AgdaPkt 2011-01-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.0 Page 4 Project Alternatives: CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project which would attain most of the project objectives and avoid or lessen the project's potential environmental effects. Listed below are the alternatives discussed in the EIR: i � Alternative 1: No Project Buildout Under Existing Land Use Policy (Zoning). This alternative assumes continuation of the existing Redwood City Zoning Districts in the , Downtown. • Alternative 2: DTPP with Reduced Deve(opment Capacity. This alternative would reduce development allowed under the Downtown Precise Plan by approximately 25%. • Alternative 3: DTPP with Reduced Building Height. This alternative would reduce the maximum building height from maximum 12-Story and 10-Story height zones to a maximum 8-Story height limit, while maintaining all other lower height limit areas. • Alternative 4: Revised Maximum Allowable Development (M.A.D.) caps. This alternative would reduce the Maximum Allowable Development (M.A.D) cap for net new retail from 221,000 sq. to 100,000 sq. ft., and increase the M.A.D. for net new office floor area from 275,000 sq. ft. to 500,000 sq. ft. • Alternative 5: Revised Historic Resources Preservation Regulations. This alternative would expand the historic resources regulations in the DPP by incorporating a set of additional principles, based on a recommendation from the Historic Resources Advisory Committee. It will provide additional, specific guidance to City staff and the HRAC regarding effective application of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and other preservation regulations to individual, site-specific development proposals involving historic resources. • Alternative 6: Revised DTPP Area Boundary. This alternative would alter the Downtown Precise Plan's northwestern boundary along Brewster Avenue, reducing the DTPP area by approximately eight acres. This alternative was dismissed for the foflowing reasons: 1. It would not promote the preservation of historic resources as compared to the proposed project because the historic resources removed from the plan would not benefit from the standards, guidelines and protection of the more stringent Downtown Precise Plan; and 2. lt would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's potentially significant impacts, including its impacts relating to shadow effects because the affected properties would be subject instead to the General Plan which does not include the height setback standards in the DTPP to reduce shadow impacts along Brewster Avenue and other areas_ 4