Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Flndings Regarding ProJeot Alternatives <br />Flndings <br />The Agency hereby finds that specific econon2ic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations <br />make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. Speciflcall}=, Alternati~=e 5 n•ould reduce the number of <br />residential units by 11 and would increase costs to the Agency by approximately $G.G2 trillion, according <br />to the financial anal}=sis prepared by Keyser 1~•Iarston tlssociates (ILIA) for the Citl• of Santa Alta (as <br />updated on 1~4a}' 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. Additionally, this alternative would <br />cost the Agency approximate}}- X56,800 more per unit than the proposed Deg-eloper Project, due <br />primarily to the substantial rehabilitation and relocation costs that would be invoh=ed in this alternati~=e. <br />(See Appendix J (updated)-) This represents a 39% increase in per unit costs. This is a significantly less <br />efficient and effecti~=e tray to spend the funds available for redevelopment of the tlgenc}•-owned parcels <br />than the proposed Developer Project. The sig~iificant additional cost to the Agency of this Alternative <br />renders it economically infeasible- <br />Further, under Alternative 5, the proposed park idcntiFed in the Developer Project would no longer be <br />included as a project component. The park vas one element of several in the overall vision for <br />de~'elopment of the Agenc}=-owned properties- The selection of Alternative S effectic'ely eliminates the <br />abilit}' to construct a park on the Ulock on which it is currentl}' envisioned given that the three sttuchtres <br />currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that Ulock would remain under Alternative 5. <br />Finally, Alternative 5 would not meet the objecti~*e of the Dew-eloper Proposal to rede~•elop all of the <br />Agency-owned properties. Nor ~x•ould it meet the objective of proms*iding an economically viaUle <br />redevelopment scenario for Agenc}•-owned properties, as explained above. <br />In light of these considerations, the Agenc}' rejects this alternative as infeasible- <br />Alternative 6: Rehabilitate 611 N. Minter Street in Place <br />Description <br />This alternative would be identical to the proposed Developer Project, «nth the exception that the <br />bungalow court located at 611 N. lYlinter Street would be retained and rehabilitated. Once rehabilitated, <br />the units at 611 N. i\Sinter Street •x•ould be offered for rent to ~•et-}=-lo~v and extremely-low income <br />households. Alternative G would provide 88 rental uttits, of which 85 would be available to low, very-low <br />and extremely-low income households, and would provide 32 ownership units, of which six units would <br />be a~=ailable for sale to households tweeting the Orange County criteria for D-ioderate Income. In total, <br />this Alternative would provide approximatel}• 3G fewer to«; ~-er}•-low and extremel}•-low income uttits <br />than rite proposed Developer Project. (See EIR Appenditi J (updated) [Alternatives Testing: Financial <br />Analysis],'I'able 1, 111ternatives Analysis.) <br />Findings <br />The Agenc}= hereb}• finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations <br />make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. <br />Spe~~it~~~~~ ~~scl~l~~ve, construction of aEEordable housing units is critical to meeting the Guy's <br />ItH~~~gtg~p0~014. The location of the 611 N. Minter Street propert}' at the southeast corner of <br />3-12 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Flndings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />