80A - JOINT PH - TRANSIT ZONING CODE, FINAL EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN ETC. - ORIGINAL PACKET PROVIDED TO COUNCIL

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Altematives Moderate income households than the proposed Developer Project. This reduction in the number of affordable housing units elii -i mates an opportunity to prox4de affordable housing in furtherance of meeting the City's R IN. . It also eliminates the opportunity to provide Special Needs lousing through the Mercy House project. Sin- arty, Alternative 4 does not to meet the City's polio of "rnaxin-ii [ing ] affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality,, sustainable, and ava able to various inco me levels." (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006- 2014], Policy HE--2. ) Nor does it go far enough to meet the City's policy to "encourage the construction etion of rental housing f'ot Santa tuna's residents and workforce, including a coimw*tment to very, low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana - %vor ers" (Policy HE ---2. or its policy to "'facilitate and encourage a diversit y and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single -fatnUy homes, apartments, to -wn hones, pied /multiuse lousing, transit -- oriented developments, and live/work housing"' (Policy FIE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].) Further, the City of Santa Ana currentl y has a shortage of ital units appropriately si e l to accommodate fan ies. As stated in the City's 2006 --2014 Housing Element, x0iffe multiple - faintly lousing comprises 41% of all lousing stock Nvithin the Cite, only 13% of multiple family and single - faii -Ar rental units had ,re three or ignore bedrooms. It is estimated that % of all fairiffies who rent have fie or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large fancy rental units. The Developer Project contains 78 two -be room units t�Tvo of Nvhich are manager units) and 67 three -be lroom units. In addition, the Allercy House project xvould provide one three -- bedroom, five -one bedroom and fire t%,vo- bedroom units exclusive of manager's unit of special needs housing. 'Flies e units are appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana -s identified demographic needs. Implementation of jUternativ 4 would not further the City's policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for fan-iffies, nor Would it achieve the project objectives described above. Moteover, the California Le islaturc has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the "'Housing Accountability Act," which restricts the City's abitity to disappro-%,re, or require density reductions, in certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the Cite relay not disapprove a housing development project for very low, to v -, or moderate -inc ome households unless it snakes certain findings set forth in Government Code section 65589.53, subsection (d). The Cite is enable to make any of these findings at this tine. Therefore, disappro -val of the proposed I e ,reloper Project is legally infeasible. Additionally, Alternative 4 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not coirmiensurately reduce construction costs. Therefore, although the total cost of this alternative to the City Agency would be less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost /unit ,rould be approX' 'lately $26,000 l-iiglier than the proposed Developer Project. TI-iis is attributable to the fact that smaller apartment projects would be developed under this alternative, which generate a higher per unit financial gap, according to the financial analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates KAIA for the Cite of Santa Ana (as updated on May 223 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. This is a significantly less efficient and effective wa y to spend the funds available for rcdevelopment of the Agency -owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project, 3,10 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) I Findings of Fat tater ent of overriding Considerations