Reso 2007-111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Strategy growth for year 2015, however these projections would not have reflected the full extent of growth envisioned under the Strategy and how it compares to the No Build Alternative. Based on the projections shown in Table 3-3 of the Project Description, which identify TOD Strategy growth by 2030, the Strategy would result in 2,841 more dwelling units, but 137,390 less square feet of non-residential, job-generating land uses. In summary, at full buildout, the TOD Strategy is expected to result in 7,245 more residents, but 392 fewer jobs in the Strategy Area than the No Project Alternative. Overall, the TaD Strategy would result in more growth in terms of building area and population. Impacts/Feasibility of Alternative I: The No Project Alternative varies from the TOD Strategy however, in that it would provide less opportunity for internal trip capture resulting from the more intensive development and mixed use design of the TaD Strategy, which would provide a greater level of location efficiency suitable for pedestrian access to internal destinations and transit to external destinations. Further, the possible benefits to air quality of mixed-use design encouraged by the Air District Guidelines would be less achievable under the No Project alternative because density would be generally lower and there would be fewer housing units in close proximity to transit. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced emission due to less development; however it would not achieve the same degree of high-density mixed used development in close proximity to transit, which could have benefits to air quality. On balance, the impact of the No ProjeCt Alternative would be considered the same when compared to the TOD Strategy. Reasons for Rejecting this Alternative: While the No Project Alternative would be consistent with the City's current land policy framework in that existing land use designations and zoning would remain in effect, this alternative would be inconsistent with the City's long-term land use vision for the Downtown Area. Because this alternative would not support implementation of the Strategy from a policy standpoint, it is considered an insubstantial degradation in relation to the proposed Strategy. The No Project Alternative has not been selected because it would not achieve the desired mixture and intensity of residential and non-residential uses in close proximity to transit within the TaD Strategy Area. In summary, the reduced levels of development that would occur under this alternative would not allow the City to achieve its long-term land use vision for the Downtown Area. Alternative 2: Mixed Use Land Use Concept 2 Alternative-Residential Emphasis with High Intensity Downtown Retail Description of Alternative 2: In this alternative, residential uses are emphasized with high intensity retail in the downtown. The Mixed Use Land Use Concept 2 Alternative emphasizes a large amount of medium- to high-density residential development and the creation of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use downtown. This alternative would inciude 438,000 gross square feet (gsf) of new office space, between 1,970 and 3,350 dwelling units, and 190,000 gsfofnew retail. 31