2019-107 - Proposed Addington Multi-Family Residential Project

Home Browse Search

infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area, or by expansion of public services in the Project area. The infrastructure needed to serve the Project would be sized to specifically serve the site and excess capacity would not be developed that could generate additional growth; and the Project would not create a demand for public services beyond what is already contemplated. Additionally, as described in Section 5.0, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the DEIR, SCAG projections show that the jobs — housing ratio is anticipated to increase to 1.65 by 2040; and that the Project would reduce the jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05; and to 2.11 in 2040. This would be a beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing on the Project site, where employees can easily travel to employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and City of Orange areas, which are jobs -rich. Thus, the Project would provide additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities. In addition, the provision of housing on the Project site would not result in economic activity that would cause the need for additional off -site housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons discussed above and the reasons discussed in the DEIR, growth inducing impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3.) This conclusion also applies, for the same reasons, to the Modified Project. 12.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 12.1 Background Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires EMS to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An FIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An FIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public participation. An FIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: Resolution No. Page 66 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR