AgdaPkt 2007-03-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 14 of the Project. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(2). Thus, an evaluation of the Project objectives is key to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR. The general goal of the proposed Precise Plan is to establish a contemporary vision and set forth the specific land use parameters, development standards, and urban design criteria necessary to facilitate and guide successful development within the City's downtown over the next approximately 15 years. The specific project objectives are discussed at page 3-5 to 3-13 of the FEIR, and are incorporated herein by reference. A. Alternative 1-Maximum Intensity Scenario: The Maximum Intensity Scenario alternative is discussed at pages 18-4 to 18-7 of the FEIR. (i) Findings: The Maximum intensity alternative is rejected as an alternative because although this alternative would fully attain the City`s project objectives and goals as identified in Section 3.3 of this EiR, this alternative is not the more environmentally responsible choice based on the EIR review of alternatives. (ii) Explanation: The Moderate Intensity alternative assumes that, compared to the Maximum Intensity alternative, the overall M.A.D. "caps" for the entire Precise Plan area would be lower and individual sites would be developed at lower residential densities and commercial intensities. Therefore, potential overall traffic generation, associated air quality and noise impacts, and overa(I wastewater, water and other municipal services needs would be lower than the Maximum Intensity altemative. As noted on page 18-9, the Moderate Intensity alternative would generate approximately 40 percent fewer additional daily vehicular trips than would the Maximum Intensity scenario. B. Alternative 3-Modified Precise Plar}--Reduced Height (9-Story Limit): The Reduced Height Alternative is discussed at pages 18-10 to 18-12 of the FEIR. (i) Findings: The Reduced Height Alternative is rejected as an alternative because i# would not best achieve the Project's objective nor the objectives of the City. (ii) Explanation: The Reduced Height Alternative would be less effective in fully attaining the City's project objectives and goals as identified in section 3.3 (Basic Project Objectives and Goals} of the FEIR. In comparison to the Maximum intensity alternative, the Reduced Height alternative would have a reduced beneficial effect in assisting Redwod City with achievement of a better citywide balance between employed residents and jobs, and associated decreases in the current in-commuting trend. This altemative would also result in reduced, but still significant unavoidable, Atty/Reso/Reso.'i 683 Q 030707