AgdaPkt 2014-07-28 Closed, Special and Joint SA

Browse Search

ArrAcHIV 8.B. - Page 71 c. Courtyard Play Area Alternative: The scenario evaluated under the Courtyard Play Area Alternative (Summary section on p. 5 and Section 7.4 on p. 96 -98 of the Draft EIR) identifies using the church's interior courtyard between the church sanctuary and the Fellowship Hall as a fourth outdoor play area, and constructing a 7 -foot high noise barrier along the northernmost perimeter of the courtyard or residential property line. Under this scenario, outdoor activities would occur in the three play areas identified under the proposed Project in addition to the interior courtyard area. Surrounding residences would be exposed to lower hourly noise levels during outdoor activities under this alternative compared to the proposed Project. However, under this alternative, the daily average noise levels would be similar to the proposed Project at 61 dBA CNEL, exceeding the City's 55 dBA CNEL compatibility threshold established for residential land uses by 6 dBA CNEL and substantially increased above existing conditions of 49 dBA CNEL. The City rejects this alternative as infeasible because the Courtyard Area serves as the church's primary entrance and gateway to the property, and this alternative would require substantial structural modifications to the existing courtyard, including the removal or relocation of a large boulder outcrop, which extends deep into the substrate and into the church itself, in order to construct a level play area. d. Environmentally Superior Alternative: The scenario evaluated under the Environmentally Superior Alternative (Summary section on p. 5 -6 and Section 7.5 on p. 99 of the Draft EIR) combines both the Consolidated Outdoor Activities Alternative and the Courtyard Play Area Alternative by consolidating the outdoor activities, as identified in the Consolidated Outdoor Activities Alternative, while utilizing the Courtyard Play Area as a fourth outdoor play area. For the reasons stated for each of these alternatives, separately, the City rejects this alternative as infeasible. Section 10. Statement of Overriding Considerations: As described in the Final EIR, the Project would be expected to have a significant and unavoidable noise impact. Although the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and approved and adopted include all feasible measures to mitigate the significant noise effects of the Project's outdoor activities, the Project's outdoor activities would, nonetheless, be expected to result in a significant and unavoidable effect relating to Noise. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological, and other Project benefits against this unavoidable environmental risk, and finds that each of the benefits of the Project set forth below outweighs the significant adverse environmental effects that are ATTY /RESO.3003 /CC RESO CERT FEIR & ADOPTING SOUS REV: 07 -22 -14 VR Page 6 of 9