Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives <br />Additionally, in-place rehabilitation and/or relocation nd -rehabilitation of properties proposed for <br />demolition on Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood are evaluated in Recirculated <br />Draft EIS. (Chapter 5.0). SpecificaRy, Alternative 4 would eliminate the demolition of the <br />structures currently existing on the Agency- o - %vned properties and/or identified. for acquisition, and <br />would instead require that those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations. <br />jUtern tive 5 would -reduce the demolition of properties ovvned b y the Redevelopment Agency <br />and/or identified for acquisition, and xvould instead require that those properties be rehabilitated, <br />either in -place or `f -site, -�vitli the exception of the property at 611 N. Minter Street, which would <br />be demolished. Alternativc 6 vrould retain and rehabilitate the bungalo v court located at 611 N. <br />llllinter Street,- ho ever, the remainder of the structures located on the Agency-o -%timed parcels <br />would be demolished. Please see Chapter; 5.0 for additional details about these Alternatives. <br />a Proposed Mitigation. Creation of a connnunit € park N1 thin the Lacy Neighborhood by taking <br />the folloXng actions: <br />Close a portion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy. Relocate 3 of the vintage houses on <br />the south side of Sixth Street to other vacant land on Fifth Street. <br />• Build a single row ofne r housing along the south side of Santa Aria Blvd. Use the remainder of <br />the land south of this single row of ne -kvr housing to create another segment of the park. <br />• Acquire 617 E. Sixth for park purposes. Salvage the wood components from this structure <br />before demolition. <br />Preserve in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street. <br />(See Final EIS. Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman GD), comment <br />JD-39.) <br />Finding. The Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other <br />considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. <br />Rationale, losilig a portion of Sixth Strect between Ported and Lacy is not feasible because it <br />would severely lip it future transit planning Within the Cite and Nvould be inconsistent NAth the <br />Transit Zoning Code objective of "providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian- orictit cl <br />de- velopi ent framcmirork to support the addition of ew transit inftastr cture." Further, street <br />closures are, in general, counter to the policies and des* n standards contained within the proposed <br />Transit Zo ng Code. Maintaining a fine - grained, gridded street net%TTork alloxvs for increased <br />pedestrian and vehicular accessibility -% rhich serves to disperse traffic throughout the area. In <br />addition, Maintaining the existing street grid allows for greater opportunities for future <br />transportation alignments. <br />Shnilarl y, building a single ro %T of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. and using <br />the remainder of the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segment of the <br />suggested park is infeasible because it Nvould be inconsistent - \Ath the Developer Project objective <br />of ` enhancing the streetscaPe and urban form of the area, particularlyalong Santa Ana Boulevard, <br />Frith the construction of neNTr buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning <br />Code and that support future transit planning!" <br />It -%xrould also result in the loss of wits that would othetAvise be rented to to %;,, v r 4ow and <br />extrCi cl y-low income households. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting <br />the Gig's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (ItHNA) for 2006 -2014, and the loss of such its <br />would be inconsistent -% pith the Cite "s adopted police to " ma iii e affordable housing on Agency- <br />owned propertie that is of high quality, sustainable, and avaflablc to various income levels." (See <br />Santa Ana Dousing Element [2006 - 2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Additionafl F, the loss of affordable <br />3-18 Transit Zoning Cede ( EIR Findings of Fa Stater ent of Overriding Considerations <br />