AgdaPkt 2007-12-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C Page 66 discussion of alterna#ives shall focus on altematives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening ay significant effects af the project, even if these alternatives would {mpede to some degree the attainrr�ent of the project objectives, or would be more costiy." The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and cansidered the information on aiternatives provided in the FEIR and in the record. The FE1R reflects the City Council's independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the Project provides the best balance between the Project sponsor's objectives, the City's goais and objectives, the projecYs benefiits as described below in the Statement of Overriding Considera#ions, and mitigation of environmentaE impacts to the extent feasible. The altematives proposed and evaluated in the FEIR are rejec#sd for the reasons stated in the FEIR and for the folfowing 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 averalf basis far 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 accorr�plish most of the basic purposes of the praject and cauld avoid or substantially lessen ane of mQre of the significant effects" of the Project. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d}{2). Thus, an evaluation of the Project objectives is key to determining which altematives should be assessed in the EIR. The FEIR describes a range of nine reasonable alternatives which would further avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effec#s of the Project, and evaluates the merits of these aftematives. The City has determined that the initial Projec# should be modifisd ta incorporate key slements nf Alternative 6, as described in the FEIR, because such modifications will reduce overall environmental impacts and provide other public benefits. Incorpora#ing only key elements of Alternative 6, as opposed to adopting Altemative 6, will not prevent the Project from achieving its fundamental goals in a way that renders the Project infeasible. The City has also determined that none of the id�ntified altematives is feasible, for the reasons described below and in the FEIR. A. No-Praject Aifernative Description: The "No PrdjecY' Alternative assumes that the Project would not be developed and the Project site would remain in its present condition. Findings: The No Project Aftema#ive would avoid the significant and potentially significant environmental effec#s of the Project. However, the No Project Alternative wauid fail to achieve any of ihe basic objectives of the Praject. These objectives are identified in Section 3.3 and Table 17.11 of the FEIR: • Create a mixed use residential-o�ce-retail �raject that responds to perceived future market demands for more residential purchase and office lease opportunities in the Mid-Peninsula, convenient to an existing downtown, a major interregional transit cflrridor, and local job centers; • Provide primari{y residential uses, with complementary commercial, retail, and other community-serving uses; Atty/Reso/Reso.1772 45 123307