2756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2756 February 12, 1986 Page 2 b.4 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of alternatives). XI. Visual/Aesthetics. A. Significant Effect. Change in the visual character of the area, including loss of vistas and agricultural open space. a.l Finding. The mitigation measures incorporated in the Project to minimize visual/aesthetics impacts and to ensure aesthetic compatibility will significantly reduce this effect. a.2 Fact. Condition 4 imposes design standards to promote visual aesthetics in individual buildings. The CC&R's contain requirements for significant setbacks and extensive landscaping. a.3 Fact. Condition 5 requires a specific plan aimed in part at preserving views from I-580, a City-designated scenic route. XII. Alternatives. A. The No Project Alternative. a.l Finding. The No Project Alternative is infeasible. a.2 Fact. The No Project Alternative means no development on the site and precludes the Project as proposed. The site has been long planned for development, and other development proposals would have similar impacts. B. The Employment Center Alternative. b.l Finding. The Employment Center Alternative does not function as a mitigation measure as it will exacerbate rather than reduce adverse noise, traffic and air quality impacts. b.2 Fact. The Employment Center Alternative would create additional incommuting resulting in greater congestion on the freeways, interchanges and local arterials. C. Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative. c.l Finding. The Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative is infeasible as it precludes the Project as proposed. c.2 Fact. Due to assessment liens, land costs, and development costs, it is economically infeasible to develop at the reduced intensity posited.