Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding ProJeot Alternatives <br />~ Provide additional public open space and facilitate joint use arrangement with SAUSD for a new <br />community center <br />~ Proms-ide an economically viable redevelopment scenario For the Agency-owned properties <br />3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES <br />The Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR e~>aluated sip (6) alternatives, including the No Project/No <br />Development alternati~-e, in Chapter 5.0. This evaluation compared the ens-ironmental advautnges and <br />disadvantages of each alternative to the Proposed Project. Alternative 1, 2, and 3 are primarily designed <br />to address alternatives to the 'T'ransit Zoning Code as a whole. Alternati~~es 4, 5, and 6 present <br />alternatives to the proposed Dec*eloper Project, and under each of these Alternatives, the proposed <br />Transit Zoning Codc would remain the unchanged. <br />'T'he range of feasible altemati~Tes was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public <br />participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when <br />considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[I][1]) were <br />ens*ironmental impacts, economic viability, a~-ailability of infrastructure, regulatoi-~- lurutations, <br />jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objecti~>es_ As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the <br />CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably <br />identified, whose implementation is remote or speculati~>e, or oue that would not achieve the basic <br />project objecti~-es. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide <br />meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison kith the Proposed Project. <br />It should be noted that the Altcrnati~•es section of the DEIR was re-circulated due to the addition of <br />three new alternatives (Alternatives 4, 5 and 6) which would lessen the impacts related to historic <br />structures located within the proposed Developer Project area. The re-circulation of the tllterna[ives <br />section concurrently extended the public cou~ment period on the DEIR. <br />3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS <br />3.4.1 Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code <br />Analyzed in the Draft E1R <br />Alternative 1, 2, and 3 are primarily designed to address alternatives to the Transit Zoning Code as a <br />whole. The Agency's findings on each alternatic>e and the rationale I~ehind each Ending are set forth <br />below. <br />Alternative 1: No Pro)ect/No Development Alternative <br />This alternative assumes a continuation of the Cit3>'s existing General Plan and zoning designations to <br />guide Euture growth and development within the Transit Zoning Code project area. 'T'he impacts of this <br />alternative were analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the Transit Zoning Code area with <br />the current allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and <br />zon$~~a~igns2.CI.[ba~l~tion, this alternative assumes that the proposed Developer Project would not <br />go ~~s~§$ d$r'l3(.jie Agency-owned properties. bSaintaining the existing General Plan and zoning <br />3-2 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Faot/Statement of Overriding Conslderattons <br />