Laserfiche WebLink
vegetation, wildlife habitat, views, and air quality would be <br />substantially similar to the impacts of the Project and <br />subsequent development of the Project site. This alternative <br />would eaacerbate short term overcrowding in City schools, <br />depending on the timing of development of new schools, as <br />stated at page 74 of the DEIR. <br />2. Findings. The City Council finds that the <br />---- <br />uni~ alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the <br />Project, and rejects this alternative, for the following <br />reasons: <br />a. Mitigation measures incorporated into <br />the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed <br />upon specific approvals for development of the Project site, <br />have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, <br />all of the environmental effects of the Project, ezcluding only <br />visual and archeological impacts, thereby diminishing or <br />obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting this <br />project alternative; <br />b. Although this alternative offers the <br />possibility of obtaining some additional developer fees, this <br />alternative would increase the impacts of the Project relating <br />to traffic and noise; <br />c. This alternative would require adoption <br />of a general plan amendment, as the medium density residential <br />development otherwise would be in conflict with certain aspects <br />of the City's current general plan; and <br />51 <br />