Reso 2007-111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Impacts/Feasibility of Alternative 2: Assuming all projected dwelling units were constructed under the Concept 2 Alternative (3,350) and the TOO Strategy (3,431), the TOD Strategy would result in 81 more housing units, which would equate to approximately 207 more people residing in the Strategy Area. Assuming full buildout of office space, the TOD Strategy would result in 280,240 square feet more of office, which would accommodate approximately 800 more jobs. Assum ing full buildout of retail, the Concept 2 Alternative would result in approximately 70,000 square feet more of retail, which would accommodate approximately 200 jobs. Therefore, the net difference is that the Concept 2 Alternative would result in 600 fewer jobs, or employees, and 207 fewer residents in the Strategy Area than the proposed TOD Strategy. Overall, the Concept 2 Alternative would result in less development in the Strategy Area through 2030. The Concept 2 Alternative would result in continued urbanization of the Strategy Area during the course of its buildout. Views to and from the Strategy Area would likely change with the addition of residential and office development. A description of these views is provided in Chapter 4.1 of this EIR. The existing views of the hills to the east may be affected, though view corridors could be maintained. Under either scenario, several policies would be applied to new development taking place within the Strategy Area to minimize the potential for visual impacts. As a result, the impact on aesthetics resulting from the Concept 2 Alternative is considered the same as the proposed Project. Due to the less intense level of development that would occur under the Concept 2 Alternative, less traffic would be generated in the Downtown Area. While reduced traffic volumes would benefit traffic operations, the General Plan EIR already concluded that Level of Service (LOS) impacts on several local roadways segments would be significant and unavoidable under buildout of the General Plan. This significant and unavoidable impact would also occur under buildout of the Concept 2 Alternative. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative 2: The Concept 2 Alternative has not been selected because it would not achieve the desired mixture and intensity of commercial land uses in close proximity to transit within the TOD Strategy Area. As part of the Strategy, the City aims to create a Downtown Area where the combination of office, retail, and residential uses effectively complement each other. This Alternative would include approximately 210,000 square feet less of job-generating land uses in the Strategy Area than the proposed Strategy. Based on the assumption that 350 square feet of commercial or retail development equates to one job, a deficit of 210,000 square feet could result in 600 fewer jobs. This is potentially 600 fewer people who could live, work, or shop in the TOO Strategy Area. As a result, the City determined that this Alternative did not provide an adequate policy mechanism or vision for achieving the Strategy goals. The Concept 2 Alternative would need to comply with the same mitigating General Plan policies as the proposed TOD Strategy. Therefore, the Concept 2 Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement compared to the proposed TOD Strategy due to the reduced amount of traffic noise. The Concept 2 Alternative would achieve most of the project objectives, since it would result in higher density residential units and the development of mixed use residential, commercial, and retail in the TOD Strategy Area. However, it does not include the desired level of office space development that the City envisions as an integral part of a high-density, mixed use Downtown Area where job-generating land uses exist in close proximity to various modes of transit and different types of retail services. 32