Res19 15813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12/16/2019 alternatives, which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002. 1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any 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. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (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. A. Project Objectives. The Final EIR evaluates a number of potential alternatives to the proposed project. The Final EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the proposed project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives. The project objectives are as follows: 1. Replace the aging VMSC and reduce escalating maintenance costs with a new approximately 45,000 square foot Veterans Memorial Building/Senior Center to enhance the existing seniors' programs and have spaces including a special veterans exhibits honoring Redwood City and San Mateo County veterans and office space for non-profit groups and the NFL Alumni Northern California Chapter. 2. Form a public/non-profit partnership with the YMCA to re -imagine the aging Veterans Memorial Senior Center and Sequoia YMCA to meet the changing health living, recreational and social needs of seniors, veterans, youth and families and ensure the Sequoia YMCA is able to remain in Redwood City. 3. Enhance and expand the existing membership at the Sequoia YMCA by providing a new approximately 35,000 square foot YMCA with a fitness center, multipurpose rooms, indoor and outdoor pools and a childcare facility open to the public. ATTY/RESO.0124/CC RESO RECOMMENDING CEOA CERTIFICATION —YMCA RESO. NO. 15813 REV: 12-12-191Y MUFF NO. 601 Page 20 of 44