Laserfiche WebLink
37:If71ii_1 <br />from this alternative are less than the Project because the residential structure under this alternative would <br />be lower in height, at a lower density, and be sited at least 90 -feet from the eastern property line resulting <br />in a large open space area that could be used for recreation. However, the Reduced Project Alternative <br />would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact related to a substantial difference in scale, <br />height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site and the alternative would not <br />reduce the need for mitigation compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) <br />Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect; providing fewer <br />multi -family housing units on the Project site that would result in a reduced improvement to the City's 3.2 <br />percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement <br />to the jobs -housing balance, and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street <br />Concourse node designations as the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet <br />the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high- <br />quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, <br />fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance would <br />occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high-quality, modem residential <br />community with open space and various recreation amenities on the Project site. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through <br />6-25.) <br />CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead CEQA <br />requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it <br />to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations <br />against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those <br />considerations outweighed the harm. <br />Resolution No. _ <br />Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR <br />75E-105 <br />Page 67 of 71 <br />