Laserfiche WebLink
137 <br /> <br />Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall obtain all permits and <br />pay all fees required by the City in order to provide an acceptable level of sewage <br />treatment service. <br /> <br />SOLID WASTE <br /> <br />The incorporation of all applicable City mandated solid waste reduction requirements will allow <br />the City to continue to work towards meeting State requirements. Incorporation of the following <br />measures will ensure the City will continue to mee~ State requirements resulting in insignificant <br />solid waste hnpacts: <br /> <br />The City shall encourage recycling of materials generated on the site during both project <br />construction and the life of the project by encouraging contractors to recycle construction <br />debris when feasible and use recyclable materials for construction. <br /> <br />In accordance with the City's Solid Waste Integrated Management Plan, the project <br />developer shall prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Plan to the Public <br />Works Agebcy and the Planning Division, prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The <br />Plan shall document and outline the incorporation of an on-site recycling/conservation <br />program. <br /> <br />The project developer shall provide a designated area adjacent to refuse containers for <br />retail buildings 1, 2, and 3 that accommodate separated recyelable material (such as <br />cardboard and paper) for collection. <br /> <br />VIIL ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT <br /> <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of reasonable alternatives to the <br />proposed project. The EIR evaluated three alternatives in addition to the proposed project. <br /> <br />It should be noted that other alternatives were not considered or evaluated due to their <br />inconsistency with the objectives of the project or were deemed infeasible as discussed in Section <br />[IL <br /> <br />NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the <br />mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the <br /> <br />Facts in Support of Finding <br /> <br />As compared to the proposed project, there would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts <br />with the No Project Alternative as the site would remain undeveloped. Although the No Project <br />Alternative would not have any environmental impacts, the City would not receive the benefits <br />associated with the project, including the creation of 100 new full and part-time jobs and <br />increased revenue due to retail sales tax and property tax. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />