RES 12492 - Laserfiche WebLink

alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) provides that an EIR need not consider alternatives that are infeasible. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(0(1) provide that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternative are "site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an ER must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]" For this reason, the Project Objectives described above provided the framework for defining possible alternatives. Additionally, the City must meet the objectives outlined in the 2010 Settlement agreement, and the alternatives addressed in the SEIR meet those basic objectives. The significant impacts of the proposed project are related to the residential development needed to meet identified objectives, both for the provision of housing to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community and to reduce vehicle miles travelled by improving the City's jobs/housing balance. Thus, project alternatives, except the required No Project Alternative, are various means of increasing local housing opportunities. The City finds that that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the General Plan Amendment and rezoning project, and that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed, and discussed in the review process of the EIR. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in development consistent with the City's existing General Plan, and leave the City's previous Housing Element in place. That previous element does not address housing needs for the current 2007-2014 planning period. State law requires that the Housing Element be updated to address housing needs for all economic segments of the community for the current 2007-2014 planning period. Although State law requires the City to adopt a Housing Element that responds to RHNA, the existing Housing element addressed in the No Project Alternative assumes buildout of no more than 2,157 units under the existing Housing Element. This includes the 319 housing units constructed between 2007 and 2010, 82 units currently under construction, 1,321 units with approvals, 158 potential units on residentially zoned land, and 870 that could be