Laserfiche WebLink
083 <br /> <br /> instances, although the demand for some services would be <br /> reduced as a result of the lesser si~e of this alternative. <br /> <br /> (2) Findings. This Cit~ Council finds that the <br />Mixed Use Alternative is infeasible and less desirable on the <br />Project, and rejects the Mixed Use Alternative, for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br /> (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into <br />the Project and adopted as Conditions~of Approval have <br />substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of <br />the Project, excepting only ctunulative impacts which cannot be <br />avoided by adoption of any Project alternative and visual <br />impacts relating to light, glare, and views, which impacts are <br />subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing <br />and proposed development on and around the Project Site. <br />Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the <br />No Project Alternative have been diminished or eliminated. <br /> <br /> (b) Specifically, the Mixed Use Alternative <br />generates 90 percent of the trip-ends compared to the Project <br />and generates more traffic on a daily basis than the Project, <br />traffic impacts are cumulatively Significant, noise impacts are <br />similar to the Project, and air quality impacts are <br />cumulatively significant. The Mixed Use Alternative is <br />inconsistent with the General Plan.. Accordingly, the Mixed Use <br />Alternative has not substantially reduced most significant <br />impacts of the Project, and the mitigating benefits of <br />approving the Mixed Use Alternative have been substantially <br />diminished or eliminated. <br /> <br /> S7 <br /> <br /> <br />