75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT A projections show that the jobs — housing ratio is anticipated to increase to 1.65 by 2040; and that the Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing on the Project site, where employees can easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas, which are jobs -rich. Thus, the Project would provide additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities. In addition, the provision of housing on the Project site would not result in economic activity that would cause the need for additional off-site housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, growth inducing impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3.) 12.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 12.1 Background Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002. 1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were Resolution No. _ Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 75E-98 Page 60 of 71