Laserfiche WebLink
O86 <br /> <br />Development. of the Project on this site would <br /> <br />neighborhoods. <br />not substantially mitigate any potential!y~ignificant <br />environmental impacts of the Project. <br /> <br /> (2) Findinqs. Thi~ City Council finds that the <br />Alternative Sites evaluated in the Draft EIR are infeasible and <br />less desirable than the Project, amd rejects.!the Alternative <br /> <br />Sites, for the following reasons: .~ . .~ <br /> <br /> (a) None of the Alternative Sites would <br />substantially mitigate or reduce any potentially significant <br />environmental impacts of the ProjeCt, thereby eliminating the <br />mitigating benefit of approving an, Alterngt, i~e Site. In <br />addition, development of this Project on the Arnel site would <br />result in increased adverse environmental impact. <br /> <br /> (b) 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 cumulative impacts which cannot be <br />avoided by the adoption of any Alternative Project Site and <br />visual impacts relating to light, glare, and views, which <br />cannot be avoided by development of the Project on an <br />Alternative Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating <br />benefits of approving an Alternative Site for this Project have <br />been diminished or eliminated. <br /> <br />V. FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA <br /> MITIGATION MEASURES <br /> <br /> Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources <br />Code requires this City Council to adopt a reporting or <br /> <br /> 4o <br /> <br /> <br />