2005-016 - Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Property Located at 2725 North Main Street

Home Browse Search

. City Place Focused Environmental impact Report Findings and Faels in Support of Findings . Alternative C proposed a different density of land uses, with commercial/retail and no residential uses, than the City Place project. However, the land uses proposed under Alternative C would not be expected to substantially reduce or avoid the potential adverse impacts of the City Place project related to air quality and traffic impacts. For these reasons, this Alternative was rejected ITOm further consideration and, therefore, was not evaluated in the EIR for the City Place project. Alternative D: General Plan Consistencv . This Alternative assumed development of the site consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the site in place at the time of the 1992 EIR evaluation, at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5, which was the FAR permitted on the site under the General Plan at that time. Under this Alternative, it was assumed that the site would be developed with 1.1 million square feet of uses, including three high rise office towers (15, 17 and 23 stories), retail, restaurant, cinema, health club and 36 single family residential units. This Alternative proposed reduced land uses on the project site compared to the approved Main Street Concourse Project, with approximately 0.4 million fewer square feet of development. In addition, two of the office towers under Alternative D would be fewer stories than under the Main Street Concourse Project wbich proposed one 20-story and one 32-story office tower. Alternative 0 also proposed slightly fewer residential units than the approved proj ect, at a total of 146 single family and mgh density residential units versus a total of 278 residential units under the Main Street Concourse Project. This Alternative was not considered further in the EIR for the City Place project because: . Alternative D proposed substantially greater development on tbe project site than the City Place project. Therefore, the land uses proposed under Alternative 0 would likely increase and not reduce or avoid the potential adverse impacts of the City P1ace project related to air quality, traffic, and cumulative air quality and traffic impacts. For these reasons, this Alternative was rejected ITom further consideration and, therefore, was not evaluated in the EIR for the City Place project. 6.1.2 Alternative Site for the Proposed Project The EIR for the City Place project did not analyze an alternative site for the proposed project because the applicant does not own or control another suitable property in tbe City of Santa Ana. In addition, there are no other known sites of this size available in the City that could accommodate a project of this type. The City Place project would generate approximately the same traffic and air quality emissions at any other location in the City, to the same or greater extent tban at the proposed site. Therefore, locating the proposed project at another site in the City would basically shift the project's adverse impacts to that other location, but would not be expected to avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. The traffic impacts wmch occur in the City of Orange under the City Place project could possibly be located to an area entirely within the City of Santa Ana if an alternative . c: IDocuments and Settings\BKaufman\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLKB\City Place findings. doc September 29. 2004 Resolution 2005-016 Page 47 of 53 Page.