Item 30 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -56- October 2021 Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts. Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases. These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this alternative was not deemed to be meaningful. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review. Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, and recreation all directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the programmatic level of this GPU PEIR, site-specific information regarding potential significant historical impacts is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce that impact. A reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic noise impact (as discussed above). A reduced park demand alternative was also analyzed to address the significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation. The following development alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen for further analysis. No Project / Current General Plan Alternative The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the jurisdiction’s existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General Plan—with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU. Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment