CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

office, or residential development should therefore also be evaluated. The burden is on the Applicant and not the public to demonstrate that these proposals are not feasible. The EIR compounds the problem associated with a lack of alternatives by not providing accurate or sufficiently clear descriptions of the alternatives themselves. For example, the reduced build alternative fails to provide any analysis as to how, whether, and why the parking structure and setbacks would be reconfigured and onsite amenities would be eliminated as opposed to re -configured. Moreover, no analysis is provided as to how the 30% reduction in density was selected for analysis and review. By way of example, the developer and City could and should review the project with a 50% and 75% reduction in units coupled with a meaningful analysis of impacts to design. If such alternatives are rejected because they are not feasible, the record must establish why. Again, the fact that the applicant may have overpaid in expectation of discretionary approvals for high -density residential development is unavailing. The third alternative (build out of the existing zoning alternative) is not accurately described. The FIR identifies the buildout at being a 3-story building consisting of 387,465 square feet requiring 1161 parking spaces. No data beyond a recitation of setbacks is provided as to how this particular design would be permitted as of right. By way of example, there is no discussion regarding the impact of the City's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements. Moreover, given the proximity of the property to an adjacent single-family community, the City's Code would appear to limit at least a portion of the building to two stories. See Santa Ana Code Section 41-314 (C). C. Misapplication of Urban Design Element. The EIR also proposes a number of justifications for the development of a residential high-rise onsite and the rejection/dismissal/down-grading of alternatives. For example, the EIR states, "The General Plan... identifies the project site as the Main Street Concourse node on Figure 7 of the Urban Design Element describes that this area is intended to function as a major activity node and that the area represents [a] great opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region." It is unclear whether the subject property itself is within this node because the Urban Design Element does not provide specific boundaries or parameters beyond a mere circle. It further appears that the area within the node does not include the subject site nor the adjoining Park Santiago neighborhood. However, it is disingenuous to reference let alone place any meaningful importance on the designation because the excerpted sections of the Urban Design Element in the General Plan discuss a massive mixed activity center located offsite (known as the Main Street Concourse) that was never built. The EIR should at a minimum clarify that the Main Street Concourse node designation was premised on the development of a massive mixed use/activity center planned between 1990 and 1997. At that time, the City had considered development proposals for a (then) 500 million dollar project consisting of luxury homes, a 32 story office tower, retail, movie theater, conference center, and a monorail station. The site