Laserfiche WebLink
10.0 Project Alternatives <br />Avion Project SEIR <br />Page 10-5 <br />10.2.2.4 Landform Alteration and Visual Quality <br />The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would reduce the grading footprint, and thereby <br />reduce the amount of landform alteration and encroachment into steep slopes. However, the <br />increased density associated with this alternative would not be consistent with the character of the <br />single-family and detached multi-family residential units surrounding the project site. On balance, <br />the reduction of landform alteration and encroachment into steep slopes would lessen impacts <br />compared to the project, but would remain significant and unavoidable. <br />10.2.2.5 Air Quality <br />The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would reduce the grading footprint, and thereby <br />reduce the amount of construction emissions. Although potential impacts would not be fully <br />avoided, they would be reduced compared to the project. Therefore, impacts related to air quality <br />under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would be less than the project. <br />10.2.2.6 Noise <br />The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would reduce the grading footprint, and thereby <br />reduce the amount of construction noise and vibration. Although potential impacts would not be <br />fully avoided, they would be reduced compared to the project. Therefore, impacts related to noise <br />under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would be less than the project. <br />10.2.3 Conclusion Regarding the Reduced Development <br />Footprint Alternative <br />The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would incrementally reduce all of the project’s <br />significant impacts due to the smaller grading footprint. This alternative would avoid impacts to the <br />MHPA and would not require a boundary line adjustment. Similarly, the smaller project footprint <br />would reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and reduce impacts on landform <br />alteration. However, the increased density associated with this alternative would not be consistent <br />with the character of the single-family and detached multi-family residential units surrounding the <br />project site. Similarly, the increased density would require a height deviation to accommodate <br />development of 117 units within the reduced grading footprint. Furthermore, the Reduced <br />Development Footprint Alternative would lessen impacts on biological resources because the <br />project would actually increase land within the MHPA through the proposed boundary line <br />adjustment and would successfully mitigate impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to a level <br />less than significant. <br />10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative <br />CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the identification of an environmentally superior <br />alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. The guidelines also require that if the No