Laserfiche WebLink
be economically viable. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not considered environmentally superior to the <br />proposed project. <br /> <br />Under Alternative 3, a total of 236 residential units would be developed, and the 15-acre church <br />facility would not be developed. Similar to the proposed project, unavoidable adverse air quality <br />impacts associated with construction operations would still occur. This alternative would also <br />result in the loss of prime agriculture land, and, similar to the proposed project, unavoidable <br />adverse land use impacts would still occur. In addition, under this alternative, the proposed project <br />would not be able to meet its objective of developing a 2,650-seat cathedral and parish for the <br />Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not considered <br />environmentally superior to the proposed project. <br /> <br />Under Alternative 4, a total of 156 residential dwelling units would be constructed in conjunction <br />with the proposed 15-acre church facility. This alternative would also include construction of a <br />45,000 square foot basement that would function as an undercroft. Under this alternative, <br />unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction operations would occur. <br />However, because this alternative would involve slightly more construction activity compared to <br />the proposed project, a greater level of air pollutant emissions would be generated. Similar to the <br />proposed project, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in unavoidable land use impacts <br />associated with loss of prime agriculture. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not reduce the <br />significance of any unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project and would <br />result in slightly greater level of construction related air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative 4 <br />is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. <br /> <br />6.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative <br /> <br />Based on the above analysis, the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior <br />alternative because no unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. However, Section 15126.6 <br />(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no <br />project alternative, then the EIR should also identify the environmentally superior alternative <br />among the other alternatives. All of the other alternatives identified in the EIR would also result in <br />unavoidable adverse air quality and land use impacts. Alternativ6 2 Reduced Development <br />Alternative would result in slightly less, less than significant long-term impacts. However, the <br />reduced development associated with this alternative would not allow the project to be <br />economically viable. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the same unavoidable adverse <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br /> <br />