01-14-19_AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment City of Santa Ana 5 Magnolia at the Park Multi-Family Residential Project December 2018 and as a result, the City of Santa Ana would not adopt or impose mitigation. The comment also provides a summary of CEQA references of court decisions describing that CEQA does not allow the lead agency to abrogate its responsibility to mitigate significant impacts, even if those impacts are within the jurisdiction of another agency. The lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts are mitigated, even if it is necessary to cooperate with other responsible agencies. Response 11: This comment is inaccurate. The Draft and Final EIRs explain that the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic related impacts and that mitigation measures are therefore not required. Page 2-25 of the Final EIR provides recommendations that could be implemented at a Caltrans controlled intersection to improve the existing function. The recommendation is not mitigation, because it does not reduce a potentially significant impact, and the Final EIR provides for coordination between the two agencies (not abrogation of responsibility). The information provided in the response to the Caltrans comment serves a cooperative purpose and includes the discussion of recommended infrastructure improvements. Furthermore, the City has not delegated any mitigation measures to other agencies or entities, as shown in Chapter 4 of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comment 12: This comment asserts that the project disregards the General Plan and does not include any affordable housing units that all the units would be market rate and that none would be designated for low- or moderate-income residents. Response 12: The City’s General Plan does not require that all residential developments provide affordable housing units within the project. The market rate units that would be provided by this project would accommodate moderate income households within the City based on the moderate-income range identified by the City1. In addition, the project would be required to provide funding for development of low-income housing pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Sections 41-1900 through 41-1911, which requires provision of or payment of in-lieu fees for the provision of 15 percent of rental units for low-income households, or 10 percent to very low-income households. As detailed in Municipal Code Section 41-1904(c)(3), the in-lieu fees are required to be paid in full before issuance of the first building permit for any portion of a project. Thus, the project would be required to provide for low income units, which would be implemented through project permitting procedures. Comment 13: This comment asserts that the General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 requires housing for all income levels, and the project would be inconsistent because it only includes market-rate housing. The comment asserts that this is unacceptable given the area’s shortage of affordable housing. The comment also states that the EIR does not analyze whether it is feasible to include income-restricted housing. Response 13: General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.3 states “encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana’s residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate-income residents and moderate-income Santa Ana workers”. This policy applies citywide and does not mandate or require that any individual project include affordable housing, rent restricted, units within each new development. Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR describes that the project would be consistent with this policy because it would provide rental housing for Santa Ana’s moderate-income households. In addition, as described in Response 12, the City’s Municipal Code regulations related to the provision of residential units or funding for low- and very-low income housing. Furthermore, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do not require the analysis of the feasibility of the project to include income-restricted housing. The proposed project would add to the rental housing market in the project area. As described in the Draft EIR (page 4.9-4), Santa Ana had a vacancy rate of 3.2 percent in 2017, and the vacancy rate 1 https://www.santa-ana.org/residents/homeowners-renters/rehab-loan-programs/down-payment-assistance-loan-program 2-301