Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ',' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency <br />May 15, 1984 <br />Page Six <br /> <br />and circulation, noise, and air quality) be revised in <br />light of the current parking requirements. <br /> <br />When revised, the EIR should disclose precisely how many <br />parking spaces will be required. The Final EIR fails to <br />do so. The EIR should also disclose ~~e location of the <br />parking. The ~ocation of parking is closely related to, <br />and is a necessary predicate for, analysis of the traffic <br />consequences of the proposed project. The proposed Final <br />EIR currently contains no such disclosure. <br /> <br />The EIR should also disclose the relationship between the <br />phasing of the redevelopment of Fashion Square and the <br />construction of additional parking. For example, will there <br />be occasions during construction when parking will be <br />inadequate to meet the existing needs? The EIR ignores <br />this issue. <br /> <br />VI. <br /> <br />INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC <br /> <br />As discussed above, the EIR's cursory examination of parking <br />issues flaws its consideration of traffic issues. The EIR <br />cannot begin to consider the impact of the project on the <br />traffic in the surrounding areas without g~eater detail <br />concerning-where the Fashion Square traffic will be directed <br />and from whence it will come. <br /> <br />Moreover, the traffic analysis is inadequate in light of its <br />startling premise that the number of vehicles using the <br />facility can be reduced twenty percent through use of ride <br />sharing. This assumption is manifestly exaggerated for the <br />proposed mixed-use facility. The purported basis for this <br />figure is goals for ride sharing that have been established <br />for other projects in Southern California. To set goals is <br />one thing, but to demonstrate that those goals have been met <br />is another. The EIR contains no empirical basis to support <br />this critical TSM assumption. As a result the EIR's projections <br />of traffic levels and accompanying environmental degradations <br />on surrounding freeways, arteries, and residential streets are <br />all grossly underestimated. <br /> <br />4IÞ VII. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT <br /> <br />The EIR's consideration of only six orojects in its cumulative <br />impact analysis is grossly deficient. In addition to the <br />project examined in the EIR, theEIR should consider the <br />cumulative impacts associated with major developments proposed, <br />which will impact common transportation facilities as well as <br />air quality, noise, and availability of public services. Some <br /> <br />\L\ <br />