Laserfiche WebLink
Initiative, and to City policies designed to remedy the City's <br />existing jobs /housing imbalance by promoting the development <br />of new housing in the City. Therefore, this alternative is rejected <br />as infeasible because it is not likely to avoid or substantially <br />lessen the project's sole significant and unavoidable impact, and <br />it would not achieve the City's and the project applicant's <br />objectives for the project in the same time frame and to the <br />same extent as the proposed project. The second <br />scenario would avoid the potentially significant and unavoidable <br />impact relating to the loss of the 11 el's Bowl sign, because the <br />project site would be maintained In its current condition. The <br />City rejects this alternative as infeasible, however, because it is <br />inconsistent with the City's goals and policies for development <br />on the project site, including General Plan policies BE2.4, <br />BE2.7, BE12.1, EE23.7, BE24.2, H3.2 and H3. (See General <br />Plan, pp. E- 3, BE-63, BE-69, BE-79, , E- o, H-159, H-159). <br />In addition, and independent of the foregoing, the City rejects <br />this alternative because it gold not achieve any of the City's <br />and the project applicant's objectives for the project, including <br />the redevelopment of a currently underutilized property, the <br />development of new housing on the El Camino Real corridor <br />consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning ordinance <br />designations, promotion of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, and <br />provision of high - density housing in close proximity to transit, <br />employment opportunities, shopping and services, among <br />others. (See Craft EIF , Section 1.3 p. 1 (project objectives) <br />and Section 7. No Project Alternative). <br />b. redesign Alternative No. 'I would avoid the potentially <br />significant and unavoidable impact relating to the loss of the <br />Kiel's Bowl sign, because the project would be redesigned to set <br />the building back a minimum of 25 feet from the El Camino Real <br />l <br />sidewalk, to avoid removal of the sign. This redesign of the <br />project would result in a decrease of the number of residential <br />units that would be constructed on the project site by <br />approximately 19 units. This alternative is rejected as infeasible <br />because it would be inconsistent with City policies regarding <br />urban design and pedestrian oriented development generally, <br />development along El Camino real in particular, and the Grand <br />Boulevard Initiative (See General Plan policies BE1.7, E1 1. <br />and E1 2., pp. EE -62, BE-68 and E -. In addition, and <br />independent of the foregoing, the City rejects this alternative <br />because it would not meet the City's and the applicant I s project <br />objectives to the same degree as the proposed project, <br />including objectives to provide high - density housing in close <br />TTY/ E . 2179/ATTACH M E NT 1 R ESO CE F TI FYI f F I NAL E I R 2580 E C I <br />F EV:12/07111 <br />Page 4 of <br />