My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 30 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
04/19/2022 Regular
>
Item 30 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2023 10:05:36 AM
Creation date
8/16/2023 10:03:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
30
Date
4/19/2022
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
333
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Santa Ana General Plan Update <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement <br />Of Overriding Considerations -56- October 2021 <br />Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful <br />alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts. <br />Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant, <br />unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this <br />significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were <br />determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases. <br />These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those <br />roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard <br />and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would <br />experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed <br />under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this <br />alternative was not deemed to be meaningful. <br />B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS <br />Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives <br />with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review. <br />Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, and <br />recreation all directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the <br />programmatic level of this GPU PEIR, site-specific information regarding potential significant <br />historical impacts is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce <br />that impact. A reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic <br />noise impact (as discussed above). A reduced park demand alternative was also analyzed to <br />address the significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation. The following development <br />alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen for further analysis. <br />No Project / Current General Plan Alternative <br />The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is <br />typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not <br />adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the <br />jurisdiction’s existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies <br />in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General <br />Plan—with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain <br />in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and <br />special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU. <br />Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan 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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.