|
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Altematives
<br />E--2.3 Rental Housing. Encourage the construction of rental lousing for Santa Ana's
<br />residents and �xrorkforce, including commitr ent to very loxv, log , and m oderate.
<br />income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers.
<br />E--2.4 Diversity of Housing Types. Facilitate and encourage a diversit y and range in types,
<br />prices, and sizes of housing, inducting single. f n-�Iy homes, apartirnents, town
<br />hones, mixed/multiuse housing, transit -- oriented developments, and liv -"ion+
<br />housing.
<br />Alternative 3 would not meet the project's transit oriented objectives to the sane extent as the proposed
<br />project, Rcducing the an -count of housing and retail space xrould result in a failure to full, emphasize the
<br />use of the SARTC for City residents. A mixed -use urban and transit-oriented neighborhood requires a
<br />critical mass and balance between residential and non-residential uses. Praft EIR, Section 5. 5.)
<br />Alternative 3 would not provide that critical mass and balance.
<br />Reducing housing and retail opportunities Nvould result in a failure to full benefit from the Investment in
<br />the expansion of the transit s stern and Nvould not ade uatel y target gro Nth in housing, employment, and
<br />commercial dc- velopment within walking distance of the existing and planned transit stations. In addition,
<br />Alternative 3 would not implement SCAG RTP and RCP policies or established Gcneral Plan Land Use
<br />Element policies 1., 1,3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.4, 2.6, 2., 2.9, 2.1 0, 4.3, 4.4, 4., 5. 1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.7 , .9, 5.10,
<br />and 5.11, or Urban Land Use Element Goals 1 through 7 to the extent that the proposed project could.
<br />(See hand Use Element; Urban Design Element; Draft EIR Table 4.7-3.) Specifically, luternathre
<br />would not meet the following SCAG R 1' Land Use Goals to the sane extent as the proposed project:
<br />N Create a xed -use districts or "complete comillunities" in strategic growth areas through
<br />concentration of activities Nth lousing, employment, and a nix of retail and seiirices, located in
<br />close pro n -its to each other. Focusing a mix of land uses in strategic grio with areas creates
<br />complete communities wherein most daily needs can be reset - %%itlin a short distance of hone,
<br />providing residents Frith the opporituflLit y to Patroni ze their local area and run daily errands by
<br />walking or cycling rather traveling by automobile.
<br />■ Intensify nodes along corridors - %vith people - scaled, rnixcd -use developincnts. Nlany existing
<br />corm ors lack the residential and commercial concentration to adequately support Lion -auto transit
<br />uses, %Tithout which the e� fisting transit s ys tem c nnot fully re alizxe its potential for accommodating
<br />additional trips and relieving the transportation s rstet . These nodes along the corridor also create
<br />Libra t, walkable communities �� th localized access to amenities further reducing reliance on the
<br />autornoblle fora - variety of trips.
<br />* Pedestrian - friendly environments and tore compact development patterns in close proxn* it y to
<br />transit ser%re to support and improve transit use and ridership. Focusing housing and employment
<br />gio-%%lth in transit - accessible locations through this transit- otiented de velopment approach M7111
<br />serve to reduce auto use and support more multit-no al travel behavior.
<br />Additionally, the reduction in retail space under Alternative would reduce potential ne -\xr en plo yment
<br />opportunities, and the economic benefits that accompany such opportunities, as compared to the
<br />proposed project. It would also reduce the arnount of potential tax reirenue that the Cite could use to
<br />reinNrest and stimulate economic development.
<br />3-8 Transit on!ng Code D 4 E I R Findings of Far V teter ent of Overrid Ing Considerations
<br />
|