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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 F/ndings Regaddfng ProJeot Alternatives Further, under Alternative 4, the proposed park identified in the Developer Project would no longer be included as a project component. The park was one element of see-era) in the o~-erall vision For de~•elopment of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternati~=e 4 effective)}• eluninaies the ability to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that block would remain under Alternati~-e 4, and the Cit}=/Agency under this scenario would be precluded From acquiring ati}* additional properties. Further, Alternatie*e 4 ~c•ould not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to rede~-elop all of the Agency-owned properties, nnd, as explained abo~-e, it would not meet the objective of pro~•iding new affordable housing for fatnilics in Furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals to the same extent as the proposed project. Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency would be able to attract a quality deg-eloper to undertake a small scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under Alternati~-e 4. 'Phis «-ill seriously constrain the potential For providing economical)}- ~•iable redec•elopment. In light of these considerations, the Agenc}' rejects this alternative as infeasible. Alternative 5: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Relocate to Agency- Owned Infill Sites/Rehabilitate in Place Descrlpt7on 'I'bis alternative would eliminate the demolition on the Fourteen parcels with the Station District currently owned by the City of Santa Ana Rede~=elopment Agency- that were slated for demolition under the proposed Developer Project (see Figure 5-1 [Demolitions]). Instead, those properties would be rehabilitated in place or moz-ed to vacant lots and rehabilitated, with the e~:ception of the propert}- located at 611 N. Minter Street, which ~~-ould be demolished. Of the properties identified for demolition on parcels currently owned by the Agency, and those that may potentially be acquired in the future, only one is currently listed on the Santa Aua Register of I-Iistorical Properties-the \\~hitson-Pou•elson House located at 501 E. Fifth Street. The remaining houses have primaril}• been the subject of "windshield" sutl=eys to detemiue their potential eligibility for listing as a historic resource. (See EIR, Section 4.4 and Appendix D.) Following a comprehensive historic survey of the properties, the Cit}•'s Historic Resources Cotntnission would evaluate all of the structtttes to determine their eligibility Eor listing on the City's Register of Historical Properties and would make recommendations regarding the selection of houses to be moved and onto which sites they should be moved. Once moved and/or rehabilitated the houses would then be offered as for-sale affordable housing. The proposed 'Transit Zoning Code would remain the same under t1llS l~1CCLilant-e. In total, this Alternative would provide approximate)}• 145 units (approximately 124 rental units and approximately 21 For sale utits) on the Agency-owned parcels within the Station District. OF these, approximately 121 units would be rented to low, ~-et-}--low and extremely-low income households. (See EIR appendix J [Alternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], Table 1, A)terna[i~*es Analysis.) This is the same number of units that would he rented to lo«-, vet}-low and extremely-low income households in the proposed Developer Project. (Id.) Alternative 5 would also offer For sale 1G low income units, one moderate income utit and four market rate units. Resolution No. 2010-024 Page 77 of 130 Transit Zoning Code {SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Staternent of Overriding Considerations 3-11