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

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Flndings Regarding ProJeot AlternatNes housing units would be inconsistent with the Cit}•'s polic}• to "encourage the construction of rental housing For Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to vet-y= low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-2.3) and its policy ro "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-fancily homes, aputments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, and live/work housing" (Folic}` HE-2.4). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006- 203 4].) Further, the City= of Santa Ana currentl}* has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to accommodate families. As stated in the City's 2006-2014 I-Iousing Element, while multiple-famil}' housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only- 13% of multiple famil}' and single-family rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families ~vho rent have Fivc or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units. The De~•cloper Project contains 78 t~vo-bedroom units (tcvo of which are manager units) and 67 three-bedroom units. In addition, the Mercy I-Iouse project would provide one three-bedroom, Fic=e-one bedroom and Five two-bedroom units (exclusive of manager's unit) of special needs housing. 'These units are appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana's identified dcmograpluc needs. Reducing the number of units that could be provided b}' the proposed Developer Project would not further the City's policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for Families i\Ioreover, under I-Iealth and Safet}= Code section 33334.2, in redcvcloptnent project areas, not less than 20 percent of the gross tas increment generated from a project must be used by the rede~'eloptnent agency to increase and in~pro~=e the community's supply of affordable housing. 'T'herefore, the use of fiords Eor community set-~•ing infrastructure on the Agency-owned properties must be related and proportional to development of affordable housing. There is no evidence that funds need to construct the cotrununity park suggested b}• the commenter would be proportional to the provision of afFordable housing. Without such proportionality=, it would be legally infeasible to use the Agenc}''s set-aside funds to construct the park suggested by the commenter. Finally, the EIR analyzed numerous alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce impacts to historic resources. (See Recirculated EIR Chapter S.O.) Specifically, Alternative 4 would eliminate the demolition of existing structures on Agency-owned properties and would eliminate any of the new potential acquisitions identified in Figure 5-2. Therefore, the suggestion to presen=e in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Strcct is witlvn the range of alternatives already analyzed in Chapter 5.0. In addition, CEQA does not require alternatives to individual project components. The suggestions provided in the comment arc not considerably different from what is ahead}' analyzed in the EIR and would not clearly lessen the sigt~iFicant environmental effects of the project. FlndJngs on MTtlgatlon Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Tra nsp orta tlon/Traff/c ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Add language to the proposed project zoning code that includes measures for planned safety near rail crossings and suggested mitigation measures that include grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade high~va}*-rail crossings, and continuous vandal resistant fencing or oilier appropriate barriers to limit access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of-wa}•. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Corrunents), Letter From California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), comment PUC-2.) Finding. The Agency Finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Resolution No. 2010-024 Page 85 of 130 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Flndings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Cons(deretlons 3-19