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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 8 Flndings Regarding ProJeot Alternatives IVSinter Street and Santa tlna Boulevard sera*cs as one of the primacy Foundations of both the arcltitectural and engineering design of the largest component of the Deareloper Project. B}' eliminating this property from the overall site (identiFied as Rental Lot 1 on Figure 3-7) it forces a significant redesign of the multi-family development project proposed For this site and results in a signiFicant reduction of units, all of which would be deed-restricted For long-term affordability. Eluztination of 36 affordable housing units from the proposed Deareloper Project inhibits the City's ability to meet its housing requirements. It also inhibits the City's ability to "maxinize aFEordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of higlz quality, sustainable, and available to ~*arious income lea-els" (Policy HE-2.8). (See Santa Ana Housing Element (2006-2014).) Z'lis alternative also does not go as far to "encourage the construction of rental housing For Santa Ana's residents and ~a•orkforce, including a conitnitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-2.3) or to "Facilitate and encourage a di~~ersity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-fatnil}' homes, apartments, town homes, nii_sed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented dea=eloptnents, and live/work housing" (Policy HE-2.4). (Id.) In addition to creating infeasibilities due to the reduction in total affordable housing yield, the proposal ro rehabilitate the existing units contained within the 611 N_ I\•finter Street bungalow route would not be consistent with the policies contained in the 2006-2014 Housing Element, which identifies the need to create- rental units appropriately sized For large families_ The existing bungalows at 611 N. Iblinter Street are currently configured as studio units. The sleeping area is comprised of a "14furphy-st}•le" fold-out bed and the kitchen Facilities are tninitnal. In addition, the property is searerely deteriorated. The most likely rehabilitation scenario, witch would require the consolidation of existing units, would result in the creation of one one-bedroom utit and six taa~o-bedroom units. This is a nwch less desirable unit tiix than that achieared b}' the Developer Project. n•toreoa*er, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code secdon 65589.5, the "Housing Accountability Act," which restricts the City's ability- to disapproa-e, or require density reductions, in certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the Cit}' may not disapproa'e a housing deaelopment project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The City- is unable to make any of these Futdings at this time. Therefore, disappcoa'al of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible. Alternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not cotrunensuratel}' reduce construction costs. SpeciFtcallp, although the total cost of tits alternative to the City/Agency would be slightly less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would Ue approximatel}' X40,000 higher. (Appendix J (updated).) This is a sigtificantlp Less eEFicient and effective way to spend the funds available for redevelopment of the Agenc}'-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. Finally, Alternative 6 would not meet the objectiae of thte Developer Proposal to redea'elop all of the Agency-owned properties, and it would not tneet the objective of providing new affordable housing For Fannies in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals to the same extent as the proposed project. Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agenc}' avould be able to attract a quality de~'eloper to undertake a small scale scattered site dew'elopment such as that which would be constructed under Alternative G_ This will seriously constrain the potential For providing economically viable redevelopme t>~. solution No. 2010-024 Page 79 of 130 Transit Zontng Code (SD 84) EIR Flndings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-13