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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Flndin s Regarding Projeot Alternatives housing units Nvould be inconsistent with the City's policy to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residcnts and wor forcc, including a commitment to very to v, low and moderate lerate incorne residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy EE--2. and its policy to "facilitate and encourage a diversit y and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single- fan -il y homes, apartments, town homes, nixed/multiuse housing, transit -- oriented de velopments, and live/work housing" (Policy HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006- 2014] . Further, the Cite of Santa Ana currentl y has a shortage of rental un-its appropriately sized to accor i odate families. As stated in the Citys 2006 -2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family f lousing comprises 41% of all housing stock NN tl in the Cite, onl y 13% of multiple family and single-- fairAl r rental units have three or snore bedrooms. It is estiv Dated that 45% of all fare -flies who rent have five of more members. . This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large fall y rental units. The Developer Project contains 78 two-bedroom units (two of xxrMch are manager units) and 67 three --be droom urdts. In a ldition, the Merc y I -louse project xkrould provide one three -- bedroom, five --one bedroom and five t%wo- bedroom units (exclusive of inanager's unit) of special needs lousing. 'These units are appropriately sized to ineet Santa Ana's identified demograpl- is needs. .educing the number of units that could be, provided by the proposed Developer Projectxkrould not further the City's policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for families Allorcover, under Health and Safety Code section 33334.2, in redevelopment project areas, not less than. 20 percent of the gross tax increment generated fiorn a project must be used by the redevelopment agenc y to increase and improve the community's supple of affordable housing. 'Therefore,) the use of finds for communit y se -t-ving infrastrUCture on the gene - mxrned properties trust be related and proportional to development of affordable hous1119. There is no evidence that Funds need to construct the coimnunity park suggested by the commenter would be proportional to the provision of affordable lousing. Without such propordonalit y, it would be lega y infeasible to use the Agency's set - aside funds to construct the park suggested by the commenter. Finally, the EIR analyzed numerous alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce iMpacts to historic resources. (See Recirculated EIR Chapter 5. 0.) Specifically, Alternative 4 would el uinate the demolition of existing structures on Agenc y-owned properties and would eliminate any of the neNv potential acquisitions identified in Figure -2. Therefore, the suggestion to Preserve in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street is N%4thin the range of alternatives already analyzed in Chapter 5.0. In addition, CEQA does not require alternatives to individual project components. The suggestions provided in the con ment arc not consi derabl y different from chat is already analyzed in the Ells and would not clearly lessen the significant e virionn -ie tal effects of the project. Findings on I1 it /ration Measures ures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to TransportationlTraffic ■ Proposed Mitigation Measure. ure. add language to the proposed project zoning code that includes ineasures for planned safety near rail crossings and suggested litigation rileasures that include grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at- -grade highvra y-rail crossings, and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other: appropriate barriers to limit access of trespassers onto the railroad right-- of - - %va y. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comm ents ), Letter from California Public Utilities Commission P , comment PU --2. Finding. The Agency finds that specific econonnic, legal, social, technological, on other considerations make this mitigation gation measure infeasible. Transit Zoning Code SD EIR Findings of Fa VStaternent of Overriding Considerations _