Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives <br /> <br />· Alternative 2-Higher Intensity Commercial Project: This alternative would permit a higher <br />intensity of commercial development and a corresponding decrease in residential density for <br />projects proposed within the Overlay Zone relative to the proposed overlay plan. In general, this <br />alternative would reduce the number of residences and increase employment opportunities as a <br />result of more commercial/office uses in the area. <br />· Alternative 3-Reduced Project: This alternative would allow development at a maximum Floor <br />Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25 for each developable parcel within the Overlay Zone without a <br />consideration of the residential density (du/ac). The anticipated mix of commercial, office and <br />residential land uses would be identical to the proposed project, however, a maximum FAR ratio <br />would be established that would limit development potential. Under this alternative, there would <br />be no differentiation between different areas (districts) of the Overlay Zone. <br /> <br />. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation <br /> <br />As the Overlay Zone is designed to guide the development of a particular portion of the City, an <br />alternative site would not be appropriate as an alternative to the proposed project. Other land uses such <br />as complete residential would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project and could result in <br />incompatibility with adjacent land uses. An all-residential development would not attract a wide range of <br />activities to maintain a dynamic environment for the Overlay Zone or promote the image of a gateway to <br />the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, these alternatives were rejected from further analysis in the EIR <br />because they do not meet the objectives of the proposed project listed above. Finally, under the no <br />project alternative analysis, there is no discussion of a no project alternative with a freezing of conditions <br />(i.e., no development). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the no project alternative for a land <br />use plan analyzes the continuation of existing land use plans into the future. Analysis of a no project / no <br />development alternative is more appropriate for analyzing specific development projects. <br /> <br />. Alternative 1: No ProjecVReasonably Foreseeable Development <br />Alternative (Continuation of Existing General Plan) <br /> <br />1mplementation of the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would represent <br />the continuation of the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations to guide future growth and <br />development within the project area. The majority of the Overlay Zone is zoned Professional. For this <br />alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the project area with <br />the allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and zoning <br />designations. <br /> <br />This alternative is considered environmentally superior in cerrain issue areas (per the CEQA Guidelines) <br />but would also result in similar environmental impacts to the proposed project in other areas. <br />Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project <br />with respect to Aesthetics, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, <br />and Utilities and Service Systems due to the lesser level of development and/or changes to existing land <br />uses that would occur within the Overlay Zone. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological <br />Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology and Water <br />Quality would result in impacts similar to the proposed project under this alternative. <br /> <br />Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations <br /> <br />758-69 <br /> <br />3-3 <br />