Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives <br />-Tiabilit y, LE-4.3, , , and 4.5, wEch support the goal of protecting and enhancing developments sites <br />and distllcts,%vtdch are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life, or LE-5.1, .2, 5.5, 5.7, <br />.91 5.10, and 5.11, irhich ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated to the same extent as the <br />proposed Transit Zoning Code. (See Land Use Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Sinflarl F, it -%%Tould not <br />Further the goals of the Urban Design Element (Goals 1-7 ) to the san -ic extent as the proposed Transit <br />Zoning Code. (Sec Urban Design Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Alloreover, the integrated an <br />cohesive development standards that are proposed for the Transit Zoning Code area would not be <br />implemented. <br />Lastly, Alternative 1 would increase impacts on transportation as a result of lack of emphasis on <br />alternative Modes of transportation in the current General Plan and zoning designations and the lack of <br />development frainework to support transit -- oriented de-%relopment. For these reasons, the Agency rejects <br />lternative 1 as infeasible. <br />EM Alternative 2: Overall Reduced Density <br />The Overall Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the intensity of all anticipated land uses xvithin <br />the Transit Zoning Code S area by 25 percent, In general, this alternative would reduce the <br />number of residences including affordable housing, and reduce emplo yment opportunities as a result of <br />less commercial uses in the area. Specificall y, this alternative would result in approximately 1,019 fewer <br />residential units, and 96,750 fewer square feet of retail -\-%gitl)in the Transit Zoning Code S area. <br />Specific deg ,reloprnent characteristics that would be allowed under this alternative reladve to the proposed <br />Transit Zoning Code SD are specified in Table --1 (Alternative and Proposed Transit Zoning <br />Code [SD 84] Characte- ristics . <br />.. i - <br />....- <br />Aftemative 2 <br />:� <br />Transit ZonIng Code (SD 84) .' Werence <br />Land Use Type <br />Residential (units) <br />32050 <br />41075 <br />(13019) <br />Retail (so <br />200,250 <br />387 ;909 <br />(00x750) <br />Industdai <br />(990,900) <br />(990,000) <br />0 <br />Commercials <br />(124;000) <br />124x000) <br />0 <br />UVIC S <br />(21)000) <br />21 ;000) <br />Green (so <br />6$03000 <br />080x000 <br />0 <br />Parking <br />11772,000) <br />1772x000) <br />0 <br />SOURCE: PBS &J 2010 <br />Findings <br />The Agcnc f hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations <br />make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. <br />Although Alternative 2 would sot ewhat reduce the igtrific nt impacts of the proposed Transit Zoning <br />Code SD on aesthetics, climate change, and transportation, it would not reduce any of those impacts <br />3-4 Transit Zoning Code SD ) EIR Findings of Fa V tate e t of Overriding Considerations <br />