2010-024 - The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 F/ndings Regarding ProJeot AlternatNes Rationale. The project would not ham-e an3~ signiftcant impacts on safety' at railroad crossings. Therefore, mitigation measures that wottld require grade separations on project area roadways to reduce potential auto/train conflicts are not required. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCI'A) is providing crossing safety` enhancements at 10 railroad projects in the City of Santa Ana. These planned upgrades will include flashing lights, pedestrian signals/gates, quad gates and raised medians. Implementation of the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) project will enhance safety For motorists and pedestrians. Current technology will also be used to upgrade traffic and signal controllers wish implementation of the proposed project. In addition to these project components, the Transit Zoning Code will be amended to include policy language in the Street and I~letavork Concepts section that states: "An}' Future or planned development adjacent or near the railroad right-of--way be planned «-ith the safety of the rail corridor in mind. This includes considering pedestrian circulation/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-wa}'." ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Identify improvements and/or funding mechanisms to mitigate the project's traffic impacts. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Cit}= of "Tustin (1'US), comment TUS-5.) Finding. The Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this ntigation measure infeasible. Rationale. The DEIR identifies mitigation measures needed as a result of expected project- generated traffic in Section 4.11.3. Specific unprovements are identified in mitigation measures I~-Il\44.11-1 through bil~•I4.11-1G. Further, ntigation measure MlYI4.11-4 requires the City of Santa Ana to "institute a program for systematic mitigation of impacts as development proceeds within the Transit Zoning Code to ensure mitigation of the individual improaements." The program is required to include, among other things, "a funding and itnprot=ement program to identify financial resources adequate to construct all identified mitigation measures in :r timely basis." (Draft EIR Section 4.11.3, 1\•il\•I4.11-4.) The mitigation measures suggested b}• the City of Tustia are already= included in the project and will not provide meaningful additional mitigation be}'ond the measures that are adopted. Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Public Services ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Requite the aliplication of parkland in-lieu fees in conjunction with development of the project. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from City= of Tustin ("I'L1S), comment TUS-2.) Pinding. T'he Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Development under the Transit Zoning Code project and Dea=eloper Project is requited to comply with mitigation treasure D•IAi4.l0-5, wl-tich requires payment into the Park Acquisition and Deg*elopment Fund pursuant to Santa Atza ~~lunicipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV. Over and above the requitement for ne~v development to pay into the Park Acquisition and Lllea=eloptzient Lund, the 1Zedea~elopment Agent}= is pursuing the acquisition and construction of a range of potential open space amenities v=ithin the Transit Zoning Code area, which could include a public park, new community center and a tot lot. Finally, the standards for private open space contained within the Transit Zor>_ing Code ate designed to ensure that new deg=eloptnent provide open space and outdoor amenities on-site as pact of the project design. Consequently=, the impact of the project on pack facilities is less than significant and no further mitigation is needed. Resolution No. 20'10-024 Page 86 of '130 3-20 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations