RES 17976 - Laserfiche WebLink

than 15 tons per year, and annual operational air emissions of NOx would be less than 10 tons per year and therefore these emission levels would be less than significant,per the thresholds established by the BAAQMD. This alternative would also generate fewer total traffic trips than the proposed Zone, which could 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 further degrade operations of freeway ramps at merge/diverge areas that are already operating at unacceptable levels, and this alternative would likely result in impacts related to spillback. Other environmental resources would experience less than significant impacts, similar to the proposed Zone. Finding: The City Council finds that, while the Reduced Retail Alternative would , reduce all impacts to air quality that would be significant and unavoidable under the proposed Zone to a less-than-significant level, other impacts to transportation and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable with this alternative. The City further finds that,while it provides an advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed Zone,the Reduced Retail Alternative is infeasible in that it would not accomplish the City's basic objectives for the proposed Zone to a satisfactory extent: the substantial benefits articulated by the City in its objectives would not be likely to be provided under this alternative, as discussed below. 4. City Objective 1:Provide a consistentframeworkfor 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. While the Reduced Retail Alternative would include the adoption of a version of the proposed Zone and would therefore provide a framework for the City's review and approval of new uses and projects,no large retail anchor is assumed under the Reduced Retail Alternative as it is for the proposed Zone.As discussed in the Supplemental Comparative Analysis prepared for the Zone in August,2016, an alternate development scenario that does not include a large retail anchor, like the Reduced Retail Alternative,would find it more difficult to secure multiple tenant commitments to the area of the proposed Zone sufficient to secure project financing.As a result,transportation improvement costs required by the City 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 of the Zone. These factors would work against City Objective 1,in that they could result in a failure to encourage investment in the properties within the area of the Zone, and a related failure to develop transportation infrastructure necessary for new retail uses. 5. City Objective 2:Maximize the benefits of the location of the area of the proposed Zone as an infill site located along transportation corridors and near transit by encouraging the development of both locally and regionally accessible uses in the area of the proposed Zone. With its large club retail use, the proposed Zone would provide a use that is both locally and regionally accessible, suited to the location of the area of the Zone near both the I-680 and the I-580. The Zone would also provide a diversity of uses,including general retail and hotel as well as the club retail use. The Reduced Retail Alternative 56