AgdaPkt 2007-12-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C Page 71 particular, it would resuft in substantially fewer residential units, #hus preventing the Project from attaining the basic objectives of addressing the demand for hausing and providing a#fordable housing opfions. Based on the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.7 of the FEIR, the City finds that, on balance, the Prajec# woufd provide substantially greater public benefits than Alternative 7 and tha#Alternative 7 is not a feasible alternative to the Project. H. Reduced Commercial to Permit No Marina Fill lAtternative 81 Description: Alternative 8 assumes development of the Praject site with a residential-commercial complex with similar uses to the Project, but with a reduction in the scope of the deveiopmen#to eliminate aEl of the approximately 9.8 acres of marina fill assaciated with the Project. Alternative 8 also incfudes a reduction in the maximum residentia! structure height to '{SO feet, as compareu t�the 230-235�ee� r�axim�m resident�al structure heic�ht far the Project, and a reduction in the number of multi-story residential structures from 17 for the proposed Praject to seven. With these fimitations, Alternative 8 would yield appraximately 850 condominium r�sidential units for sale and approximately 203,fla0 square feet of commercial floor area, including approximately 5,00�square feet of convenience retail. Section 17.10 af the FEIR identifies Altemative 8 as the "environmentally superiar altemafive" under CEQA. Findings: As compared to the Project, Altemative 8 would result in substantially reduced, bu# still significan#, environmental impacts in the areas of land use, visual factors, transportation and circulation, biological resources, hydrolagy and water quality, infrastructure and public services, soils and geology, public health and safety, noise, cultural and historic resaurces, and air quality. With respect to population, housing and employment, Altemafive 8, despite having fewer new residential units than the proposed Project, wou[d nonetheless, because of the reduction in commercial deve{opment, have a positive effect an the existing citywide imbalance between jobs and employed residents, reducing in-commuting. Altarnative 8 would, however, not attain basic Praject objectives iden#ified in the discussion of the No Project Alternative above, with 56 percent fewer residential units than the proposed Project (and a substantial reduction in commercial retail and office floor area) and an overall scope of development which would reduce Project revenue so that the Project, if financially sustainable at a(I, could not generate sufficient revenue to provide public access, waterfront features and other community-serving amenities which are fundamental, identified Project objectives. Based on the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.8 of the FEIR, the Ci#y finds that, on balance, the Project pravides substantially greater public benefi#s #han Alternative 8 and that Alternative $ is not a feasible alternative to the Praject. I. Alterna#ive Sites Descrip#ion: The FE{R considered the passibility of alter�ative sites for the Project and concluded that there are no specific sites of adequate size and general character available in the Mid-Peninsula subregion where development of such a project could be undertaken that would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and would avoid or substantially lessen the identi�ed environmenta! impacts of the Project as proposed. Furthermore, the prajecf applicant owns the Peninsula Marina portion of the proposed site and has a lease aption to buy the Pete's Harbor portion. The project applicant has no cantrolling interest in any other property capable of ineeting most of the basic objectives of the Praject, nor can the applicant be reasanabfy expected ta be able to acquire or control any particular site ]arge enough ta permit suc� a development, even if such a site could be identifed, given the rarity of such sites in the Mid-Peninsula area (if any exist). Atty/Reso/Reso.i 772 50 1213a7