Laserfiche WebLink
O74 <br /> <br />be perceived by some as an insignificant or positive change, <br />which may reduce the overall perceived adverse aesthetic or <br />visual impacts of the Project. <br /> <br />IV. <br /> <br />FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, this City <br /> <br /> to <br /> <br />Council makes the following findings regarding alternatives <br />the Project discussed in the Final EIR. <br /> <br /> A. No Project Alternative. <br /> <br /> (1) Facts. As described on page 6-1 of the <br /> <br />Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative would maintain the site <br />in its current condition with one vacant, unsightly two-story <br />office structure (the "Allstate" building). This alternative <br />avoids the environmental effects of the Project but does not <br />meet the applicant's objectives. This Alternative does not <br />provide additional employment opportunities, does not provide <br />capital improvements for adjacent roadways, and does not <br />provide for construction of area-wlde public transportation <br />improvements such as the Cabrillo Park Drive extension. Nor <br />does it provide for the re~oval of the aesthetically <br />~ndesirable vacant office building currently on the Project <br />Site. <br /> <br /> (2) Findinqs. This City Council finds that the <br />No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than <br />the Project, and rejects the No Project Alternative, for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br /> <br />