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

Home Browse Search

.City of Santa Ana 3. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives • Would not create an active, mixed-use urban village where it is possible to live, work, shop and play all within a short walk of each other to the extent of the proposed project. • Would not achieve the harmonious integration of new mixed-use development within the existing fabric of the mid -rise and high-rise office environment due to the reduced development intensity compared to the proposed project. • Would not create a differentiation between different areas of the Overlay Zone. • Would not provide for a mix of housing in order to encourage a continuum of living and a variety of household types to the extent of the proposed project. • Would not facilitate project design s that encourage adequate amounts of retail or commercial space to service residents and/ or employees within the development and the larger Overlay Zone. • Would not allow for the development of varied residential types in a mixed-use configuration including, but not limited to, loft -style units, live/work units, attached row houses, and high- quality stacked flats to the extent of the proposed project. 3.4.2 Elan Development Project Alternatives As shown below and in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft SEIR and Chapter 3, Clarifications and Modifications to the Draft SEIR, of the Final SEIR, four alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the Elan Development Project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The following alternatives were selected for analysis: • Alternative Ela: No Project/No Development: Under this alternative, no changes to the proposed project site would occur. Physical conditions at the site would remain in their current state. Alternative E1b: No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning: Under this alternative, the proposed mixed use development would not be constructed. Rather, the project site would be developed in a manner consistent with its existing zoning and General Plan land use designation. This alternative provides an analysis of the type of development and impacts that would be expected to occur if the site were used solely for general commercial uses, and did not include any mixed uses. Alternative E2: Alternative Site: This alternative would involve development of the Elan Development Project on an alternative site within the MEMU Overlay Zone expansion area. • Alternative E3: Reduced Project/Reduced Site: This alternative considers avoiding demolition of the existing Elks Lodge building and instead focusing development to the northern one-third of the site (approximately 2 acres). Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation Alternative E2: Alternative Site would involve development of the Elan Development Project on an alternative site within the MEMU Overlay Zone expansion area. The City and applicant have explored other sites within the existing and expanded MEMU Overlay Zone that could potentially accommodate a similar project. Based on recent searches, no other comparable sites are available Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan August 2018 Development Projects 3-6 ICF 19.18 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations