Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION 94-023 <br /> <br />signage scheme. This plan will result in an harmonious physical and visual <br />environment that piecemeal development of the site would not provide. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Services <br /> <br />The project would provide the following new retail opportunities and services that <br />are not currently available to the nearby older residential area: <br /> <br />A full line grocery superstore which provides greater selection and variety <br />beyond what is available in the area currently. <br /> <br />Apparel shopping and office supplies that will be readily available within <br />walking distance of both the residential community and the strong <br />concentration of businesses within the immediate project vicinity. <br /> <br />Planned restaurants with hardscape and attractive outdoor amenities and <br />landscaping that will provide a gathering place for patrons and citizens of <br />the community. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION <br /> <br />Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs describe a "range of <br />reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could <br />feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of <br />the alternatives." Section VII of the Statement of Findings of Fact for the proposed <br />project outlines the following four alternatives to the proposed project: (1) No-Project <br />Alternative, (2) Mixed-Use Retail/Office Alternative, (3) Reduced Intensity Alternative, <br />and (4) Mixed Use - Retail and Multi-Screen Theater Alternative. <br /> <br />A. No-Proj¢Cl Alternative <br /> <br />Under the No-Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed. <br />The bank and restaurant would remain on site, and the remainder of the site <br />would remain vacant, at least until future redevelopment occurred. <br /> <br />Although this altern~ .ce would avoid or reduce the environmental impacts ~,. <br />discussed in Exhibit A (Findings Regarding Alternatives to the Proposed Project), <br />it would not achieve the project objective of developing a new neighborhood <br />shopping center to serve the household retail needs of the local residents in this <br />part of San',a Aha and nearby Tustin. <br /> <br />Furthermore, this alternative would not provide any of the project benefits <br />outlined in Section II, above. Although piecemeal development over time might <br />produce new revenues to the City, it would not produce the revenues in the near- <br />term or to the extent a master-planned development would provide them. This <br /> <br />JAR3403 -3- <br /> <br /> <br />