Res11 15086 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

01/24/2011 Exhibit B to minor amendments to achieve consistency between current zoning and the newly - adopted 2010 General Plan). As a result, existing development patterns would largely remain intact and there would be no substantial changes in land use, density, or intensity patterns within the plan area. As with the proposed DPP, development under the current zoning standards and regulations could have significant and unavoidable impacts on historic resources in and around the DPP area. However, the current zoning ordinance does not include the detailed and coordinated historic resource preservation standards, guidelines and protections contained in the proposed DPP. (See Downtown Precise Plan, Book II) Consequently, it is likely that development in the DPP area under the current zoning ordinance would result in more and more severe impacts on historic resources than development under the proposed DPP. Similarly, development under the existing zoning ordinance would be expected to result in more and more severe significant and unavoidable transportation and circulation impacts than development under the proposed DPP, because development under the existing zoning ordinance would be expected to generate more vehicle trips than development under the proposed DPP. (Draft EIR, Table 19.2 (page 19 -15)) Therefore, adoption of the No Project Alternative would not lessen or avoid the significant adverse traffic impacts anticipated from implementation of the DPP. To the contrary, in fact, the DPP would be expected to result in fewer and less severe traffic impacts than the No Project Alternative. Nor would the No Project Alternative substantially reduce or avoid the significant adverse impact relating to rising sea level. The DPP area is already developed, and the existing zoning regulations would permit more new residential and non - residential development in the area than the proposed DPP. To the extent that the No Project Alternative would increase the population and commercial activity in the DPP area, it would result in greater flood risks from rising sea level. Therefore, this alternative would not reduce or avoid this potentially significant impact. Finally, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the downtown area to the same degree as the proposed DPP, and would not provide the benefits of the proposed DPP. Among the City's goals and objectives for the downtown is to reduce the number of motor vehicle trips that occur in the downtown area. The proposed DPP contains specific standards, guidelines and regulations designed to promote walking, bicycling, and the use of public transportation in the downtown area. These standards, guidelines and regulations would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative, and motor vehicle use would not be reduced, and would be more likely to increase, under the No Project Alternative. The City's goals and objectives also include protecting and promoting the historic resources in the downtown area to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed DPP contains extensive and detailed historic resources protections and regulations that would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative. As a result, the historic resources in the downtown area would be subject to less protection under the No Project Alternative. Another goal and objective of U: \Resolutions\2011\Reso 15086 Exhibit B.doc 52 012011 Reso. # 15086 Muff #601