RES 201131 - Laserfiche WebLink

b. Alternative 2:Reduced Retail Alternative 2, Reduced Retail, would include some of the same uses as the Project, including general retail and a hotel use, but would not include club retail uses. Under this alternative,the Project would be adopted, and Parcels 6, 9, and 10 would be developed in an initial phase that would take place within the same buildout period for these parcels as described for the Project. Existing uses on other parcels within the area of the Project would continue to operate. Under this alternative, the area of the Project would be developed with approximately 259,500 square feet of new building area, including 171,500 square feet of general retail uses and 88,000 square feet of hotel uses. Under this alternative, it is assumed that development of the hotel uses would take place first and development of general retail uses would take place over a longer timeframe. The Reduced Retail Alternative would generate fewer total traffic trips than the Project, which could result in fewer or lower impacts to LOS at adjacent intersections; however, the volume of traffic trips to the area of the Project that would be generated by this alternative would also further degrade operations of freeway ramps at merge/diverge areas that are already operating at unacceptable levels, and this alternative would likely result in similar impacts related to spillback. Other environmental resources would experience less than significant impacts, similar to the Project. Finding: The City Council finds that, under the Reduced Retail Alternative, impacts to transportation and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable. The City further finds that, while it could provide an advantage from an environmental standpoint over the Project due to its smaller scale,the Reduced Retail Alternative is infeasible in that it would not accomplish the City's basic objectives for the Project to a satisfactory extent. The substantial benefits articulated by the City in its objectives would not likely be provided under this alternative, as discussed below. 1. City Objective I: Provide a consistent framework for the City's review and approval of new uses and projects in the area of the Project, encouraging investment in and adding value to these properties. While the Reduced Retail Alternative would include the adoption of a version of the Project 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 Project. As discussed in the Supplemental Comparative Analysis prepared for the Project 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 Project 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