2010-024 - The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding ProJeoi Alternatives vibrant, walkable communities with localized access to amenities, further reducing reliance on the automobile For a variety of trips. ~ Pedestrian-Friendly= environments and more compact development patterns in close pros-unity to transit serve to support and itnpro~=e transit use and ridership. Focusing housing and employment growth in transit-accessible locations through this transit-oriented development approach will serve to reduce auto use and support more multimodal tray=el behavior. Further, the large reduction in retail space would significantiy redact potential new employ-ment opportunities and the economic benefits that accompany such opporntnities, as compared to the proposed Transit Zotng Code. It would also reduce the amount of potential tax revenue that the City= could use to reins=est and stunulate economic deg=elopment. On balance, reducing the deg=elopment intensity by 25 percent under tllternative 2 would not provide any= sigtificant environmental benefits that outweigh the extent to wlch it R=ould inlvhit the City='s ability= to meet regional housing needs and its goal of establishing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented de<=elopment framework to support die new transit-infrastructure. For these reasons, the Agency rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible. Alternative 3: Low-Rise Project Tkis alternati~=e is a low- to mid-rise version of the 'Transit Zoning Code (SD 84), which would luiiit building heights in the Downtown and Transit VIllage Districts to Four stories. Under Alternati~=e 3, the Downtown and Transit Village Districts would be redo=eloped according to the standards of the First Street Corridor District. The remaining districts of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) area would be de~~eloped consistent with the proposed project. Tlis would result in 2,049 fewer residential utits and 36,000 Fewer sf of retail uses. Because this alternatic=e would allow building heights that arc similar to existing buildings in the area, the altemati~=e would ensure future development «=Quid have less shade/shadow impacts, as well as generate fewer automobile trips. The anticipated mix of land uses would therefore be differetrt than the proposed project, and a less reshdential based area would result. Specific development characteristics that would be allowed under this alternath~=e relative to the proposed "Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) are specified in Table 3-2 (Alternative 3 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84] Characteristics). Resolution No. 20'10-024 Page 72 of 130 3-G Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Oven'Iding Considerations