2756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2756 February 12, 1986 Page 2 because the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the Project substantially lessen the effect. e.6 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). F. Significant Effect. Increased demand for adult recreational facilities of all types. f.l Finding. Incorporation of recreational facilities in the Project is economically infeasible. f.2 Fact. The assessments placed on the Project property and its value make infeasible its use for recreational facilities. f.3 Finding. Surplus revenues generated by North Pleasanton development, including the Project, may be available to acquire and develop new park and recreational facilities. f.4 Fact. The Project will generate revenues in excess of its expenses. f.5 Finding. Inclusion of payment of fees for recreational facilities and cooperation in providing funding substantially lessens this impact. f.6 Fact. Condition 28 requires developer fees and cooperation. f.7 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and the Mixed Use Alternative, which could partially mitigate the potential significant effect, are infeasible and unnecessary because the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the Project substantially lessen the effect. f.8 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). G. Significant Effect. Increased maintenance costs for additional Project streets. g.l Finding. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to mitigate the demands for increased maintenance will substantially lessen the effect. g.2 Fact. Condition 10 requires an owner's association or maintenance district to extend street-sweeping services to the Project.