2007-026 - Approving the Final Environmental Impact

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives with adjacent land uses. All-residential development would not attract a wide range of activities to maintain a dynamic environment for the Overlay Zone or promote the image of the Overlay Zone as a mixed-use community. Therefore, these alternatlves were rejected from further analysis in the EIR because they do not meet the objectives listed above for the proposed project. . Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Sectlon 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "no project" alternatlve.' This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing condition, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved. Since the proposed project is a development project, the following from Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines is applicable to the proposed project:' The "no project" alternative is the ci.ccumsrance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project nnder consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project" consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the "no project" alternative means "no build" wherein the existing envirorunental setting is maintained, However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's nun-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. Based on the above CEQA guidelines, under this alternative, the proposed First and Cabrillo Towers project would not be constructed. Rather, the property would remain in its current condition as a two- story office building and parking garage. No identifiable change in site conditions or use would occur under this alternative. In general, no new environmental effects would direcdy result from the selection of this alternative. Maintenance of the project site in its present state would allow the on-site uses to continue. The site would not be developed with new conunercial and residential uses, as it is currently developed as a commercial site, and no demolition activities would occur, Significant construction impacts associated with air quality and noise would be eliminated. Further, significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation would also be avoided. The site would remain visually as-is, eliminating changes to the visual character and land uses on site. However, implementation of the Overlay Zone, introducing mixed use development into a core downtown area, would also not occur. As such, no significant and adverse environmental impacts directly or cumulatively associated with this alternative would occur. Findings The City hereby fInds that the No Project/No Development Alternative for the First and Cabrillo Towers development is inferior to the proposed project because it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Overlay Zone or First and Cabrillo Towers project. 1 California Resources Agency. 2006. California Code of Regulations, Title 14. Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; ~15t26.6 (e). Sacramento, CA. :z California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapt., 3, ~15126.6(e)(3)(B). 2006. Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR Findings of FactlStatemant of Overriding ConSlil9i\l\!i\\\1!l1 I"'. ,,00/-102663-7 Page 59 0 6