SU0014621 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE The most notable difference with this alternative relative to the project is that a lower density residential development would result in under utilization of the site while resulting in nearly all the same impacts. The cost to provide public services would be much the same while tax revenues would be proportionately less. The same amount of prime farmland would be converted to residential use. Soil , hydrology, water quality, vegetation, fish and wildlife, rare and endangered species, cultural resources and topography impacts would all be the same as with the project. Theoretically, impacts on air quality, noise and traffic would be slightly less, but not enough to justify the less efficient provision of public services and energy utilization that higher densities afford. Overall , the lower density .alternative would not provide the community with a cost/benefit ratio that would be as attractive as the proposed project. Also, the cost per unit of a lower density alternative would probably be greater resulting in less affordable housing for low and moderate income families. SAME DENSITY-DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVE Here, the options are unlimited, but no configuration stands out as measureably reducing significant environmental impacts. This is largely because the project was designed in response to existing environmental constraints. The proponent considered the Same Density - Different Configuration Alternative, particularly in locating more of the higher density units ww er�Fe_y would be overlooking the golf course. After reviewing traffic movements, however, it was deemed more feasible to place them adjacent to Eighth Street and Fresno Avenue so as to not burden the existing and planned lower density areas with unnecessary traffic. With the exception of the above traffic movement, it does not appear that any different configuration would affect significant environmental impacts. MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE Again, the options are unlimited and possibly the inclusion of certain alternative uses could lessen environmental impacts. For example, if the project included a small , neighborhood commercial area with a "quicky" market, hardware store, drugstore, fast food place, video cassette rental or whatever, numerous daily automobile trips would be eliminated because residents would walk or ride bicycles to the area. This would reduce vehicular emissions, traffic congestion and traffic noise. Obviously, the problem here is that the PURD ordinance allows only for various residential development and open space concepts; commercial uses are not allowed. A mixed use development as described above would resultin general plan and zoning conflicts. 59