Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Place <br />Focused Environmental Impact Report <br /> <br />Findings and Facts in Support of Findings <br /> <br />project site were considered, but the level of impact would remain comparable. As a result, an <br />alternative site for the City Place project was not evaluated in the EIR. <br /> <br />6.2 <br /> <br />NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />6.2.1 <br /> <br />No ProjectlExisting Conditions Alternative <br /> <br />This No Project Alternative assumes that the existing uses on the 17.7 acre project site are retained <br />and that no development occurs on the site. With this Alternatiye, the site would remain vacant and <br />no residential or commercial uses would be developed on this site. Table 9-1 fTom the ErR, on the <br />following page, indicates that the No ProjectlExisting Conditions Altemative would not meet any of <br />the City or applicant objectives for the City P1ace project. <br /> <br />6.2.2 <br /> <br />No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative <br /> <br />This No Project Alternative assumes that the approximately 17.7 acre project site would be <br />developed consistent with the existing approved entitlements for the project site which would allow <br />for the development of the previously approved Main Street Concourse Project consisting of up to <br />1.96 million square feet of office, retail and hotel uses, and 280 residential units. Tbe existing <br />entitlements for the project site reflect approved development as assessed in City of Santa Ana EIR <br />90-2 which was certified by the Santa Ana City Council in April 1992. This No Project Alternative <br />would result in approximately 1.91 million more square feet of commercial uses (office, retail and <br />hotel) and 38 more residential units on the project site than under the City Place project. This No <br />Project Alternative would result in substantially greater land use densities on the project site than the <br />proposed project. The No ProjectlExisting Entitlement Alternative would meet all of the objectiyes <br />for the City Place project. <br /> <br />6.3 <br /> <br />DESIGN ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Tbe Design Alternative reduces the development on the project site by 123,434 square feet and <br />would result in a reduction of overall density and FARon the project site. The Design Alternative <br />would only marginally reduce impacts compared to the proposed project for hydrology and water <br />quality, noise, public services and utilities and service systems. The Design Alternative would have <br />no cbange on impacts compared to the proposed project on aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources <br />and hazardous materials. The Design Alternative would result in reduced traffic impacts in the <br />short and long term, but not enough to reduce the impact to below a level of significance. The <br />Design Alternative would meet all ofthe objectives for the City Place project. <br /> <br />6.4 <br /> <br />COMPARISON OF IMP ACTS <br /> <br />Table 9-1 in the EIR, provided on the following page, compares the unavoidable adverse impacts of <br />the City Place project and the No ProjectlExisting Conditions, No ProjectlExisting Entitlement and <br />Design Alternatives. <br /> <br />TABLE 9-1 <br />COMPARISON OF THE IMPACTS OF THE CITY PLACE PROJECT <br />AND THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (1) <br /> <br />C:\Documents and SettingslBKaufmanlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLKBICity Placefindings.doc <br /> <br />Page. <br /> <br />p'age 48 of 53 <br />