AgdaPkt 2000-12-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

? " - AS' 17. The Ordinance does not prohibit office development in the CBR District. To the contrary, the CBR district is one of the districts, which allows offices as acknowledged by the Ordinance. Moreover, the Ordinance does not change housing uses in the CBR district. Therefore, for purposes of the environmental review, the adoption of the Ordinance does not constitute new information of significance that would warrant further environmental analysis of this Project. 18. Appellant further claims that the potential for housing on the Project site was not appropriately considered in the FEIR. 19. The FEIR addresses housing as part of a possible alternative to the project. Alternative 2, which is analyzed in the DEIR, provides for residential buildings on both project blocks: a 36-unit residential building on Block 1 and an 81-unit residential building on Block 2. The DEIR states, on p. 230, that the introduction of two residential buildings into the downtown could "help add vitality to the area after working hours and on weekends." Alternative 2 analyzes the benefits and potential adverse impacts of housing being included in the Project. The discussion of this Alternative included the observation that the addition of housing downtown would potentially add life to the downtown area after normal working hours and would complement the balance of the project in helping to extend downtown's hours of activities. It would also help support restaurants and convenience retailers in the downtown area. It will also cause significant impacts for which there is no mitigation. All of the potential impacts of the residential component of the Project alternative are analyzed in Alternative 2. The potential for locating housing on the Project site was adequately analyzed in the FEIR. Whether housing will ultimately be a component of the final project is a land- use and policy decision to be made by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency at a later date. 20. Appellant further claims that the FEIR improperly excludes any analysis of the effect this project would have on the City's possible housing inventory. However, for reasons stated in the FEIR, the project site is not considered a potential housing site. The property is not designated as residential in the. City's general plan, zoning ordinances or the City's redevelopment plan. Therefore, an analysis of the proposed project's effects on housing inventory is not required. 21. The Appellant also contends that there will be a substantial parking shortfall, as there will be an overlap between theater patrons and restaurant and retail patrons. The Appellant claims that the FEIR fails to consider that the plan to "lure" retail customers and restaurant patrons into the downtown area for extended visits beyond theater shows will increase the parking demand beyond that analyzed in the EIR. 22. The parking adequacy analysis conducted for the EIR utilizes a methodology developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) for estimating parking demand in developments with mixed land uses and described in ULI's publication entitled Shared Parking (1990). The ULI's research is based on mixed-use activities and accounts for patrons visiting more than one establishment on a single visit to the mixed-use development. 4 . .-o¡-- '~"'T