11 - Laserfiche WebLink

The significant impacts of the Project are related to transportation and traffic. Thus, project alternatives, except the required No Project Alternative, include development programs that are lower in intensity than the Project in order to address the amount of potential traffic. The City finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could obtain the basic objectives of the Zone. As a result,the scope of alternatives analyzed is not unduly limited or narrow. The City also finds that reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed, and discussed in the review process of the Revised Final SEIR. a. Alternative 1:No Project Alternative Alternative 1,the No Project Alternative, would result in development consistent with the City's existing General Plan and zoning land use designations for the area of the Project. The No Project Alternative assumes adoption of the Project would not occur within the area of the Project. This alternative assumes that the same types of uses that exist in area of the Project 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 theseect.J arcels as described for the Project. Under the No Project Alternative, the area of the Project 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 Project. However, the No Project Alternative could, with the establishment of new office space, promote the development of locally and regionally accessible uses. This alternative would also generate fewer total traffic trips than the Project, which would 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 likely result in similar 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 may provide an advantage from an environmental standpoint over the Project due to fewer total traffic trips,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 Project, encouraging investment in and adding value to these properties. The No Project Alternative would not include the adoption of the Project and 48