Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Flndinga Regarding Protect Alternatives <br />On balance, the reduction in impacts to shading and shadows provided by this alternative do not <br />outweigh the costs associated with the loss of housing and retail opportunities that would also occur <br />under this alternati~*e. <br />Foe these reasons, [he Agency rejects Alternative 3 as infeasible. <br />3.4.2 Findings on Alternatives to the Proposed Transit Zoning Code <br />Analyzed in the Draft EIR <br />Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, described below, present altemati~~es to the proposed De~~eloper Project. Under <br />each of these Alternatives, the proposed Transit Zoning Code would remain the unchanged. The <br />Agency's findings on each altemative and the rationale behind each finding are set Forth below. <br />Alternative 4: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Rehabilitate in Place <br />Descrlptfon <br />This alternati~*e would eliminate the demolition of structures on the fourteen parcels within the Station <br />District currently ovc•ned by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency that were slated for <br />demolition under the proposed Developer Project (see Figure 5-1 ~DemoIitions]) and instead require that <br />those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations. Additionally, the City/Agency <br />would not acquire an}• of the t~i•ent}• parcels identified in Figure 5-2 [Potential Ne«• Santa Ana <br />Redevelopment Agency Acquisitions]. Upon completion of rehabilitation, the rehabilitated houses would <br />be offered for-sale as low or moderate income housing. The proposed Transit Zoning Code would <br />remain the same under this Altcrnati~-e. <br />In total, this Alternative would provide approximately 75 rental units and approximately 24 for sale units <br />within the Station District, for a total of approximately 99 units. Of these, approximately 72 would be <br />rented to low, vetj•-low and extretnel}--low income households, approximately 19 would be offered for <br />sale as low income units, and one would be offered for sale to those meeting the Orange County criteria <br />for Moderate Income. (See EIR Appendix J (Updated) jruternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], 'f'able 1, <br />Alternatives Analysis.) By contrast, approximately 124 units would be pro~•ided b}• the proposed <br />De~•eloper Project, of which 121 would be rented to low, ~-erp-low and extremely-low income <br />households, and thirty two units would be offered For sale, of which six units would be offered For sale to <br />those tneeting the Orange County criteria for Moderate Income. (Id.) <br />Flnd/ngs <br />T#ie Agency hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations <br />make the adoption o£ this alternative infeasible. <br />Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs <br />Assessment (RIINA) For 2006-2014. The City's RHNA calls for 3,393 units of new residential <br />construction, 694 of which are to be affordable to very low income households, 574 of which ate to be <br />affordable to low income households, and 665 to be affordable to moderate income households (EIR, <br />Section 4.9). Alternative 4 would provide 37 fewer units that would be aEForda~i3~~tE9~~~~~lb~v~~d <br />Transit Zoning Coda (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3_9 <br />