Laserfiche WebLink
ATTY/RESO.0118/PC RESO SOUTH MAIN MIXED-USED PROJECT <br />REV: 10-21-2020 PR <br />Page 26 of 31 <br />Impact CR-1: The project would result in a substantial adverse change in the <br />significance of a historical resource. <br /> <br />Impact CR-4: The project, combined with cumulative development, including past, <br />present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a significant <br />adverse cumulative cultural resources impact. <br /> <br />Through the environmental review process, the City identified the following five (5) <br />potential Project alternatives for consideration: <br /> <br />Alternative Location. Although initially considered as a potential Project alternative, <br />development of an alternative site was rejected as infeasible during the EIR scoping <br />process, because an alternative location has not been identified that would meet <br />most of the applicant’s and City’s project objectives, several of which are specific to <br />the project site and vicinity. It is uncertain whether an alternative location would <br />reduce or avoid any of the other impacts identified for the Project and the feasibility <br />of obtaining other similar sites. See DEIR page 5-3. Therefore, this alternative was <br />not evaluated in the EIR. <br /> <br />Reduced Office Alternative. An alternative that would have included development of <br />a reduced square footage of office uses was considered during the EIR scoping <br />process. This alternative was rejected because it would not provide a substantial <br />reduction or avoidance of significant impacts identified for the Project. In addition, a <br />reduction in office space would reduce the financial returns of the project and thus <br />the ability of the project to provide the community benefits (e.g., open space, <br />childcare, affordable housing). As a result, the Reduced Office Alternative would not <br />achieve the related project objectives for community benefits to the same degree as <br />the Project. See DEIR page 5-3. Therefore, this alternative was not evaluated in the <br />EIR. <br /> <br />No Project Alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR <br />analyze a “No Project” alternative. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no <br />project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving <br />the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The No Project Alternative <br />was evaluated in the DEIR (see DEIR pages 5-4 through 5-6). <br /> <br />Preservation Alternative. The Preservation Alternative would be constructed on the <br />same development parcels as the Project, and its development program would be <br />identical to that of the Project (i.e., same number of multi-family residential units, <br />same square footage of retail and office space, and same amount of public and <br />private open space). However, under the Preservation Alternative, Perry’s Feed <br />Shed would be rehabilitated and repurposed for retail use; under the Project, this <br />structure would instead be demolished and a replacement structure accommodating <br />retail use would be constructed in its place. The Preservation Alternative was <br />evaluated in the DEIR (see DEIR pages 5-6 through 5-8).