My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-002 CRA
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
2010-2012
>
2010
>
2010-002 CRA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:20:47 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 12:33:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
CRA 2010-02
Date
6/7/2010
Destruction Year
P
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Profect Alternatives <br />uses, without which the existing transit system cannot fully realize its potential for accommodating <br />additional trips and relieving the transportation system. These nodes along the corridor also create <br />vibrant, walkable communities with localized access to amenities, further reducing reliance on the <br />automobile for a variety of trips. <br />~ Pedestrian-friendly environments and more compact development patterns in close proximity to <br />transit serve to support and improve transit use and ridership. Focusing housing and employment <br />growth in transit-accessible locations through this transit-oriented development approach will <br />serve to reduce auto use and support more multimodal travel behavior. <br />Further, the large reduction in retail space would significantly reduce potential new employment <br />opportunities and the economic benefits that accompany such opportunities, as compared to the <br />proposed Transit Zoi~iig Code. It would also reduce the amount of potential tax revenue that the City <br />could use to reinvest and stimulate economic development. <br />On balance, reducing the development intensity by 25 percent under Alternative 2 would not provide any <br />significant environmental benefits that outweigh the extent to which it would inhibit the City's ability to <br />meet regional housing needs and its goal of establishing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented <br />development framework to support the new transit-infrastructure. <br />For these reasons, the Agency rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible. <br />~ Alternative 3: Low-Rise Project <br />This alternative is a low- to mid-rise version of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B), which <br />would limit building heights in the Downtown and Transit Village Districts to four stories. Under <br />Alternative 3, the Downtown and Transit Village Districts would be redeveloped according to the <br />standards of the First Street Corridor District The remaining districts of the Transit Zoning Code <br />(SD 84A and SD 84B) area would be developed consistent with the proposed project. This would result <br />in 2,049 fewer residential units and 36,000 fewer sf of retail uses. Because this alternative would allow <br />building heights that are similar to existing buildings in the area, the alternative would ensure future <br />development would have less shade/shadow impacts, as well as generate fewer automobile trips. <br />The anticipated mix of land uses would therefore be different than the proposed project, and a less <br />residential based area would result. Specific development characteristics that would be allowed under this <br />alternative relative to the proposed Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) are specified in Table 3-2 <br />(Alternative 3 and Proposed Transit Zoning Code [SD 84A and SD 84B] Characteristics). <br />3-6 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.