2010-002 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Flndings Regard/ng Protect A/ternatlves 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 Agency considered two other alternatives, both of which it eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIR either because it did not meet most of the basic project objectives, would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the project as proposed, and/or is not feasible. These alternatives are discussed below. ~ Alternative Site This alternative would use an alternative site from that proposed fox the Transit Zoning Code and Developer projects. Findings The Agency hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological ox other considerations make the adoption of an Alternative 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 alternative site for the Transit Zoning Code project would not locate development or provide the framework fox development near existing or planned transit infrastructure. Therefore, it would not be able to fulfill the basic project objectives of providing a transit-supportive, 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 system that connects San Diego to Los Angeles. Failure to meet these key project objectives renders an alternative site infeasible. It would also be infeasible to develop the proposed Developer Project in an alternative location. Currently the Redevelopment Agency owns a cluster of parcels in the proposed project area and is considering the acquisition of other properties in the vicinity of these Agency-owned parcels. The proposed Developer Project is designed and proposed to redevelopment these specific 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 objectives of the Developer Project. Specifically, an alternative location would not result in redevelopment of the Agency-owned properties, would not enhance the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future transit planning, and would not provide an economically viable redevelopment scenario for the Agency-owned properties. Further, comparable parcels within the entire Transit Zoning Code are limited by 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. 3-14 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations