2019-107 - Proposed Addington Multi-Family Residential Project

Home Browse Search

(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 rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. 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 Project. However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403.) Here, a range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project was developed to provide additional information and flexibility to the decision -makers when considering the proposed Project. (DEIR, pp. 6- 1 through 6-26.) 12.2 Project Objectives The following Project objectives support the Project's underlying purpose to develop multi -family residential uses on the Project site and assist with meeting the City's housing needs: • Redevelop existing underutilized parcels to implement development of new high -quality housing. • Increase high -quality housing near existing employment centers. • Promote an improved jobs/housing balance by locating attractive new housing in proximity to employment centers. • Provide housing in close proximity to commercial areas, freeway, and transit. • Redevelop existing land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure, including: water, sewer, arterial roadways, transit, and freeways. • Implement capital investment to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan. • Provide residents with a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreational amenities. (DEIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) Resolution No. Page 67 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR