Reso PC22-14 0114 PC Reso Certifying Final EIR 557 E. Bayshore Road

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0114/PC RESO CERTIFYING FINAL EIR – 557 E. BAYSHORE ROAD REV: 12-09-22 VR Page 25 of 61 The location of the residential building cannot change due to the Mixed-Use Waterfront designation of the parcel adjacent to the water which allows for residential development within the project site. Because the Mixed-Use Waterfront designation recommends the inclusion of supportive commercial uses, it would not or promote the City’s or the applicant’s objectives for the Project, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Residential Development Only Alternative is not feasible. Findings Relating to Commercial Development Only Alternative. A commercial development only would eliminate the residential use, and just provide commercial uses. This alternative would assume additional commercial development would occur in the northern portion of the site where residential uses are currently proposed. Since this alternative would retain the fitness center, the significant VMT impact associated with the fitness center (Impact TRN-2), would still occur and require the same mitigation. Unless the amount of construction required for this alternative is less than required for the proposed project, the significant NOx emissions identified in Impact AIR-2 would still occur. The mitigation required to bring Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-2 to a less than significant level are not due to the proposed land uses of the project but are rather due to the location and construction of the proposed development. This alternative would not reduce the need for any of the proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, this alternative would not be in compliance with the General Plan land use designations for the site. In addition to not meeting the Mixed-Use Waterfront designation, a project without residential development would not address RHNA needs or address the City Council s strategic priority for housing; therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Commercial Development Only Alternative is not feasible. Findings Relating to No Project – No Development Alternative The No Project – No Development Alternative would retain the existing commercial buildings and surface parking lots, with the buildings assumed under this alternative to continue to remaining vacant. Implementation of the No Project – No Development alternative would avoid the less than significant impacts with mitigation identified in this EIR. The No Project No-Development alternative would not, however, allow for new waterfront, high density, mixed-use development to be constructed on the project site consistent with the General Plan. A project without residential development would also not address RHNA needs or address the City Council’s strategic priority for housing. This alternative does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project; therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the No Development Alternative is not feasible. Findings Relating to No Project - Existing Plans and Policies Alternative The No Project-Existing Plans and Policies Alternative would assume the currently proposed project is not approved, and a different project is proposed based on what the General Plan currently allows. An alternative project that is consistent with the General Plan would allow for commercial development on the southern portion of the property and for mixed-use development on the northern portion of the property. The alternative project could potentially be similar in scale to or larger than the proposed development, as allowed under the General Plan.