Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings RegardIng Project Alternatives <br />In light of these considerations, the y rejects this alternative as infeasible. <br />3.4,3 Findings on Alternatives that were Considered but Eliminated <br />from Detailed Analysis in the Draft EIR <br />In addition to the six alternadves evaluated in the Draft MR,$ the Lead Agency considered two other <br />alternatives, both of which it elil mated from detailed analysis In the EIR either because e it did not meet <br />most of the basic project objectives, -would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the project as <br />proposed, and/or is not feasible. 'These alt rnati -ves are discussed beloNv. <br />alternative Site <br />This alternative would use an alternative site From that proposed for the Transit Zoning Code and <br />Developer projects. <br />Findings <br />The Agency hereb y fends that specific econon -.ic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make <br />the adoption of an Alternative Site alternative infeasiblc. The Transit Zoning Code is designed to guide <br />de velopment near existing and planned transit and is therefore dependant on the location described for <br />the proposed project. An alternative site for the Transit Zom*ng Code project would not locate <br />development or provide the fray e vork for development near existing or planned transit infrastructure. <br />Therefore, it would not be able to fulfdl the basic project objecti -ves of providing a transit-supportive, <br />pedestrian - oriented development frame work to support the addition of new transit infr str cturc, nor <br />would it encourage alternative modes of transportation, or increase access to the rail system that <br />connects San Diego to Los Angeles. failure to meet these kc y project objectives renders an alternative <br />site infeasible. <br />It would also be infeasible to develop the proposed Developer Project in an a1tcrilative location. <br />Currentl y the Redevelopment Agency o-%%irns a cluster of parcels in the proposed project area and is <br />considering the acquisition of other properties in the vicinit y of these gene -owned parcels. The <br />proposed Developer Project is designed and proposed to redevelopment these specific properties. It <br />would not be practical or feasible to abandon plans for these parcels and begin new future acquisitions <br />elsewhere, and doing so would fail to meet most of the basic. project objectives of the Developer Project. <br />Specifically, an alternative location xvould not result in redevelopment of the Agency-o X "ned properties, <br />Nvould not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Aria Boulevard, <br />- %%ith the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code <br />and that support future transit planning, and Nvould not provide an economically -%'riable redevelopment <br />scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Further, comparable parcels within the entire Transit Zoning <br />Code are l -it d b y proposed future uses and incompatible existing surrounding uses. Therefore, the <br />proposed site of the Developer Project is the orAy Feasible location for tl-is re evelopmcnt project. <br />3-14 Transit Zoning Code D 84 EIR Findings of Fa VSteternent of Overriding Considerations <br />