Laserfiche WebLink
O76 <br /> <br /> B. 1.5 FAR Alternative. ,~. <br /> <br /> (1) Facts. As described on pages 6-1 through <br />6-8 of the Draft EIR, the 1.5 FAR Alternative would provide for <br />375,000 square feet of professional offices and 36,200 square <br />feet of commercial retail space on the Project Site, <br />representing a 52 percent reduction in off,Ge and retail space <br />compared to the proposed Project. Although this alternative <br />would generate fewer average daily trips, traffic impacts of <br />this alternative would be significant on a cumulative basis, <br />and air quality impacts of this alternative would be <br />significant on a cumulative basis. Like the proposed Project, <br />this alternative is gonsistent with existing zoning and plan <br />designations and would displace the existing office uses on the <br />Project Site. This alternative will still provide a highly <br />visible office commercial development, although the aesthetic <br />and visual impacts will be reduced to some extent. The impact <br />on public services and utilities to this alternative would be <br />similar to the proposed Project in some instances, although <br />demand for certain services would be reduced as a result of the <br />reduction size of the Project. <br /> <br /> (2) Findings. This City Council finds that the <br />1.5 FAR Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the <br /> <br /> and rejects the 1.5 FAR Alternative, for the following <br /> <br />Project, <br />reasons: <br /> <br /> (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into <br />the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have <br />substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of <br /> <br />3O <br /> <br /> <br />