75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iWA: u:lrra Alternatives include: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build • Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative • Alternative 3: Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative 12.5 Evaluation of Alternatives Selected for Analysis Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Description: Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is required to "discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Therefore, under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site and it would remain in its existing condition. However, as described in Section 6.4 of the DEIR, the Project site is located within a completely developed and highly used urban corridor, near freeways and transit, and contains an existing useable structure, and it is not reasonable to assume that the Project site would remain vacant and underutilized in the long-term. In the No Project/No Build condition, it is reasonably expected that the existing 81,172 square foot office building would be re -occupied. Hence, this alternative compares impacts of the Project with re -occupation at full capacity of the existing office building. (DEIR, p. 6-4.) Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact that would result from the Project and all of the potential construction impacts. Additionally, operational impacts would be reduced and the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR—which include measures related to aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources—would not be required. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 through 6-11.) However, the environmental benefits of the Project would also not be realized, such as improvements to storm water quality, removal of contaminated soils, improvements to the jobs/housing balance, and the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not install storm water filtration features in accordance with DAMP and LID design guidelines that would filter and slow the volume and rate of runoff; the arsenic contaminated soils would remain onsite; and this alternative would provide for the projected employment growth but would not improve the jobs to housing balance within the region and could generate more vehicle miles traveled. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) The site would not be redeveloped into new high-quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. Capital investment related to the Project site to enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Santa Ana Strategic Plan would not occur, and a safe, high-quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities would not be implemented by this alternative. Overall, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-11.) Finding: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts and would avoid the need for mitigation to ensure impacts to various environmental resources Resolution No. Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR 75E-101 Page 63 of 71