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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding ProJeot Alternatives tldditionall}•, in-place rehabilitation and/or relocation and rehabilitation of properties proposed for demolition on Agenc}•-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood are evaluated in Recirculated Draft EIR (Chapter 5.0). SpeciFically, tllternative 4 would eliminate the demolition of the structures currently existing on the Agenc}=-owned properties and/or identified for acquisition, and would instead requite that those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations. Alternati~=e 5 would reduce the demolition of properties owned b}• the Redevelopment Agency and/or identified For acquisition, and would instead require that those properties be rehabilitated, either in-place or off-site, with the exception of the property at G11 N. h•Lintex Street, which would be demolished_ Alternati~=e G would retain and rehabilitate the bungalow court located a[ Gll N. i\iinter Street; however, the remainder of the structures located on the Agency-owned parcels would be demolished. Please see Chapter S.O for additional details about these Alternatives. a Proposed iVIltigation. Creation of a conununit}• park within the Lac}• Neighborhood b} taking the following actions. > Close a portion of Sixth Street behveen Porter and Lacy. Relocate 3 of the ~=image houses on the south side of Sixth Street to other vacant land on Fifth Street. > Build a single row oFnew housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. Use the remainder of the land south of this single row of ne«= housing to create another segment of the park. > Acquire G17 E. Sixth for park purposes. Sah=age the wood components from this structure before demolition. > Presen=e in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter From Jeff Dickman (JD), comment JD-39.) Finding. The Agenc}• Hnds that speciFc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible_ Rationale. Closing a portion of Sixth Street behveen Porter and Lacy is not Feasible because it would severely limit future transit planning within the City and would be inconsistent «•ith the Transit Zoning Cade objective of "providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented deg=elopment framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure." Futthet, street closures are, in general, counter to the policies and design standards contained within the proposed Transit Zoning Code. Maintaining a fine-grained, gridded street network allows for inueased pedestrian and vehicular accessibilit}• which sei~=es to disperse trafFic throughout the area. In addition, maintaining the existing street grid allows for greater opportunities for Future transportation alignments. Similarly, building a single row of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. and using the remainder of the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segment of the suggested park is infeasible because it would be inconsistent with the Developer Project objective of "enhancing the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulez*ard, with the construction of ne~v buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future transit planning." It would also result in the loss of units that would otherwise be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (I2HNA) For 2006-2014, and the loss of such units would be inconsistent with the City's adopted policy to "maximize affordable housing on Agencp- Reg~}{Qg~Q>(gipp_(jpa~ is of high quality, sustainable, and available to ~=arious incotrte levels." (See Pa£eiS~ ®'Et1~Q-lousing Element [200G-2014], Policy I-IE-2.8.) tldditionall}•, the loss of affordable 3-18 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations