2014-028 - Approving General Plan Amendement No. 2014-01

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana -Park View at Town and Country Manor Draft EIR Alternatives to the alternative (123 units built over two -level subterranean parking garage) was developed by the Applicant and reviewed as part of Draft EIR preparation for environmental benefit as compared to the proposed project. It was initially thought that a reduced intensity alternative could potentially lessen the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project by a substantial means. This reduced intensity alternative demonstrated no significant environmental benefits over the proposed project, realizing no substantial reduction in the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project, and was not able to meet Fire Department requirements, raising emergency access concerns for fire protection and emergency response. This reduced intensity alternative was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration. No alternative uses for the project site contained with the larger Town and Country Manor campus have been suggested during preparation of the Draft FIR as integrating well with existing uses, and therefore have not been evaluated. No alternative locations were considered for the proposed project because no suitable alternative locations could be determined. Additionally, no other sites within the City of Santa Ana are under the ownership and control of the Applicant. For these reasons, analyzing alternative uses and locations was considered not feasible. 5.4 - Alternatives Analvzed in this Draft EIR Impacts for all issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR for Park View at Town and Country Manor, both at the project and cumulative levels, can be mitigated and are considered less than significant. The initial areas of concern associated with the proposed project, aesthetics - shade /shadow, air quality - construction, and traffic, were determined through the EIR analysis to be either less than significant before mitigation, or able to be mitigated to a less than significant level. With adherence to regulatory requirements and project mitigation measures, no substantial adverse impacts would remain. The proposed project also serves, therefore, as the environmentally superior alternative. An alternative that is environmentally superior would result in the fewest or least environmental impacts and would achieve the project objectives of the project planning effort. The City has included the following two alternatives in the following Alternatives analysis: 1. No Project/No Development 2. No Project/Development In Accordance with Existing Zoning and General Plan Designations The following discussion presents a description of each alternative and an analysis of the respective alternative in the context of CEQA. The discussion focuses on the comparative environmental attributes of the respective alternative and the degree to which the identified alternative might accomplish the project objectives. CEQA does not require the alternatives to be analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project. The following discussion, therefore, presents a qualitative analysis, intended to provide a relative comparison between the proposed project and the two No Project alternatives. When compared to the CEQA Thresholds of Significance, the description of the Michael Brandman Associates 5-3 H\Cl t(PN -Rn) 327b32]003MMVB2]0030 Sec0 Altematrv.s