2014-060 - Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

Home Browse Search

Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project The proposed project's demand for wastewater treatment, within the capacity of the entities providing these services. significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 9.0 Findings Regarding Alternatives A. BACKGROUND CEQA Findings water service, and solid waste disposal are all As a result, cumulative impacts are less than An EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA and section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines must describe and comparatively evaluate a range of project alternatives. Analysis of every possible alternative or options or combination of options would overburden the EIR with an unnecessary amount of detail that would be redundant and would, as a result, fail to provide meaningful information for the City to consider in its review of the project. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Proj cot. However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project, (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (19$$) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 -403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) Here, the project, as now proposed and as adopted by the City, has no significant impacts, as all potential significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures. Regardless, the following findings provide evidence supporting the rejection of other project alternatives, and the project as it was originally proposed by the, project applicant. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Each alternative considered by the City was compared against the project's objectives. The objectives of the proposed project are: • Provide for the current and future "move -up" housing needs for the City of Santa Ana. • Provide land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning designation of LR -7 and R -1, respectively. • Provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character and visually cohesive with the area. 37 "Exhibit A"