2018-075 - Final Subsequent Environmental IMpact Report No. 2018-15

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana 3. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Ultimately, three scenarios representing a range of reasonable alternatives were selected for detailed analysis and carried forward in the MEMU EIR: • Alternative 1- No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan): Under this alternative, development in the project area would occur under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. • Alternative 2 - Higher Intensity Commercial Project: This alternative would permit a higher intensity of commercial development and a corresponding decrease in residential density for projects proposed within the Overlay Zone relative to the proposed overlay plan. This alternative would reduce the number of residences (by approximately half) and increase employment opportunities as a result of more commercial/office sues. Alternative 3 - Reduced Project: This alternative would allow development at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25 for each developable parcel within the Overlay Zone without consideration of residential density. The anticipated mix of commercial, office, and residential land uses would be identical to the proposed project; however, a maximum FAR would be established that would limit development potential and, therefore, density and height. Under this alternative there would be no differentiation between different areas (districts) in the Overlay Zone. The 2007 MEMU EIR found that each of these alternatives would reduce some potential impacts. Alternative 1 would achieve some of the project objectives, but would not achieve others (or would achieve them to a lesser degree than the proposed project). Alternative 2 would achieve all of the project objectives, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would achieve some of the project objectives, but would not improve the jobs/housing balance within the City to the level provided by the proposed project. An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project from among the range of reasonable alternatives. This would ideally be the alternative that results in few significant and unavoidable impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. + Alternative 1 does not reduce any of the proposed project's significant impacts to less -than - significant levels; however, it does lessen the severity of many of the impacts. Similarly, Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project, although not to the same degree as Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would therefore be environmentally superior as it would reduce significant impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation. The proposed MEMU Overlay Zone expansion area would result in essentially the same significant impacts as were identified for the proposed project in the 2007 MEMU EIR. Therefore, the range of alternatives identified and analyzed are applicable to the modification of the project in this SEIR. As discussed above, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would each achieve at least some of the project objectives and would reduce the severity of some potential impacts. However, none of these alternatives would reduce significant impacts to less -than -significant levels. Alternative 1 would remain the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce significant impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation. Thus, the findings from the 2007 MEMU EIR'for each of these alternatives are applicable to the proposed project and are included below. Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan August 2018 - Development Projects 3-4 ICF 19.18 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations