2019-107 - Proposed Addington Multi-Family Residential Project

Home Browse Search

a majority of the Project objectives. The site would not be redeveloped into new high -quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit. It would not promote an improved jobs/housing balance, and would not provide residents with a safe, high -quality, modern residential community with open space and various recreation amenities. Although the Project would meet the objectives of redeveloping land uses that would utilize existing infrastructure and would implement 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, a majority (5 out of 7) of the Project objectives would not be met. (DEIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24.) Finding: The Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable aesthetic impact, would continue to require the same mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project, and would result in greater impacts to other environmental topics than the Project. In addition, the Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet a majority of the Project objectives. Therefore, the City hereby rejects the Existing Zoning Alternative. 12.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Project is the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and all of the potential construction impacts, reduce many of the operational impacts, and would not be required to implement the mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR that are related to: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources. However, this alternative would not improve the storm water runoff quality that runs directly into Santiago Creek, not remove the contaminated soils from the site, not improve the jobs/housing balance and the related reduction in vehicle miles traveled. (DEIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-25.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(3)(1) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives is Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, which would develop 30 fewer units than the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) The potential impacts from this alternative are less than the Project because the residential structure under this alternative would be lower in height, at a lower density, and be sited at least 90-feet from the eastern property line resulting in a large open space area that could be used for recreation. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact related to a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks in comparison to the existing views of the site and the alternative would not reduce the need for mitigation compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-24.) Furthermore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced beneficial effect; providing fewer multi -family housing units on the Project site that would result in a reduced improvement to the City's 3.2 percent vacancy rate, fewer residents traveling to local employment opportunities, a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance, and is not as reflective of the General Plan Major City Entry and Main Street Concourse node designations as the Project. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. The site would be redeveloped for new high - quality housing near existing employment centers, commercial areas, freeways, and transit; however, fewer residential units would be provided and a reduced improvement to the jobs -housing balance would occur. Additionally, fewer residents would be accommodated by the safe, high -quality, modern residential Resolution No. Page 72 of 76 Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR