Reso 2007-111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Strategy Area. According to the CMA model projections, there would be 205 new dwelling units and 400 new jobs in the Strategy Area by 2015, which equates to 140,000 square feet of non- residential development. The TOD Strategy projects in 2015 that there will be 1,029 new dwelling units, and 251,733 square feet of new job-generating uses, which equates to 719 jobs. In 2030, the CMA projections include 2,039 new dwelling units and 893 new jobs. In 2030, the TOD Strategy projects 3,431 dwelling units and 839,110 square feet of job generating uses, which equates to 2,397 jobs. In both 2015 and 2030, the CMA Alternative would result in a substantially reduced amount of growth in the TOO Strategy Area. The CMA 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 ofresidential 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 CMA Alternative is considered the same as the proposed Project. Development occurring under the CMA Alternative would result in emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM)lO. However, because development occurring under the CMA Alternative would be less intense than the proposed TOO Strategy, the total emission levels would be lower. Accordingly, potential air quality impacts associated with vehicle (traffic) emissions and construction activity would be reduced. However, this Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to cumulative emissions and the attainment of air quality standards. Due to the lower density envisioned under the CMA Alternative, it would provide less opportunity for internal trip capture resulting from the more intensive development of the TOD Strategy, which provides a greater level of location efficiency suitable for pedestrian access to internal destinations and transit to external destinations. Further, the benefits to Air Quality of mixed-use design encouraged by the Air District Guidelines would be less achievable under the CMA Alternative because density would be generally lower under this Alternative and there would be fewer housing units in close proximity to transit and jobs. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative 4: The CMA Alternative would meet most of the project objectives; such as the reduced amount of residential and non-residential uses and would adversely affect the City's ability to achieve the full extent of its goals for the Downtown. The level of growth projected under this alternative does not align with the City's goals for development in the Strategy Area. While this Alternative would not restrict growth, the growth projections fall short of what the City foresees and has identified through market analyses, as the level of development necessary to create a unique, commercially-successful Downtown that encompasses a wide range of housing choices, job opportunities, and retail and entertainment options. 35