My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75-057
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952 - 1999
>
1975
>
75-057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:34:43 PM
Creation date
6/26/2003 10:46:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
75-57
Date
5/5/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Santa Aha Zoning Ordinance is conventional in nature with little <br />in the way of special provisions concerning low income housing. There are <br />no specific zoning or design provisions pertaining to unit design parking or <br />amenities for the elderly or handicapped. The ordinance proves ambivalent <br />in the residential use district regulations. The standards are deficient at <br />both ends of the spectrum in that they neither encourage the provision of <br />low income housing units nor require high quality amenities producing a stock <br />of high quality, higher priced units or rentals. Whether by design or acci- <br />dent, t~e residential district regulations are geared for development under <br />the "lowest comnon denominator" theory of residential quality. Even though <br />this would add to the stock of lower priced or lower cost rental units, it <br />does not ensure that those households with the greatest need for housing <br />occupy such units and still does not make any special provisions for low or <br />fixed income groups. <br /> <br /> ~hile many cities in Orange County and California as a whole are up- <br />grading and intensifying residential development standards, Santa Ana re- <br />quirements still reflect the development attitudes of the 1960 era of resi~ <br />dential development. Of notable exception are the Planned Community and <br />Planned Residential Development sections of the ordinance. The R 1, Single <br />Family Residence, District may address the issue of new single {amily sub- <br />divisions; however, it does not reflect that the majority of R 1 development <br />has already been accomplished and the needs of this district now concern <br />room additions, garage conversions, expansion for growing families, patios <br />or other romedial or additive homeowner activities. As with the other resi- <br />dential districts, no provisions are imposed regarding the maintenance of <br />the physical housing unit or grounds to certain minimal levels for the life- <br />time of the residence. The R 1 District pemits day care nurseries by con- <br />ditional use permit, however, does not make clear provisions concerning <br />{oster home activities for children, the ambulatory elderly or the physically <br />or mentally handicapped. <br /> <br /> The multiple unit residential use districts range from the R 2 <br />District at one unit per each 3,000 square feet of lot area to the R 4 at <br />one unit per S00 square feet of lot area for projects of four stories or <br />more. Other densities include one unit for 1,000 or 1,200 square feet of <br />area in the R 3 and R 3H, and one unit for 1,S00 in the R 4 for projects <br />under four stories. Parking standards require only one garage or carport <br />space per unit for one, two or three-family units. In multiple-family <br />projects, the ~mximum required is only one and one-half spaces per unit <br />(one space for bachelor units). Even in the multiple-unit survey, owners <br />and man~gers conmented on the lack of adequate parking facilities creatin~ <br /> <br />000026 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.