Laserfiche WebLink
d.3 Finding. Long-range project planning (new <br />facilities ADWF capacity of 42 MGD), if <br />implemented, would substantially lessen this <br />impact. Mitigation measures to provide interim <br />capacity are partially not within the jurisdiction <br />of the City. Such mitigation measures are within <br />the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can <br />and should be adopted. <br />d.4 Fact. Construction of wastewater disposal <br />facilities is within the control of LAVWMA or other <br />regional agencies. CH2M Hill, as consultant to <br />LAVWMA, has recommended constructing new facilities <br />to provide a total of ADWF capacity of 42 MGD. <br />d.5 Finding. Developer construction of a reverse <br />osmosis plant is presently economically infeasible. <br />d.6 Fact. Current export cost and projected costs of <br />expanded facilities are less than treating and <br />disposal through reverse osmosis. <br />d.7 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Reduced <br />Intensity Alternative, and the Mixed Use <br />Alternative, which could partially mitigate the <br />potential significant effect, are infeasible. <br />d.8 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of <br />alternatives). <br />E. Significant Effect. Possible construction of buildings <br />higher than current firetruck ladder capacity could <br />impair fire protection services. <br />e.l Finding. The recommended mitigation measures <br />incorporated into the Project will substantially <br />lessen the significant fire hazard effect. <br />e.2 Fact. Condition 7 requires that buildings which <br />are constructed over current ladder truck <br />capability should incorporate internal life safety <br />fire systems standards and provide indirect access <br />to roofs. <br />e.3 Finding. Other fire safety mitigations are <br />unnecessary as Condition 7 reduces the effect to an <br />insignificant level. <br />e.4 Fact. Providing ladder access in accordance with <br />City policy eliminates the potential impact. <br />e.5 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Reduced <br />Intensity Alternative, and the Mixed Use <br />Alternative, which could partially mitigate the <br />potential significant fire hazard effect, are <br />infeasible. These alternatives are unnecessary <br />- 20 - <br />