CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Executive Summary emissions, and preserving natural open space areas by locating the mixed-use development on a previously developed site in proximity to existing and planned employment -generating uses, recreational and cultural amenities, residences, transit service, and along transportation corridors. 6. Develop infill improvements that facilitate mixed- use opportunities that can consume less land and energy per housing unit and square footage of development, compared to a conventional suburban development, and therefore result in fewer associated greenhouse gas emissions. 7. Provide employment -generating uses near or with amenities and services that will support the work force (e.g., recreation, retail, and housing opportunities). 8. Revitalize the underutilized Project site through implementation of an innovative development, near transit and compatible uses that will meet the regional demand for employment, service and residential uses. 9. Promote sustainability by re -purposing and adaptively reusing the existing materials on the site to the extent feasible. 10. Promote use of alternative modes of travel such as biking trails and walkways that link residential, parks, retail, and commercial areas. 11. Provide public space within the Project to support community activities. 1.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines state that "an FIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." Five alternatives have been evaluated. These alternatives are summarized below and discussed and depicted graphically in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of this EIR. The alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Given the nature and scale of the proposed Project, complete avoidance of significant impacts is not feasible for any alternative even the No Project Alternative. The summaries of each alternative provided below, identify the significant unavoidable impacts associated with each alternative. Table 5-1, Compatibility Comparison of Alternatives With Project Objectives, provides the compatibility comparison of the alternatives against each Project objective, and Table 5-5, Summary of Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance, provides a summary of alternative impacts compared to the proposed Project. Additionally, there is one alternative identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that was considered but not carried forward. The NOP identified an alternative that proposed the development on the Second Harvest Food Bank warehouse parcel and the approximately 21 -Acre, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) -owned parcel located south of the Project site. This alternative was deemed to be infeasible due to the fact that the Second Harvest Food Bank as well as the OCTA were not willing to sell their parcels of land to the County of Orange. 1-4 EL TORO, 100 -ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT