93-036 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as for the proposed project because of similar site coverage. Land use impacts are anticipated to be similar to the proposed project. The impact on natural resources would likely be similar. Human health impacts would likely be similar. Pedestrian site access and circulation would be similar to that of the proposed project. Impacts on the fire and police departments would be similar. Aesthetics are anticipated to be similar, and recreational opportunities, as with the proposed project, would improve for local residents. A few impacts would improve. Because the alternative does not include residential facilities, the alternative would have no impact on schools. Because of the reduced size of the project as modified by the alternative, use of public utilities would decrease. The overall noise environment would be slightly quieter because of reduced evening activity. Many more impacts, however, would increase substantially. Because the alternative does not include residential facilities, impacts to the city's job/housing balance are anticipated to be greater than the proposed project. Housing impacts would be greater that of the proposed project due to the loss of the needed housing units. Twenty-six percent more solid waste would be generated under this alternative because of the increase in office uses. Impacts on the currently deficient sewer, although reduced, would result unless improvements were provided to accommodate the existing deficiency. Again, while, for the most part, environmental impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project, this alternative would not fully attain the City's basic objectives with respect to the proposed project because it is not mixed-use. It would serve as a regional employment center, satisfying goals of developing a regional center, but it would not serve 24-hour mixed use goals. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-18 to 6-25] D. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ALTERNATIVE (FAR 1.5) (ALTERNATIVE D) 1. FINDINGS Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR. 2. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: The reduced density alternative involves keeping the reduction of the total floor-area-ratio of the site at 1.5, with a resulting square footage reduction of approximately 35 percent, a total of 1,107,660 square feet. This is the FAR permitted on the project site under the current General Plan. The mix of land uses is assumed to remain the same as the proposed project, with square 37