14 - Laserfiche WebLink

with the City's existing General Plan and zoning land use designations for the area of the proposed Zone. The No Project Alternative assumes adoption of the proposed Zone would not occur within the area of the proposed Zone. This alternative assumes that the same types of uses that exist in area of the proposed Zone would continue to operate, and also assumes that some new development in the area would take place and would be similar to existing uses, with more office and commercial/retail uses developed in the area within the next 10 years, especially on Parcels 6, 9, and 10, and with some new uses replacing existing uses. Under this alternative, it is assumed that partial development of Parcels 6, 9, and 10 with office and retail uses would take place within the same buildout period for these parcels as described for the proposed Zone. Under the No Project Alternative, the area of the proposed Zone would be developed with some general retail uses but mostly office uses, with approximately 383,000 square feet of new building area, including 338,000 square feet of office uses and 45,000 square feet of general retail uses. No club retail or hotel uses are assumed under this alternative. The No Project Alternative would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Zone. However, the No Project Alternative could, with the establishment of new office space, promote the development of locally and regionally accessible uses. The No Project Alternative would also avoid significant air quality impacts of the proposed Zone: namely, operational air emissions of both PM10 and NOx would be less than significant (i.e., below the BAAQMD significance thresholds) under this alternative. This alternative would also generate fewer total traffic trips than the proposed Zone, which would result in fewer or lower impacts to LOS at adjacent intersections; however, the volume of traffic trips to the area of the proposed Zone that would be generated by this alternative would likely result in impacts related to spillback, and further degrade operations of freeway ramps at merge/diverge areas that are already operating at unacceptable levels. Finding: The City Council finds that, while it provides an advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed Zone, the No Project Alternative is infeasible in that it would accomplish none of the City's basic objectives, as discussed below. 1. City Objective 1: Provide a consistent framework for the City's review and approval of new uses and projects in the area of the proposed Zone, encouraging investment in and adding value to these properties. The No Project Altemative would not include the adoption of the proposed Zone and would therefore not provide a specific framework for the City's review and approval of new uses and projects within the area. Without this framework, development within the area of the Zone would likely proceed in an incremental fashion, and result in a low likelihood that multiple tenant commitments to the area would be made. As a result, transportation improvement costs required by the City for improvements to serve new uses within the Zone would likely fall on several developers, possibly acting independently, making it less likely for projects and associated transportation improvements to be financially feasible within the area. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not encourage investment in the area of the Zone nor serve to add value to these properties, and would not accomplish City Objective 1. 54