AgdaPkt 2007-12-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C Page 67 � Create the project as a high-quafity 8ayfront developmenf praviding a variety of housing options in order to address the Peninsula's housing shortage, which currently prices many ci#y and county empfoyees out of the area; � Crea#e a community that invites and encourages residents and the general public to enjay the San Francisca Bay and the Bair Is[and Wildlife Refuge through new pubfic access and community-serving amenities such as res#aurants, offices, retail, cammunity centers, and overiooks; and • Create a waterfront project that pravides access to San Francisco Bay for residents and the public via integrated waikways, in#ernal wa#erways, and marinas. Based on the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.1 of the FEIR, the City fnds that, on ba(ance, the Peninsula Park �roject (the "Project"t provides substanfiially greater public benefits than the No Project Altemative and that the No Project Aiternativ� is not a feasible alternative to the Project. B. Buildout Under Existinq General Plan And Zoninq — Maximum Residential Plus Commercial (Alfernative 2) Description: Alternative 2 assumes that the Project site would be developed with the maximum number of residential units permissible under existing General Plan and zoning provisions far the site. Under Altemative 2, the Pete's Harbor portion of the site would be developed exciusively with residential uses at the maximum allowable residential density of 40 dwelling units per net acre, for a total of 462 residential units. The Peninsula Marina portion of #he site would be developed with office and general retail uses anly for a total af approximately $98,000 square feet of comrrtercial floor area, including approximatefy 20,000 square feet af retail-restaurant floor area and 878,000 square feet of office floor area. Findings: Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed Project in the areas of land use, visual facfars, bialogical resources, infrastructure and public services, soils and geology, public health and safety, noise, and culfural and historic resources. In al) of these areas, however, Attemative 2 would still have significant environmental impacts requir6ng mitigation. in the area of transporta±;on and circuiatior, the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 would actually be slightly increased over those of the proposed Project. Impacts in the areas of hydrology and water quality and air quality would be simifar to thase associated with the Project. With respect ta population, housing and employment, Aftemative 2 would contribute substantially to the existing citywide imbalance beiween residents and jobs, resulting in increased in-commuting. Alternafiive 2, which woufd produce 76 percent fewer residential units than the proposed Project, would not attain the Project abjectives identified in the discussion of the Na Praject Alternative above and in the FEIR. 1#would no� sufficiently address the market demand for housing or provide more housing at a variety of affordability leve[s. It would also reduce Project revenus so that the Project, if financially sustainable at all, could not generate sufficien# revenue #o provide pubfic access, waterfront features and other cammunity-serving amenities which are also fundamental, identified Project objec�ives. Based an the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.2 of the FEIR, the City finds that, on balance, the Project provides substantially greater public benefits than Alternative 2 and that Alternative 2 is no# a feasible alternative to the Project. Atty/Reso/Reso.1772 4� 121307