Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives <br /> <br />with respect to Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, and U tiliries and Service <br />Systems due to the change in mix of anticipated land uses that would occur within the Overlay Zone. <br />Impacts with respect to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, <br />Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, and Noise would result in <br />impacts similar to the proposed project under this alternative. <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />The City hereby finds that the Higher Intensity Commercial 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 to the extent of the proposed project. <br />. Would not provide for a mix of housing in order to encourage a continuum of living and a variety <br />of household types to the extent of the proposed project. <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 to the extent of the proposed project. <br /> <br />. Alternative 3: Reduced Project <br /> <br />This alternative would allow development at a maximum FAR of 1.25 for each developable parcel within <br />the Overlay Zone. The anticipated mix of commercial, office and residential land uses would be identical <br />to the proposed project, however the potential on-site densities would be reduced to less than half that <br />of the currently proposed Active Urban district. Under this alternative, there would be no differentiation <br />between different areas (districts) of the Overlay Zone. Specific development characteristics that would <br />be allowed under this alternative relative to the proposed Overlay Zone are specified in Table 3-2 <br />(Alternative 3 and Proposed Overlay Zone Characteristics). <br /> <br /> <br />NternaUve 3 <br /> <br />Proposed Overlay Zone <br />SOURCE: PBS&J 2006 <br />sf. square feet <br /> <br />. '"1\liit'RlonW <br />ilsiu.. 4lI_i <br />2,965 <br />5,551 <br /> <br />Under this alternative, impacts with respect to Air Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public <br />Services, Transportation, and U tiIities and Service Systems would be less than the proposed project, <br />while impacts related to Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Population and Housing would <br />be similar in nature and scale to the proposed General Plan Update. <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />'1 he Ciry hereby finds that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible for rhe following environmental, <br />economic, social, and other considerations: <br /> <br />Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zona EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Consl era ons Page 57 of 66 3-5 <br />