Res07 14829 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12/17/2007 discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening ay 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." The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Addendum and the FEIR and in the record. The Addendum and the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the Peninsula Park Project (the "Project") provides the best balance between the Project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, the Project's benefits as described herein in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and mitigation of environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The alternatives proposed and evaluated in the FEIR are rejected for the reasons stated in the FEIR and for the following reasons. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the project alternative as being infeasible, and, when the reasons are viewed collectively, provide an overall basis for rejecting the alternative as being infeasible. The CEQA Guidelines state that the "range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects" of the Project. CEQA Guidelines 9 15126(d)(2). Thus, an evaluation of the Project objectives is key to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR. The FEIR describes a range of nine reasonable alternatives which would further avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects of the Initial Marina Shores Village Project (the "Initial Project"), and evaluates the merits of these alternatives. In June 2004, the City determined that the Initial Project should be modified to incorporate key elements of Alternative 6, as described in the FEIR, because such modifications will reduce overall environmental impacts and provide other public benefits. Incorporating only key elements of Alternative 6, as opposed to adopting Alternative 6, will not prevent the Initial Project from achieving its fundamental goals in a way that renders the Initial Project infeasible. In June 2004, the City also determined that none of the identified alternatives is feasible, for the reasons described below and in the FEIR. The Findings regarding Alternatives 1-9, proposed and evaluated in the 2003 MSV EIR, are set forth below, as they originally appeared in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council in June 2004. All references to the "Project" in the discussion of Alternatives 1-9 as set forth in sections "A" through "I" are to the Project considered by the City Council on June 7,2004. A. No-Proiect Alternative Description: The "No Project" Alternative assumes that the Project would not be developed and the Project site would remain in its present condition. Findings: The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. However, the No Project Alternative would fail to achieve any of the basic objectives of the Project. These objectives are identified in Section 3.3 and Table 17.11 of the FEIR: Atty/Reso/Reso.1772 121707 45 14829 Muff# 613