75B - 1901 E FIRST - METRO EAST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives · Ensure that each project includes exceptional site planning, unique architecture, high-quality building materials, extensive open space, indoor and outdoor amenities and fIrst-rate public improvements. · Encourage parking solutions that provide for adequate parking to ensure the long-term quality of the project, but that are creative in their design thereby enhancing the area's urban form. Parking requirements are designed to create a level of scarcity that will discourage vehicle trips, increase pedestrian activity, and enhance the provision of high-quality building and site design. · Facilitate project designs that encourage adequate amounts of retail or commercial space to service residents and! or employees within the development and the larger Overlay Zone. · Allow for the development of varied residential types in a mixed-use confIguration including, but not limited to, loft-style units, live/work units, attached row houses, and high-quality stacked flats. . Provide adequate access for public safety services. · Stimulate investment and reinvestment in the area through the provision of a comprehensive planning framework that facilitates private-market success. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identifIed, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes suffIcient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, as well as a description of the specifIc economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each fInding are provided following the description of the alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR. 3.4.1 Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone Alternatives (Program- Level) As shown below and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of Volume 1 of the Draft EIR, four alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the Overlay Zone. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: · Alternative 1-No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan): Under this alternative, development in the project area would occur under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. 3-2 Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 758-68