Laserfiche WebLink
d.7 Fact. As shown in the North Pleasanton Fiscal <br />Impact Report (April, 1982), increased revenues <br />from development will exceed expenditures re- <br />quired to service new development. <br />d.8 Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development <br />Alternative, No Project Alternative, Partial <br />Approval Alternative or Mixed Use Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the effect. However, <br />each of these Alternatives is infeasible and <br />unnecessary as the mitigation measures incorpo- <br />rated into the Project will substantially lessen <br />the significant effect. <br />d.9 Fact. See Section XII (for infeasibility of <br />Alternatives). <br />d.10 Fact. See Sections IV.d.4, IV.d.5, IV.d.7 (Fire <br />and Police Services Mitigations). <br />V. Noise. <br />A. Significant Effect. Construction noise near <br />residential receptors. <br />a.1 Finding. The mitigation measures incorporated <br />in the Project to decrease noise levels will <br />substantially lessen the effect. <br />a.2 Fact. Condition No. 105 requires truck traffic <br />to use through on -site streets to Hopyard Road, <br />avoiding all residential uses. <br />a.3 Fact. Condition No. 86 regulates haul routes <br />during construction. <br />a.4 Fact. City has adopted noise ordinances regu- <br />lating construction activities. <br />B. Significant Effect. Potential noise impact on ad- <br />joining residential area near proposed warehouse. <br />b.1 Findinq. Effect will be avoided because it is <br />doubtful that the Project will include rail <br />served uses and noise levels are regulated by <br />ordinance. <br />b.2 Fact. Train route may be abandoned by Southern <br />Pacific, with no rail service to proposed <br />12. <br />