3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT_RAMSEY

Home Browse Search

S.0 Executive Summary Avion Project SEIR Page S-4 accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time while also taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. The EIR addresses one alternative in addition to the “no project” alternative, required under CEQA. Alternatives to the project are evaluated in full detail in Chapter 10 of this document. S.5.1 No Project (No Development) Alternative The No Project (No Development) Alternative would maintain the project site in its current condition. This alternative would preserve the existing environmental setting, and would thereby eliminate all of the project’s impacts. However, the No Project (No Development) Alternative would not provide any of the project’s benefits, including residential development and affordable housing consistent with the adopted Subarea Plan and expansion of the MHPA through a boundary line adjustment that would result in a net increase of 5.06 acres. These benefits would be foregone under this alternative. Furthermore, the No Project (No Development) Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives listed in Section S.1.3 above. S.5.2 Reduced Development Footprint Alternative The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would reduce the grading footprint compared to the project. Under this alternative, the project would develop 117 residential units consistent with the amount anticipated for the project site in the Black Mountain Ranch (Subarea I) Subarea Plan by constructing attached multi-family structures with an increased density compared to the project. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would incrementally reduce all of the project’s significant impacts due to the smaller grading footprint. This alternative would avoid impacts to the MHPA and would not require a boundary line adjustment. Similarly, the smaller project footprint would reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and reduce impacts on landform alteration. However, the increased density associated with this alternative would not be consistent with the character of the single-family and detached multi-family residential units surrounding the project site. Similarly, the increased density would require a height deviation to accommodate development of 117 units within the reduced grading footprint. Furthermore, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would lessen impacts on biological resources because the project would actually increase land within the MHPA through the proposed boundary line adjustment and would successfully mitigate impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to a level less than significant. S.5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. The guidelines also require that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified.