Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> Santa Ana General Plan Update <br /> CE 5T ac an Statement 32 — 85 2 <br /> Of ri ing onsiderations -62- 61 /Rer�0 2 1 <br />