2756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2756 February 12, 1986 Page 2 feasible sound mitigation, so long as federal regulations are met. c.5 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Mixed-Use Alternative, which could partially mitigate the significant noise effects, are infeasible. c.6 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). VI. Public Services. A. Significant Effect. water use demand will exceed Zone 7's water supply from existing State water projects for Scenario 2 demand. a.l Finding. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to require water conservation will substantially lessen this effect. a.2 Fact. Condition 21 requires the Project to install water conserving plumbing features as part of the Building Code. a.3 Finding. Additional mitigation measures identified in the EIR (completion of State water facilities, extension of EBMUD to Dublin and Pleasanton and use of the groundwater basin) are subject to the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can and should be enforced by such agencies. a.4 Fact. The Livermore-Amador Valley groundwater basin is subject to Zone 7 jurisdiction and can be operated to meet deficiencies. a.5 Fact. The County of Alameda and Zone 7 have jurisdiction to create a Chain-of-Lakes. a.6 Finding• The No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and the Mixed Use Alternative, which could partially mitigate the significant effects, are infeasible. a.7 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). B. Significant Effect. EBMUD's projected water supply will not be adequate for Scenario 2 demand, and may not be adequate for Scenario 1 demand. Scenario 2 demand would require American River or other supply sources. Scenario 1 demand would also require this additional supply depending on EBMUD policy to serve other areas. b.l Finding. Users of these water supplies are not the Project, but, rather, potentially induced growth.