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

Home Browse Search

Chapter S Findings Regarding Protect Alternatives In light of these considerations, the Agency rejects this alternative as infeasible 3.4.3 Findings on Alternatives that were Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis in the Draft EIR In addition to the six alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Lead Agenc}= considered tavo other alternati~=e s, both of which it elitrtinated from detailed analysis in the EIR either because it did not meet most of the basic project objecti~=es, would not reduce or at=oid significant impacts of the project as proposed, and/or is not feasible. These alteruati<=es are discussed below. Alternative Site This alternati<<e would use an alternative site From that proposed for the Transit Toning Code and Developer projects. Findings The Agency hereb}= finds that speci£te economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the adoption of an Alternatia=e Site alternative infeasible. The Transit Zoning Code is designed to guide development near existing and planned transit and is therefore dependant on the location described for the proposed project. An alternati~=e site for the Transit Zoning Code project would no[ locate development or provide the framework for development near existing or planned transit infrastructure. Therefore, it would not be able to fulfill the basic project objecti~=es of providing atransit-supporti~=e, pedestrian-oriented development Framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure, nor would it encourage alternative modes of transportation, or increase access to the rail s}=stem that connects San Diego to Los Angeles. liailure to meet these key project objectives renders an alternative site infeasible. It would also be infeasible to den=clop the proposed Dca=elopes Project in an alterctati~-e location. Currently the Redevelopment Agency o«=ns a cluster of parcels in the proposed project area and is considering the acquisition of otlter properties in the vicinity of these Agency-owned parcels. The proposed Dea=elopes Project is designed and proposed to sedeveloptnent these speciFe properties. It would not be practical or Feasible to abandon plans for these parcels and begin new future acquisitions elsewhere, and doing so would fail to meet most of the basic project objectia*es of the Deaeoloper Project. Specifically, an alternatiae location would not result in scdca=elopment of the Agency-ov=ned properties, would not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularl}= along Santa Ana Soulea=ard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zotting Code and that support future transit planning, and would not provide an cconotnically viable redeem=clopment scenario For the Agency-oaa=ned properties. Further, comparable parcels within the entire Transit Zoning Code are limited b}= proposed future uses and incompatible existing surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed site of the Developer Project is the only Feasible location for this redevelopment project. Resolution No. 2010-024 Page 80 of 130 3-14 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations