AgdaPkt 2004-05-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

��'�`rlY �, Peninsula's housing shortage, which cuRenUy prices many city �'�' and county employees out of the area; • Create a community that invites and encourages residents and the genei�al public to enjoy the San Francisco Bay and the �Zair Island Wildlife Refuge through new public access and communit �-serving amenities such as restaurants, offices, retail, community centers, and overlooks; and • Create a watertront project that provides access to San Francisco Bay for residents and the public via integrated walkways, intemal waterways, and marinas. Based on the foregoing and the discussion in Section 17.1 of the FEIR, the City finds that, on balance, the Project provides substantially greater public benefits than the No Project Alternative and that the No Project Alternative is not a feasible altemative to the Project. B. Buildout Under Existinq Generai Plan And Zonina — Maximum Residential Plus Commercial (Alternative 2) Description: Alternative 2 assumes that the Project site would be developed with the maximum number of residential units permissible under existing ��= General Plan and zoning provisions for the site. Under Alternative 2, the Pete's Harbor portion of the site would be developed exclusively with residential uses at the maximum allowable residential density of 40 dwelling units per net acre, for a total of 462 residential units. The Peninsula Marina portion of the site would be developed with o�ce and general retail uses only for a total of approximately 898,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including approximately 20,000 square feet of retail-restaurant floor area and 878,000 square feet of office floor area. Findings: Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed Project in the areas of land use, visual factors, biological resources, infrastructure and public services, soils and geology, public health and safety, noise, and cultural and historic resources. In all of these areas, howeve�, Alternative 2 would still have significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation. In the area of transportation and circulation, the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 wouid actuaily be slightly increased over those of the proposed Project. Impacts in the areas of hydrology and water quality and air quality would be similar to those associated with the Project. With respect to population, housing and employment, Alternative 2 would contribute substantially to the existing citywide imbalance between residents and jobs, resulting in incressed in-commuting. Alternative 2, which would produce 76 percent fewer residential units than the proposed Project, would not attain the Project objectives identified in the discussion of the No Project Altemative above and in the FEIR. It wouid not sufficiently address the market demand for housing or provide more housing at a variety of affordability levels. It would also reduce Project revenue so that 1289\02\179278.2 36 Atty/Reso/Reso.1470 052004