Laserfiche WebLink
Santa Ana General Plan Update <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement <br />Of Overriding Considerations -57- October 2021 <br />opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the <br />Final Recirculated PEIR. <br />This alternative would result in similar impacts to 11 impact categories, reduced impacts to 5 <br />environmental impacts, and increase impacts to 4 categories. Impacts would be similar for <br />agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, <br />hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, tribal <br />cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce impacts for aesthetics, population <br />and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to air quality, <br />greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation would increase. This <br />alternative does not mitigate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the <br />GPU to a less than significant impact. It would also exceed the City’s VMT threshold. Overall, <br />impacts under this alternative would decrease in comparison to the proposed project. <br />The No Project/Current General Plan alternative would not achieve many of the proposed project <br />objectives. The existing land use plan does not provide the opportunities to provide housing and <br />employment at the levels required to meet local and regional goals. Moreover, the No Project <br />alternative would not provide numerous general policies as included in the GPU to achieve these <br />goals and invigorate communities. The current General Plan, however, protects established <br />neighborhoods and several Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas would provide for infill <br />opportunities, protect established neighborhoods, and result in mixed-use villages and bike- and <br />pedestrian-friendly communities. <br />Reduced Intensity Alternative <br />(Reduced capacity for the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas) Under the GPU, the <br />only areas that include revisions to land use designations to accommodate new growth are within <br />the five focus areas. The majority of remaining growth would occur within previously approved <br />Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. A nominal amount of growth is assumed to occur in <br />other areas of the city and would not require land use amendments. The Reduced Intensity <br />Alternative would substantially reduce development capacity within two focus areas, 55 <br />Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol Street, which accommodate approximately 65 percent of the <br />housing unit growth and 72 percent of the nonresidential use (by building square footage) of the <br />growth projected for the combined focus areas under the GPU. For the focus areas, the forecast <br />buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed <br />development for each respective land use designation. For this alternative, development of the <br />55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of <br />the maximum allowed per the land use designations. This alternative would reduce housing units <br />by a total of 5,383 and would reduce total building square footage by approximately 4.2 million <br />square feet distributed between these two focus areas. This alternative would also reduce <br />population by 19,825 and jobs by 9,184. Overall, this alternative would reduce the housing growth <br />accommodated by the GPU land use changes by approximately 18 percent and reduce <br />nonresidential building square footage by approximately 27 percent.