93-036 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

328 footage reduced proportionately for each of the proposed structures. Structures would be located in the same positions as in the proposed project, with building heights approximately 65 percent of those in the proposed plan. The Phase I office building would be 23 stories and the Phase II office and hotel would be 15 and 17 stories tall, respectively. A conditional use permit for the hotel would be required. Most of the project impacts would remain the same or would be reduced under this alternative. Grading impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because the entire site still would have to be graded. Geological impacts would decrease because fewer people would be exposed to potential earthquakes and floods. Impacts on long-term air quality would be less because of a decrease in local emissions during peak-hours. Because the entire site would be developed, impacts on surface water and groundwater would be the same. Because of a decrease in traffic (and therefore traffic noise), noise impacts would be imperceptibly less compared to the proposed project. The reduction in building heights would reduce light, glare and shade and shadow impact. Fewer natural resources would be required, and there would be less risk of upset and human health because there would be fewer employees and residents on-site at any given point in time. Impacts on population and housing would be similar but on a proportionally reduced basis. Prior to mitigation, three fewer intersections are anticipated to deteriorate to unacceptable levels because the number of daily trips under the alternative would be 65 percent of that of the proposed project. A twenty percent reduction in required parking spaces would result, and utility consumption and waste generation would decrease. Need for fire service and police service would remain the same. Impacts on the sewer system would be less, and the impacts on aesthetics would decrease. This alternative would not fully attain the basic objectives of the proposed project. Although a stated objective is to maximize public tax revenues by developing the site within permissible and sound parameters, this alternative proposes a substantially reduced development with a commensurate reduction in public revenue. Annual revenue under this alternative would be $3.5 million, compared to $6.0 million with buildout of the proposed project (1993 dollars). Moreover, the reduced size of the project would result in a commensurate decrease in the amount of recreational, sewer, and roadway upgrades which could otherwise be paid for by the participant. Thus, although it is clear that the environmental impacts of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, the alternative would not meet with the Lead Agency's stated objectives of developing a regional center because the density and associated revenues and improvements would not be sufficient to generate a high activity level. [Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 to 6-33] 38