Laserfiche WebLink
078 <br /> <br /> (f) Due to the reduction in size of the <br />Project, the environmental, ~onomiC~., soc'ial and other benefits <br />of the Project would be obtained to a lesser degree. <br /> <br /> C. 2.0 FAR Alternative. <br /> <br /> (1) Facts. As described on pages 6-8 through <br /> <br />6-14, the 2.0 FAR Alternative includes 500,000 square feet of <br />professional offices and 36,200 square feet of commercial <br />retail space on the Project Site, representing a 36 percent <br />reduction in office square footage comparedto the proposed <br />Project. Although this alternative would generate fewer <br />average daily trips, traffic impacts would remain significant <br />on a cumulative basis, and the air quality impacts of this <br />alternative are significant on a cumulative basis. Like the <br />proposed Project, this alternative is consistent with existing <br />zoning and plan designations, and would displace existing <br />office uses on the Project Site. This alternative would <br />slightly reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the <br />proposed Project. The impact of'this alternative on public <br />services and utilities would be similar in some instances, <br />although less demand for certain services would be created as a <br />result of the reduced size of the development pursuant to this <br />Project alternative. <br /> <br /> (2) Findings. This City Council finds that the <br />2.0 FAR Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the <br /> <br />Project, and rejects the <br />reasons: <br /> <br />2.0 FAR Alternative for the following <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br /> <br />