater visual impact. As conditioned, the building floor area for these lots would be limited to 20 percent of the lot area, and large building setbacks would be established between the structures on adjoining lots. These factors with the design guidelines controlling building architecture, the potential visual impacts of these homes would be reduced. Air Quality -Alternative 4 would have slightly greater impact than the Original Project on dust generation during construction of the individual lots, due to a larger grading footprint. The impact of grading of the overall Environmentally Superior Alternative, however, is reduced due to the reduction of total lots than the Original Project. Biological Resources -Alternative 4 improves on the Original Project by greatly reducing the amount of fill placed in drainages and reducing impacts on wetlands and ephemeral streams. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity -Some construction in landslide/geologically unstable areas would be reduced by the removal of homesites. Traffic -Reducing the number of lots from 98 to 51 units would reduce the number of average daily traffic trips from 938 to 488 or by approximately 48 percent. The result of these reductions would be to reduce the impacts at the East Angela Street/Bernal Avenue intersection from an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) E to an acceptable LOS D and at the Hearst Drive/Bernal Avenue intersection from LOS F to LOS E. Police and Fire Services -The Original Project proposed two EVAs to serve 98 homes while Alternative 4 proposes one fire road and one all surface road (in addition to Hearst Drive itself) to serve 51 homes. With the reduction in number of units the Fire Department finds these provisions to be acceptable. No adverse impacts were found for Alternative 4 that were not also found for the Original Project. Alternative 4 would provide mitigation of impacts superior to the mitigation provided by the Original Project in the area of Biological Resources because the amount of fill placed in drainages is reduced and thus impacts on wetlands and ephemeral streams are also reduced. Accordingly, it is found to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Exhibit A Page 8 of 45 Ordinance No. 1961 PUD-33, Oak Grove