2002-077 - Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Armstrong Ranch Development Project

Home Browse Search

· Alternative 3: All Site Developed Under Existing General Plan at 7.0 Dwelling Units Per Acre · Alternative 4: Church Facility with Basement Alternatives to the project that could potentially meet most of the project objectives (which are described in Section 3.2, above) and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project are analyzed in this EIR as part of the environmental review of the project. The analysis of each alternative provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternative in relation to the project. As previously identified, implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts. All other impacts associated with the proposed project have been determined to be less than significant or have been provided with mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level considered less than significant. Table 4-3 of the EIR (also shown below) compares unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the four project alternatives with the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. Table 4-5. Proposed Project & Land Hse Alternatives Comparison Table of Ilnavoidable Adverse Impacts Resource No Pro~ect Alternative 2 Altematlve 3 Alternative 4 Air Quality Land Use + Alternative would result ~n more unavoidable adverse impacts than the proposed project -- Alternative would result in fewer unavoidable adverse ~rnpacts than the proposed project = Unavoidable adverse hnapacts from the alternative would be eomlnrable to the proposed project As the table shows, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts. However, the CEQA Guidelines require that ff the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Under Alternative 2, a total of 128 residential dwelling units and the 15-acre church facility would be developed. While the project would be developed at a lesser density, site preparation and construction activities would not differ substantially from the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction activities would still occur. Under Alternative 2 unavoidable land uses impacts associated with the loss of agriculture land would also still occur, while the reduced development alternative would result in slightly less long-term impacts, the reduced development associated with this alternative would not allow the project to 3O