My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2019 4:04:49 PM
Creation date
2/1/2019 3:58:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
75E
Date
2/5/2019
Destruction Year
2024
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
378
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i�:cu 3rr_� <br />make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible, meet most of the project <br />objectives, and avoid significant environmental effects that would occur from the project, and therefore, <br />merit in-depth consideration. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, are infeasible, or the effects of <br />which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), <br />(f)(3)). The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for <br />the Project. <br />Alternative Site Alternative <br />An alternative site was considered but eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key <br />question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project <br />would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." In addition, an <br />alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when <br />the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. <br />The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is vacant, and the site <br />is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized <br />parcel and implement new high-quality multi -family housing near employment centers to promote an <br />improved jobs/housing balance, provide housing near existing transportation, and utilize existing <br />infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. <br />In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 496 multi -family residential <br />units on another 5.9 -acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, <br />require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the Project. CEQA specifies that the key question <br />regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be <br />avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." Given the size and nature of <br />the Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an <br />available alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative <br />was rejected from further consideration. <br />No Project/Vacant Building Alternative <br />An alternative where the building would remain vacant and underutilized was eliminated from further <br />consideration. Because the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban <br />corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, it is not reasonable due to <br />the need for new residential and employment space in the area or financially feasible for the existing site <br />owner for the site to remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. Therefore, the No Project/Vacant <br />Building Alternative would be remote and infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of <br />the Project objectives. As described previously, alternatives that are remote, infeasible, and do not meet <br />Project objectives, do not need to be considered. Thus, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative was <br />rejected from further consideration. <br />12.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis <br />In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable <br />alternatives to the project ..." including the "No Project' alternative. The following alternatives have <br />been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the access alternatives <br />presented in the DEIR. The alternatives presented have been determined to be physically feasible and have <br />the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. The <br />Resolution No. <br />Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR <br />75E-100 <br />Page 62 of 71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.