Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Projeot Alternatives <br />Allinter Street and Santa Ana Boulevard senTes as one of the primary foundations of both the <br />architectural and engineering design of the largest component of the Developer Project. B y eliminating <br />this property frorn the overall site (identified as Rental Lot I on Figure -- it forces a si m ie nt <br />redesign of the multi-family development project proposed for this site and results in a significant <br />reduction of units,, all of xNrMch Nvould be deed -- restricted for lon - -terra affordability. <br />lunation of 36 affordable housing wits from the proposed Developer Project inhibits the Gig's <br />ability to meet its housing re luirements. It also inhibits the City's ability to " r1ia�_1I e affordable housing <br />on gene -o Nvned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and a v it blc to varlous income levels" <br />(Policy HE-2.8). (See Santa Ana Housing Element 006- 2014).) *This alternative also does not go as far <br />to "encourage the construction of rental lousing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, indu ing a <br />con itment to vcry low, fo r and Moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana vork rs" <br />(Policy -2. or to "facilitate and encourage a diversit y and - ange in types, prices, and sixes of housing'. <br />including single-family boy es, apartments, to rn homes, n ed multiuse lousing, transit-oriented <br />developn -ie ts, and live work housing' (Policy HE-2.4). Id. <br />In addition to creating infe sibilities clue to the reduction in total affordable housing yield, the proposal <br />to rehabilitate the existing units contained NN .thin the 611 N. Alin ter Street bungalow oust would not be <br />consistent With the policies contained in the 2006-2014 Housing Element, which identifies the n cd to <br />create. rental units appropriately sized for large fames. The existing bungalo -ws at 611 N. Nfinter Street <br />are currently configured as studio units. The sleeping area is comprised of a " Nlur hy-- style" fold -out bed <br />and the kitchen facilities are = n*u al. In addition, the property is severely deteriorated. The most likely <br />rehabilitation scenario, vIiich would require the consolidation of existing units, would result in the <br />creation of one one- bedroom unit and six twro- bedroom units. This is a much less desirable u t ti-iix than <br />that achieved by the Developer Project. <br />Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the "Housing <br />ousing <br />Accountability Act," which restricts the Gig's ability to disapprove, or require densit y reductions, in <br />certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City ma y not disapprove a lousing development <br />project for very to r, to -wr -, or moderate -- income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in <br />Gmrer inent Code section 65589.5. subsection (d). The Cite is unable to make any of these findings at <br />this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally= infeasible. <br />A.1ternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately reduce <br />construction costs. Specifically, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/ Agency Mould be <br />sliglidy less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost unit would be approximately $40,000 higher. <br />(Appendix J (updated). This is a significantly less c `ficient and effective wa y to spend the funds available <br />for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. <br />Finally, Alternative 6 could not meet the objective of the eveloper Proposal to reel evcl o p all of the <br />Agenc y-owned properties, and it would not ineet the objective of pros "iding newaffordable lousing for <br />fancies in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals to the same extent as the proposed project. <br />Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency Nirould be able to attract a quality developer to undertake a small <br />scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed undcr AlternatiNre 6. This xNifl <br />seriously constrain the potential for providing econorr caRy viable redevelopment. <br />Transit Zoning Code S EIR Findings of FacVStatement of Overriding Considerations -1 <br />