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
EXHIBIT A <br />rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons <br />underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the <br />choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the <br />factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an <br />EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or <br />(iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. <br />The range of alternatives required is governed by a `Yule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only <br />those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information <br />about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed <br />Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant <br />effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead <br />agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. <br />However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has <br />no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if <br />the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § <br />21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Ca1.App.3d 515, 521; Kings <br />County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights <br />Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,400-403.) <br />Here, a range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project was developed to provide additional <br />information and flexibility to the decision -makers when considering the proposed Project. (DEIR, pp. 6- <br />1 through 6-26.) <br />12.2 Project Objectives <br />The following Project objectives support the Project's underlying purpose to develop multi -family <br />residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City's housing needs: <br />• Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high-quality housing. <br />• Increase high-quality housing near existing employment centers. <br />• Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to <br />employment centers. <br />• Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeway, and transit. <br />• Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, <br />arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. <br />• Implement capital investment to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the <br />City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. <br />• Provide residents with a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and <br />various recreational amenities. <br />(DEIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) <br />12.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process <br />An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may <br />Resolution No. _ <br />Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR <br />75E-99 <br />Page 61 of 71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.