2010-024 - The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 F)ndings Regard)ng ProJeot Alternatives moderate income households than the proposed Developer Project. This seduction in the number of affordable housing units eliti~inates an opportunity to provide affordable housing in furtherance of meeting the Cit}''s RI-INA. It also eluninates the opportunity to provide Special Needs housing through the A4ercp House project. Siuiilarl}•, Alternative 4 does not to meet the City's policy of "maximiz[ing] affordable housing on Agency-ou>ned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income le~•els." (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Nor does it go far enough to meet the Cit}•'s policy to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a cotntnitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana .workers" (Folic}' HE-2.3) or its policy to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-fatnil}• homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/tnultiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing" (policy I-IE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].) Further, the City- of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to accommodate fan-Lilies. As stated in the Cit}•'s 2006-2014 Housing Element, ~vlule multiple-fatTtily housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, onl}• 13% of multiple fatnil}• and single- fatnily rental units have three os more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all Families who rent hay+e five or more members. Tlvs translates into a shortage of 12,000 large fatizily rental units. The Dec•cloper Project contains 78 avo-bedroom units (two of which are manager units) and G7 three-bedroom units. In addition, the Mere}> House project ~~+ould provide one three-bedroom, Fi~•e-one bedroom and Five tu•o- bedroom units (exclusive of manager's unit) of special needs housing. These units are appropriatel}> sized to meet Santa tlna's identified demographic needs. Implementation of Alternati~•e 4 would not further the City's policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable For families, nor ~x•ould it achieve the project objecti~•es described above. Moteover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the "I lousing Accoutitabilit}> Act," which res[cicts the Cit}~s abiiit}> to disapprove, or require density reductions, in certain types of residential projects. Specificall}>, the City niay+ not disapprove a housing development project for ver}> low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The Cit}' is unable to make any of these Findings at this time. Therefore, disappro~*al of the proposed De~•eloper Project is legally> infeasible. Addirionall}•, Alternative 4 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not cotnt-tiensuratcl}+ reduce construction costs. Therefore, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency could be less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be appsoxin~ately $26,000 higher than the proposed Devreloper Project. Tlus is attributable to the fact that smaller apartment projects would be developed under this alternative, which generate a higher per unit financial gap, according to the financial analysis prepared by Ke}•ser Marston Associates (I~it1) for the Cit}' of Santa Ana (as updated on 1~Iay 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. This is a signiFicantl}• less efficient and effectic•e way to spend the funds ac•ailable For redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Deg*eloper Project. Resolution No. 20'10-024 Page 76 of '130 3-10 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Flndinga of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations