|
<br />Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
<br />
<br />Findings
<br />
<br />The City hereby finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative is infeasible for the following
<br />environmental, economic, social, and other considerations:
<br />
<br />· Would not create an active, mixed-use urban village where it is possible to live, work, shop and
<br />play all within a short walk of each other.
<br />· Would not facilitate well-designed new mixed-use development projects that combine residential
<br />and non-residential uses through innovative and flexible design solutions.
<br />· Would not achieve the harmonious integration of new mixed-use development within the existing
<br />fabric of the mid-rise and high-rise office environment.
<br />. Would not create highly-amenitized streetscapes that provide items such as landscaping, street
<br />fumiture, niche or linear parks, passive and active water features, public plazas and courtyards,
<br />public art and public transportation shelters in a design that integrates the public realm with the
<br />private development and serves to create a distinct identity for the district.
<br />. Would not create a highly-integrated pedestrian system that provides for connectivity between the
<br />residential areas and public recreation amenities to the north and the Overlay Zone.
<br />. Would not provide for active street life through the inclusion of dedicated pedestrian-oriented
<br />design and active uses on the ground floor at strategic locations.
<br />· Would not provide for a mix of housing in order to encourage a continuum of living and a variety
<br />of household types.
<br />. Would not allow for the development of varied residential types in a mixed-use configuration
<br />including, but not limited to, loft-style units, live/work units, attached row houses, and high-
<br />quality stacked flats.
<br />
<br />. Alternative 2: Higher Intensity Commercial Project
<br />
<br />The Higher Intensity Commercial Alternative involves permitting a higher intensity of commercial
<br />development and a corresponding decrease in residential density for projects proposed within the
<br />Overlay Zone relative to the proposed project. In general, this alternative would reduce the number of
<br />residences and increase employment opportunities as a result of more commercial/office uses in the area.
<br />For example, if, under the proposed project, 2,000 square feet (sf) of residential, 1,000 sf of office, and
<br />1,000 sf of commercial space would be constructed, 1,000 sf of residential, 1,000 sf of office, and 2,000
<br />sf of commercial space would be constructed under this alternative. Specific development characteristics
<br />that would be allowed under this alternative relative to the proposed Overlay Zone are specified in
<br />Table 3-1 (Alternative 2 and Proposed Overlay Zone Characteristics).
<br />
<br />Table 3-1 Alternative 2 and Proposed Overlay Zone Characteristics
<br />
<br />~ . If. ,.
<br />
<br />Alternative 2
<br />
<br />Proposed Overlay Zone
<br />SOURCE: PBS&J 2006
<br />sf = SQuare feet
<br />
<br />Res/denffaI UnIs
<br />2,707
<br />5,551
<br />
<br />RIlskle.IIIuI UnIs
<br />2,707
<br />5,551
<br />
<br />'i3If/iIIi
<br />3,410,507 sf
<br />3,410,507 sf
<br />
<br />~
<br />.~
<br />690,339 sf
<br />690,339 sf
<br />
<br />-
<br />ReIsII
<br />4,684,700 sf
<br />1,275,440 sf
<br />
<br />Nriit_
<br />ReIsII
<br />4,372,414 sf
<br />963,286 sf
<br />
<br />This alternative is considered environmentally superior in certain issue areas (per the CEQA Guidelines).
<br />Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project
<br />
<br />3-4
<br />
<br />Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
<br />
<br />758-70
<br />
|