Laserfiche WebLink
b.4 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of <br />alternatives). <br />XI <br />Visual/Aesthetics. <br />A. Significant Effect. Change in the visual character of <br />the area, including loss of vistas and agricultural open <br />space. <br />a.l Finding. The mitigation measures incorporated in <br />the Project to minimize visual/aesthetics impacts <br />and to ensure aesthetic compatibility will <br />significantly reduce this effect. <br />a.2 Fact. Condition 4 imposes design standards to <br />promote visual aesthetics in individual buildings. <br />The CC&R's contain requirements for significant <br />setbacks and extensive landscaping. <br />a.3 Fact. Condition 5 requires a specific plan aimed <br />in part at preserving views from I-58o, a <br />City-designated scenic route. <br />XII <br />Alternatives. <br />A. The No Project Alternative. <br />a.l Finding. The No Project Alternative is infeasible. <br />a.2 Fact. The No Project Alternative means no <br />development on the site and precludes the Project <br />as proposed. The site has been long planned for <br />development, and other development proposals would <br />have similar impacts. <br />B. The Employment Center Alternative. <br />b.l Finding. The Employment Center Alternative does <br />not function as a mitigation measure as it will <br />exacerbate rather than reduce adverse noise, <br />traffic and air quality impacts. <br />b.2 Fact. The Employment Center Alternative would <br />create additional incommuting resulting in greater <br />congestion on the freeways, interchanges and local <br />arterials. <br />C. Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative. <br />c.l Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development <br />Alternative is infeasible as it precludes the <br />Project as proposed. <br />c.2 Fact. Due to assessment liens, land costs, and <br />development costs, it is economically infeasible to <br />develop at the reduced intensity posited. <br />- 25 - <br />