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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Fin dings Re a rdIng Preja o t AIternatIves Findings The gene hereby finds that specific eeono -ic, legal, social, tecb��ological, or other considerations snake the adoption of this alternative infeasible. Specifically, AlternatIATC5 -% could reduce the number of residential units by 11 and %could increase costs to the Agency by appro va* natel y $6.62 iYAllion, according to the financial analysis prepared b y Keyser Marston Associates slit for the City of Santa Ana as updated on May 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the FIR. Additionally, this alternative would cost the Agency approximately $56,800 yore per unit than the proposed Developer Project, due primarily to the substantial rehabilitation and relocation costs that would be involved in this alternative. (Sec Appendix J (updated).) This represents a 39% increase its per unit costs. This is significantly less efficient and effective va y to spend the funds a'%'rat able for redevelopment t of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. The significant additional cost to the Agency of this Alternative renders it economically infeasible. Further, under lternati re 53, the proposed park identified in the I evc1oper Project would no longer be included as a project component. The park -%Tias one element of se-%'reral in the overall vision for developn -ictit of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Altcrnative 5 effectivel y lln aces the ability to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures currently located on the Agency- mvn d properties xxithin that block would r ain under Alternative 5. Finally, Alternative 5 ' \vould not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties. Noy; would it tneet the objective of providing an econonitcally Viable redevelopment scenario for gene y-o irncd properties, as explained above. In light of these considerations, the Agency rejects this alternative as infeasible. EM Alternative 6: Rehabilitate 611 N,, Minter Street in Place Description This alternative would be identical to the proposed Developer Project, -\-%q*th the exception that the bungalo w court located at 611 N. Aofinter Street %could be retained and rehabilitated. Dace rehabilitated, the units at 611 N. AlEnter Street vrould be ff red for rent to very -lo %ir and e tre gel t -lox %'r income households. Alternati,%re 6 Nrould provide 88 rental units, of Nxr ich 85 would be available to lox v, very-low and extremely-low income households, and - %would provide 32 o-%-%T ersllip units, of wliich six units x %could be available for sale to households meeting the Orange County eritcria for Alo erate Income. In total, this Alternative would pros "ide approximately 36 fewer low, -%req-low and extreinely-low income uilits than. the proposed Developer Project. (See EIR t ppendL J (updated) [Mternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], "Fable 1, Alternatives Analysis.) Findings The Agency hereby hinds that specific eco of ic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. SpeclficaUy, as described above, construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the ity"s RHNA for 2006 -2014. The location of the 611 N. Allinter Street propert y at the southeast corner of ....... 3-12 Transit Zoning Code 4 EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations