2019-107 - Proposed Addington Multi-Family Residential Project

Home Browse Search

12.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible, meet most of the project objectives, and avoid significant environmental effects that would occur from the project, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, are infeasible, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), (t)(3)). The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project. Alternative Site Alternative An alternative site was considered but eliminated from further consideration. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is "remote and speculative," such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. The Project Applicant is the owner of the Project site, and the Project site building is vacant, and the site is underutilized in the existing condition. The Project objectives are to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel and implement new high -quality multi -family housing near employment centers to promote an improved jobs/housing balance, provide housing near existing transportation, and utilize existing infrastructure, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the Project site. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 496 multi -family residential units on another 5.9-acre site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the Project. CEQA specifies that the key question regarding alternative site consideration is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an available alternative site with fewer environmental impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration. No Project/Vacant Building Alternative An alternative where the building would remain vacant and underutilized was eliminated from further consideration. Because the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, it is not reasonable due to the need for new residential and employment space in the area or financially feasible for the existing site owner for the site to remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. Therefore, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative would be remote and infeasible. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. As described previously, alternatives that are remote, infeasible, and do not meet Project objectives, do not need to be considered. Thus, the No Project/Vacant Building Alternative was rejected from further consideration. 12.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project ..." including the "No Project' alternative. The following alternatives have Resolution No. Page 68 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR