Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives <br />• Provide additional public open space and facilitate joint use arrangement N ith SAUSD for a nexxr <br />eOMMUnIt y center <br />• Pro-%Fide an economically viable redelrelopt ent scenario for the Agency-owned properties <br />3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES <br />The Drafty EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR evaluated six 6 alternatives, including the No Project/No <br />Ike -x;,elopr ent alternative,, in Chapter 5.0. This evaluation compared the nvitonn -ien al advantages and <br />disadvantages of each alternative to the Proposed Project. lternat -Xre 1, 2, and are primarily � designed <br />to address alternatives to the Transit Zoning Code as a hole. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 present <br />alternate -NFes to the proposed Developer Project, and under each of these lternati yes, the proposed <br />Transit Zoning Code would remain the unchanged. <br />"I'lie range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public <br />participation and informed ed decision- making. Among the factors that were taken into account when <br />considering the feasibiEt T of alternatives as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 1 12 .6[ [1I were <br />environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatomq limitations, <br />jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the <br />CHQA Guidelines, an HIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonabl y <br />identified, xvhmose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achleve the basic <br />project objectives. The analysis includes uf eient information about each alternative to provide <br />meaningful evaluation, analysis, and coniparis With the Proposed Pro ect. <br />It should be noted that the Alternatives section of the DEIRwas re- circulated due to the addition of <br />three new alternatives (Alternatives 4, 5 and rhich would lessen the impacts related to historic <br />structures located Within the proposed Developer reloper Project area. The re- circulat=ion of the i terns t1%3,es <br />section concurrently extended the public con-iment period on the D IR. <br />3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS <br />3.4.1 Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code <br />Analyzed in the Draft EIR <br />lternative 14 2, and 3 are primarily designed to address alterniatives to the Transit Zoning Code as a <br />hole. The gene's findings on each alternative and the rationale behind each finding are set forth <br />below. <br />EM Alternative 1: No Pro i ect/No Development Alternative <br />This alternative assumes a continuation of the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations to <br />guide fut rc gro wth and development within the 'Transit Zoning Code project area. The impacts. of this <br />lternativc -were analyzed under a axim u m b ildout scenario xxdthin the 'Transit Zoning Code area with <br />the current allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and <br />zoning designations. In addition, this alternative assumes that the proposed I e-%;,eloper Project would not <br />o forward on the gene -owned properties. Nl i tai ing the existing General flan and zoning <br />3-2 Transit Zoning Code D 4 EIR Findings of Fa Stater ent of Overriding Considerations <br />