Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Place <br />Focused Enllironmentallmpact Report <br /> <br />Findings and Fact!,' in Support of Findings <br /> <br /> TABLE 9-1 <br /> COMPARISON OF THE IMP ACTS OF THE CITY PLACE PROJECT <br /> AND THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (1) <br />Impact City Place Project No Project I No Proj ect I Existing Design Alternative <br />Cateao~ Existin« Conditions Entitlement <br /> all be mitigated to <br /> below a level of <br /> sipnificance. <br />Land Use Less than significant No impact No impact Less than <br /> imnact sienificant il1lDact <br /> <br />Source: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the City Place Proje<:t (P&D Consultants, 2004). <br /> <br />6.5 <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENT ALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNA TNE <br /> <br />The City Place project, the No ProjectlExisting Entitlements and Design Alternatives would result <br />in environmental impacts greater than the No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative. Therefore, <br />the No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative <br />although it would not meet project objectives as discussed earlier in the analysis of that alternative. <br />Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of an additional feasible <br />environmentally superior alternative when the No Project Alternative is selected as the <br />Environmentally Superior Alternative. <br /> <br />Many of the environmental impacts of the City Place project are related to the size or intensity of <br />the development and in general, projects with lrigber density will generally result in more adverse <br />impacts compared to alternatives with a lower density. As shown in Table 9-1, the No <br />ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative would result in significant adverse impacts greater than <br />under the City Place project, whicb cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, related to <br />short and long term air quality, and transportation and traffic. The other adyerse impacts of the No <br />ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative, related to aesthetics, cultural resources, hazardous <br />materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, puplic services, and utilities and service systems, <br />would be similar to or greater than under the City Place project and could be mitigated to below a <br />level of significance. However, because the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the No <br />Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative would be greater tban under the City Place project, this No <br />Project Alternative would not be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. <br /> <br />The impacts of the Design Alternative would be similar to the City Place project. The significant <br />unavoidable adverse impacts of this Altemative related to short and long term air quality and <br />transportation would less be compared to the City Place project but would still be significant. <br />Therefore, this is Alternative is not environmentally superior to the City Place project. <br /> <br />The City Place project would be the Environmentally Superior Altemative because it would avoid <br />significant adverse impacts that would occur under the No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative <br />and would not result in greater impacts than under the Design Alternative. <br /> <br />7.0 <br /> <br />STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS <br /> <br />The City of Santa Ana has balanced the benefits of the City Place project against its unavoidable <br />adverse environmental impacts in determining that the specific economic, legal, social, <br /> <br />C:\Documents and SettingsIBKaufmanlLocal Settings I Temporary Internet Files\OLKBICity Place findings. doc <br /> <br />Page <br /> <br />p'age 50 of 53 <br />