3A Public Hearing 2010 0503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

mitigation would not meet the AB32 threshold of 30 percent beyond minimally compliant levels. A comment letter suggested that additional feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce GHG emissions. Although the comment did not identify specific mitigation measures, Response to Comment 7-6 describes specific reasons why additional Transportation Demand Management and energy efficiency measures are not feasible and why contributing to a "mitigation fund" is not feasible. The City incorporates by reference Response to Comment 7-6 and affirms that the additional mitigation strategies identified by the comment letter are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Response to Comment 7-6. Finally, the project sponsor has committed to providing approximately 250 kilowatts of its Phase 1 energy consumption from renewable sources, with an additional 250 kilowatts for its hospital and medical office at build -out. Further, Kaiser will require any future developer of the Mixed -Use Retail Development project to generate no less than 250 kilowatts of energy use from renewable energy sources. The City finds that these various measures will result in a significant reduction in GHG emissions from the project, but that, despite implementing all feasible mitigation measures, the GHG emissions of the project, and the project's contributions to global climate change, would remain significant and unavoidable. This potential unavoidable significant impact is overridden as set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 28. The City Council finds that specific economic, social, environmental, technological, legal or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives to the Project as described in the EIR and justify approval of the Project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. The remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project that cannot be fully mitigated through the mitigation measures described in the EIR are certain impacts to transportation, air quality, and climate change as detailed above. 29. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that was described in the Draft EIR. The DEIR identified three alternatives and one sub -alternative (which considered an additional access point to the project site) to the proposed project. Two additional alternatives (a Reduce the Project by 90 Percent Alternative and an Alternative Location) were rejected as infeasible for the reasons stated in the DEIR. The City Council adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusions regarding alternatives eliminated from further consideration. 30. The three potentially feasible alternatives analyzed in the DEIR represent a reasonable range of alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the Project. These alternatives include the (1) No Project/No Build Alternative; (2) No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative; and (3) Reduced Project Alternative. The sub -alternative is an additional site access from Merced Street. As presented in the DEIR and FEIR, the alternatives were described and compared with each other and with the proposed project. -17-