FULL PACKET_2005-02-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Place Focused Environmental Impact Report Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Land Use TABLE 9-1 COMPARISON OF THE IMPACTS OF THE CITY PLACE PROJECT AND THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (1) No Project / No Project / Existing Design Alternative Existinl! Conditions Entitlement all be mitigated to below a level of significance. Less than significant No impact No impact Less than impact significant impact Source: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the City Place Project (P&D Consultants, 2004), Impact Catel!ory City Place Project 6,5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The City Place project, the No ProjectlExisting Entitlements and Design Alternatives would result in environmental impacts greater than the No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative, Therefore, the No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative although it would not meet project objectives as discussed earlier in the analysis of that alternative, Section 15126,6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of an additional feasible environmentally supenor alternative when the No Project Alternative IS selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Many of the environmental impacts of the City Place project are related to the size or intensity of the development and in general, projects with higher density will generally result in more adverse impacts compared to alternatives with a lower density, As shown in Table 9-1, the No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative would result in significant adverse impacts greater than under the City Place project, which cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, related to short and long term air quality, and transportation and traffic, The other adverse impacts of the No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative, related to aesthetics, cultural resources, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems, would be similar to or greater than under the City Place project and could be mitigated to below a level of significance, However, because the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative would be greater than under the City Place project, this No Project Alternative would not be the Environmentally Superior Alternative, The impacts of the Design Alternative would be similar to the City Place project. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts of this Alternative related to short and long term air quality and transportation would less be compared to the City Place project but would still be significant. Therefore, this is Alternative is not environmentally superior to the City Place project. The City Place project would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would avoid significant adverse impacts that would occur under the No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative and would not result in greater impacts than under the Design Alternative. 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Santa Ana has balanced the benefits of the City Place project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts III determining that the specific economIC, legal, social, U: IDBottlwp51 ICity Place findings. doc September 29,2004 Page 30 75A-152