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 -62- October 2021 <br />population and housing, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, <br />impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. <br />This alternative would attain some of the project’s objectives. It would promote infill development <br />to a lesser extent than the GPU and would protect established neighborhoods (Objective 1), and <br />would also develop opportunities of live-work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing <br />(Objective 7). Given the substantial reduction in housing units, it was also concluded that it would <br />not meet Objectives 2 and 3, to maximize high density residential development and mixed use <br />proximate to potential mass transit use (Objective 2) and to maximize affordable housing and <br />achieve City and regional housing goals (Objective 3). It would, however, achieve Objectives 4 <br />through 6, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With new opportunities eliminated in <br />three focus areas and the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway /Dyer Road and South Bristol <br />focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities and may <br />not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed- <br />use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live-work, <br />artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. <br />C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE <br />CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases <br />where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the GPU, the environmentally <br />superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as <br />“environmentally superior” to the GPU: <br /> The RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative is concluded to be the environmentally superior <br />alternative. The No Project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed GPU. <br />Both the Reduced Density and RTP/SCS alternatives reduce environmental impacts in <br />comparison to the GPU, but the RTP/SCS reduces more impacts and eliminates a significant, <br />unavoidable impact of the GPU. This alternative was designed to eliminate the significant <br />population impact of the GPU, but it also reduces potential future development more than any <br />of the other alternatives. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.