2756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2756 February 12, 1986 Page 2 a.l Finding. The loss of agricultural land is unmitigable; however, during the early stages of development, some agricultural use of the site can continue. a.2 Fact. Condition 29 requires the Developer to continue short-term agricultural uses on the site. a.3 Finding. The No Project Alternative, which could partially mitigate the potential significant effect, is feasible. a.4 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of the No Project Alternative). X. Energy. A. Significant Effect. Increased energy consumption on site through construction, operation and maintenance of structures. a.l Finding. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to mitigate energy use will substantially lessen this effect. a.2 Fact. Condition 4 requires that all buildings in the Project shall employ solar energy to the maximum extent economically feasible. a.3 Fact. Condition 4 requires that each building in the Project be oriented for solar access. a.4 Fact. Economic realities encourage installation of energy efficient machinery. B. Significant Effect. Potential for increased energy consumption as a result of commuting to employment within the Project. b.l Finding. Implementation of traffic mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially lessen the effect. b.2 Fact. TSM measures employed as part of the project and as required by ordinance will reduce vehicle miles travelled and result in lessened use of energy. b.3 Finding. The No Project Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative which could partially mitigate this significant effect, are infeasible and unnecessary because the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the Project substantially lessen the effect.