AgdaPkt 2011-01-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.0 Extf��3112 not be impleinented under the No Project Alternative, and therefore the No Project Alternative is not expected to achieve this goal and objective of the City to the same , degree as the proposed DPP. Because the No Project Alternative would not be expected to reduce or avoid any significant impacts from implementation of the proposed DPP, and because the No i Project Alternative would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the downtown area and the Project to the same degree as the proposed DPP, the No Project Alternative is not considered a feasible alternative and has been rejected from further consideration. 2. Alternative 2-- Reduced Development Alternative a) Findings. Alternative 2, the Reduced Development Alternative, is described and discussed at pages 19-2 to 19-3 and pages 19-20 to 19-22 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR's authors concluded that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative (p. 19-28 to 19-29) because the reduced levels of development would be expected to result in slightly fewer construction-related impacts, and also would be � expected to generate slightly fewer vehicle trips, leading to slightly less severe traffic- ' related impacts. (p. 19-29) However, the proposed mitigation measures are expected to I I reduce the construction-related impacts to less than significant levels for the proposed project and for all of the alternatives. In addition, although Alternative 2 could result in slightly less severe traffio-related impacts, the reduction in the severity of those impacts would not be significant, and those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2. Therefore, as explained below, because Alternative 2 would not be expected to substantially lessen or avoid any of the proposed Project's significant impacts, and would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to the same degree as the proposed Downtown Precise Plan, the City hereby rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible. b) Explanation. The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce all of the development build-out limits in the proposed DPP by 25 percent, except for the cap on hotel rooms, which would remain at 200 units. This alternative does not assume that development would occur on fewer sites or at less density or intensity on any individual sites as compared to the DPP; rather, the only difference would be that the cumulative development limits for each land use type (with the lodging room exception noted above) wouId be lower. (DEIR, Table 19.1 at p. 19-14) The Reduced Development Alternative would have sianificant unavoidable climate change impacts that are similar to those projected for the DPP. The DPP area is already developed, exposing existing structures and residents to the risk of flood level rise and Alternative 2 would permit additional development with a concomitant population increase in an area already at risk of impact due to sea level rise, even though at a somewhat lower net gro��th than the DPP. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid tliis significai�t unavoidable impact. S�\RESOLUTIONS\Rcsa 2092 CEQA Pindings for DPY Exhibit R doc 52 012011