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 -61- October 2021 <br />so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a <br />significant presence of EJ communities that are served by parks, but the existing parks are <br />very small. <br /> South Bristol Focus Area. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to <br />reduce intensity by 2,273 units on sites that are more than a half mile from existing parks <br />(generally west of Bristol and south of MacArthur Boulevard). <br /> Grand Avenue/17th Street. Stay as currently planned as a lower density residential (LR-7) <br />and commercial corridor (GC) to reduce intensity so that there are no additional units <br />constructed beyond existing conditions, because much of the focus area is more than a half <br />mile from existing parks. <br /> West Santa Ana Boulevard. This focus area would remain as currently planned with lower <br />density residential (LR-7) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity so that no <br />additional units are constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of <br />EJ communities with areas that are farther than a half mile from existing parks in this focus <br />area. <br /> 55 Freeway/Dyer Road. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce <br />intensity by 5,381 units because a majority of the area is more than a half mile from existing <br />parks in Santa Ana; the reduced intensity would also reduce potential impacts on adjacent <br />parkland in Tustin. <br />Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Park Demand Alternative on the basis of policy <br />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 />Recirculated PEIR. <br />This alternative would result in similar impacts to 6 impact categories, reduced impacts to 12 <br />categories, and increased impacts to 2 categories. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, <br />agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral <br />resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease 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, transportation, and <br />utilities and services. It would reduce the recreation impacts of the proposed GPU, as it was <br />designed to do, and would improve the park acres/resident ratio compared to the proposed GPU. <br />Recreation impacts to disadvantaged communities would also be reduced. Given the lack of <br />available land for new parks, however, it would not eliminate the significant, unavoidable impact <br />of the project. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. <br />As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.