Res11 15086 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

01/24/2011 Exhibit B developed, exposing existing structures and residents to the risk of flood level rise and Alternative 2 would permit additional development with a concomitant population increase in an area already at risk of impact due to sea level rise, even though at a somewhat lower net growth than the DPP. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid this significant unavoidable impact. In addition, although Alternative 2 contains the same detailed and coordinated historic preservation standards and protections similar to those in the DPP, the significant impact on historic and cultural resources would remain. Because Alternative 2 contains a lower overall cap on development but does not assume that development would be permitted on fewer sites, site specific impacts on historic and cultural resources would not be reduced in comparison with the DPP. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or reduce the significant impact on historic and cultural resources under the DPP. Compared to the DPP, Alternative 2 would result in slightly less severe, but still significant and unavoidable, transportation and circulation impacts. As illustrated in Table 19.2 of the DEIR, Alternative 2 would, like the proposed Project, result in a net increase in vehicular trips primarily during the AM and PM peak hours, generating the same significant and unavoidable impacts. Moreover, Alternative 2 would not meet important objectives of the DPP. The lower build -out caps would mean that there would be 625 fewer residential units than permitted under the DPP. A key objective of the DPP is to provide for the expansion of city housing choices by encouraging compact, transit- accessible, pedestrian- oriented housing and mixed use development within the DPP area in densities great than currently permitted. The lower residential growth permitted under Alternative 2 would limit the opportunity for mixed use development, which would in turn impede the City's related goals of 1) restoring Downtown Redwood City as a hub of diverse services, experiences, and lifestyle choices and 2) providing a range of well - designed rental and for -sale housing types in close proximity to entertainment, restaurants, special events, shopping, public services and transportation. In addition, the reduced levels of residential and non- residential development permitted under Alternative 2 not limit new development opportunities in the downtown area and, as a result, would not meet the City's objective of facilitating public and private investment in the DPP area to the same degree as the proposed Project. Therefore Alternative 2 is not expected to achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to same degree as the DPP. Because Alternative 2 would not be expected to substantially reduce or avoid any of the potentially significant effects that are expected from the mitigated DPP, and because Alternative 2 would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to the same extent as the DPP, the City hereby rejects Alternative 2 from further consideration. U:\ Resolutions \2011\Reso 15086 Exhibit B.doc 54 012011 Reso. # 15086 Muff #601