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 -60- October 2021 potentially introduce a new significant impact. It is anticipated, however, that under this alternative, transportation could be mitigated to less than significant. Under the GPU, transportation impacts are less than significant without mitigation. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. The impact to population and housing would be reduced to less than significant. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Due to the substantial reduction in housing opportunities citywide, this alternative is the least effective in achieving the project objectives of the GPU. By setting a development cap to limit housing and nonresidential development to the projections for the city in the 2020 RTP/SCS, this alternative reduces housing units by 31,515 compared to the GPU. It reduces housing development potential within the focus areas by 73 percent in comparison to the GPU, and reduces overall city future development by 27 percent. To achieve this reduction, the development cap would not only limit focus area development but would restrict the entitled housing in Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas (reducing total housing within these areas by almost 14,000 units). This alternative clearly would not optimize high density housing that maximizes mass transit use (objective No. 2) or provide urban-level intensities at the urban edges (objective No. 3). Moreover, it would not facilitate intensities that attract economic activities, particularly since it would not allow the maximum entitlement of approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. It would achieve the remainder of the objectives, but to a lesser extent than the GPU. It would protect established neighborhoods, but not promote infill development as much as the GPU or other alternatives (objective No. 1). It would provide only limited opportunities for live-work and artist spaces and small-scale manufacturing (objective No. 7). Reduced Park Demand Alternative The City’s Park standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents is not achieved under existing conditions and development allowed under the GPU would further exacerbate park and open space shortages. Without new parks, growth in any of the focus areas would exacerbate the current level of park deficiency either in or adjacent to disadvantaged communities. The areas proposed for substantial new residential development under the GPU were compared to the distribution of existing parks—location, size, and demand—to define the Reduced Park Demand Alternative. The Reduced Park Demand Alternative reduces residential growth by 11,225 units by eliminating or reducing residential land uses and intensity in the five focus areas. Overall, nonresidential square footage would be reduced by a total of approximately 2.8 million square feet within the focus areas compared to the proposed GPU. The nonresidential square footage would increase, however, in two of the focus areas: 17th Street/Grand Avenue by 697,000 square feet, and South Bristol by 739,000 square feet. New residential growth under this alternative would largely be in currently planned areas that are generally near a substantial number of existing park facilities. Some residential growth would be introduced into two focus areas at substantially lower intensities to reduce the potential impact on park facilities. Changes to the focus areas are as follows:  South Main Street. This focus area would remain as currently planned as a commercial corridor (GC) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) and District Center (DC) to reduce intensity