FULL PACKET_2007-03-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives with adjacent land uses. All residential development would not attract a wide range of activities to maintain a dynamic environment for the Overlay Zone ox promote the image of the OverlayZ,one as a mixed-use community. Therefore, these alternatives were rejected from further analysis in the EIR because they do not meet the objectives listed above fox the proposed project. ® Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "no project" alternative.' This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved. Since the proposed project is a development project, the following from Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines is applicable to the proposed project:2 The "no project" alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existutg state against environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project" consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the "no project" alternative means "no build" wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing envixonxnental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. Based on the above CEQA guidelines, under this alternative, the proposed First and Cabrillo Towers project would not be constructed. Rather, the property would remain in its current condition as a two- story office building and parking garage. No identifiable change in site conditions ox use would occur under this alternative. In general, no new environmental effects would directly result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in its present state would allow the on-site uses to continue. The site would not be developed with new commercial and residential uses, as it is currently developed as a commercial site, and no demolition activities would occur. Significant constmction impacts associated with air quality and noise would be eliminated. Further, significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation would also be avoided. The site would remain visually as-is, eliminating changes to the visual character and land uses on site. However, implementation of the Overlay Zone, introducing mixed use development into a core downtown area, would also not occur. As such, no significant and adverse environmental impacts directly ox cumulatively associated with this alternative would occur. Findings The City hereby fmds that the No Project/No Development Alternative for the First and Cabrillo Towers development is inferior to the proposed project because it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Overlay 'Lone or First and Cabrillo Towers project. ~ California Resources Agency. 2006. Cahfoxnia Code of Regulations, Title 14. Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the Cahfornia Environmental Quality Act 815126.6 (e). Sacramento, CA. 2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, 815126.6(e)(3)(B). 2006. Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-7 75B-73