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 <br />Of <br />1 <br />i 5 FactanStatement41 — 85 12(/' / 021 <br />Of v ri ing onsiderations -62- UCtODer 2021