|
Santa Ana General Plan Update
<br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement
<br />Of Overriding Considerations -59- October 2021
<br />Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The proposed GPU would result in a significant
<br />population and housing impact because development under the GPU would substantially exceed
<br />the projections used in Connect SoCal. SCAG uses locally prepared population and housing
<br />projections to develop the regional plan. For the City of Santa Ana, those projections were
<br />provided by the Orange County Council of Governments, as prepared by the Center for
<br />Demographic Research. The population/housing figures reflected for Santa Ana in the regional
<br />plan for 2045 are: population, 360,100; total housing units, 80,100; and total jobs, 176,400.
<br />Projections for the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) use land use designations as approved in adopted
<br />general plans. The employment projections are similar for the GPU and RTP/SCS scenarios, but
<br />the RTP/SCS projections for population and housing units are substantially lower than GPU
<br />projections (18 percent and 27 percent lower, respectively). The RTP/SCS alternative, therefore,
<br />represents the least-development-intensive project alternative evaluated for the PEIR.
<br /> This alternative would substantially reduce the growth that would be accommodated within
<br />the focus areas under the GPU. New growth within the focus areas would total 6,380 housing
<br />units and approximately 3.7 million square feet of nonresidential uses, instead of a total
<br />additional 23,955 housing units and approximately 15.7 million square feet within the focus
<br />areas. This alternative distributes anticipated development through the focus areas and the
<br />approved Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas. For purposes of this alternative, it is assumed
<br />that a development cap would be used to limit total growth to the projections shown.
<br /> Subsequent updates of the regional plan would incorporate updated land use from the GPU
<br />and resolve the substantial discrepancy between the population and housing projections. Note
<br />also that the PEIR concludes that the GPU is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS. This
<br />alternative has been defined to eliminate the significant impact associated with substantial
<br />population growth that is inconsistent with the regional plan, as well as reduce other significant
<br />growth-related (AQ/GHG, traffic noise) impacts associated with the GPU as proposed.
<br />Finding. The City Council rejects the 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative on the basis of
<br />policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA
<br />Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,
<br />417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001;
<br />Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific
<br />economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
<br />opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the
<br />Final Recirculated PEIR.
<br />This alternative would reduce impacts to 12 environmental impacts, result in similar impacts to 6
<br />categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. It would reduce impacts to air quality, biological
<br />resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
<br />population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and
<br />service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and
<br />hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. It would
<br />increase impacts to land use and planning. It would also increase impacts to transportation and
|