RES 09265 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternative would also result in a new significant and unavoidable impact to ambient noise levels in the project area due to the increase in vehicle traffic as a result of development under this alternative. The impacts of the Open Space Alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed project. The Open Space Alternative would have slightly fewer water supply, water quality, visual, noise, air quality, and traffic impacts, and would likely create more opportunities for wildlife habitat than the proposed project. The No Project (No Build) Alternative is considered a no project, and CEQA requires the identification of an alternative other than the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The Open Space Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts than the proposed project. Therefore, the Open Space Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project and to the other alternatives. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR This section presents the approved project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Cade require a lead agency to adopt findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. These requirements are set forth on page 1 of this document. Below are the findings for the significant impacts identified in the EIR for the proposed project. The EIR identified several differences in the environmental effects of the Ice Center Alternative compared to the proposed project. However, as described above, these differences do not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that the Ice Center Alternative presents significantly greater environmental impacts than the proposed project. As demonstrated in the alternatives analysis of the EIR, the significant environmental impacts of the Ice Center Alternative and the mitigation measures required to substantially lessen or avoid them are the same as those of the proposed project. Because the City adopts all of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR for each significant environmental impact and the EIR concludes that they will avoid or substantially lessen each of the identified significant impacts, with the exception of aesthetic and visual resources, air quality and traffic impacts, the significant and unavoidable impacts of which are also discussed in the EIR, thorough descriptions of each impact and each associated mitigation measure can be obtained from the EIR and, therefore, are not repeated below. FINDINGS DEMONSTRATING WHY RECIRCULATION IS NOT REQUIRED CEQA requires recirculation of an EIR when significant new information is added prior to the lead agency's certification of the EIR. However, this requirement is not intended "to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs. Recirculation is intended to be the exception, rather than the general rule." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132, Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment and Staples Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13 of 47