Res11 15086 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

01/24/2011 Exhibit B 3. Alternative 3 - -- Reduced Building Height Alternative a) Findings. Alternative 3, the Reduced Building Height Alternative, would reduce the maximum building height in the DPP area to 8 stories, which is 4 stories lower than the proposed DPP highest height limit and one story lower than allowed by the current zoning. Alternative 3 is described and discussed at pages 19- 13 and 19 -22 to 19 -24 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 3 is hereby rejected because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed DPP's significant effects and would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to the same degree as the proposed DPP. b) Explanation. The proposed Downtown Precise Plan would increase the current 9 -story height limit in the DPP area to 12 stories in the certain parts of the central downtown area, and 10 stories in other parts of the central downtown area. Other portions of the DPP area would be subject to varying height limits, ranging from 3 to 8 stories. The current height limit in the downtown area is 9 stories. The Reduced Building Height Alternative proposes an 8 -story building height limit in the DPP area, thereby precluding the 10- and 12 -story structures that would be permitted under the proposed DPP for portions of the plan area. There are no other differences between the proposed DPP and Alternative 3. The reduced building heights under Alternative 3 are sufficient to allow downtown development up to the Maximum Allowable Development (M.A.D.) caps proposed by the DPP (i.e., 2500 residential units, 275,000 sq. ft. of office space, 221,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and 200 lodging units). Because the greater building heights proposed under the DPP are not expected to generate any potentially significant impacts, the reduction in building heights proposed under Alternative 3 would not reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts of the DPP. (Draft EIR, Table 19.3) Moreover, as explained and illustrated in Section 19 of the Draft EIR (pp. 19 -16 to 19 -17 and 19 -22 to 19 -24), this alternative would not otherwise avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed DPP. Because Alternative 3 would not be expected to avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed Project's potentially significant effects, it is hereby rejected from further consideration. U:\Resolutions\2011\Reso 15086 Exhibit B.doc 55 012011 Reso. # 15086 Muff #601