AgdaPkt 2011-01-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.0 Ex��113 In addition, although Alternative 2 contains the same detailed and coordinated historic preservation standards and protections similar to those in the DPP, the significant impact on historic and cultural resources would remain. Because Alternative 2 contains a lower overall cap on development but does not assume that development would be permitted on fewer sites, site specific impacts on historic and cultural resources would not be reduced � in comparison with the DPP. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or reduce the significant impact on historic and cultural resources under the DPP. Compared to the DPP, Alternative 2 would result in slightly less severe, but still significant and unavoidable, transportation and circulation impacts. As illustrated in Table 192 of the DEIR, Alternative 2 would, like the proposed Project, result in a net increase in vehicular trips primarily during the AM and PM peak hours, generating the same significant and unavoidable impacts. � Moreover, Alternative 2 would not meet important objectives of the DPP. The lower build-out caps would mean that there would be 625 fewer residential units than permitted under the DPP. A key objective of the DPP is to provide for the expansion of city housing choices by encouraging compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented housing and mixed use development within the DPP area in densities great than currently permitted. The lower residential growth permitted under Alternative 2 would limit the opportunity for mixed use development, which would in turn impede the City's related goals of 1) restoring Downtown Redwood City as a hub of diverse services, experiences, and lifestyle choices and 2) providing a range of well-designed rental and for-sale housing types in close proximity to entertainment, restaurants, special events, shopping, public services and transportation. In addition, the reduced levels of residential and non- residential development permitted under Alternative 2 not limit new development opportunities in the downtown area and, as a result, would not meet the City's objective of facilitating public and private investment in the DPP area to the same degree as the proposed Project. Therefore Alternative 2 is not eapected to achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to same degree as the DPP. Because Alternative 2 would not be expected to substantially reduce or avoid any of the potentially significant effects that are expected from the mitigated DPP, and because Alternative 2 would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Pzoject to the same extent as the DPP, the Cit�r hereby rejects Alternative 2 from further consideration. 3. Alternative 3--- Reduced Building Height Alternative a) Findings. Alternative 3, the Reduced Building Height Alternative, would reduce the maximum building height in the DPP area to 8 stories, which is 4 stories lower than the proposed DPP highest height limit and one story lower than allowed by the cunent zoning. Alternative 3 is described and discussed at pages 19- 13 and 19-22 to 14-24 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 3 is hereby rejected because it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed DPP's significant effects and would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to the same degree as the proposed DPP. S:\RESOI,UTIUNSIReso. 2092 CEQA Findings lor DPP Exhibit E3 .doc �3 Ol?011