2010-002 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Protect 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 several in the overall vision for development of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternative 4 effectively eliminates 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 Alternative 4, and the City/Agency under this scenario would be precluded from acquiring any additional properties. Further, Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties, and, as explained above, it would not meet the objective of providing new affordable housing for families 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 developer to undertake a small scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under Alternative 4. This will seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable redevelopment. In light of these considerations, the Agency rejects this alternative as infeasible. ~ Alternative 5: No Demolition of Agency Properties/Relocate to Agency- Owned Infill Sites/Rehabilitate in Place Description This alternative would elitnitiate the demolition on the fourteen parcels within the Station District currently owned by the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment 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 moved to vacant lots and rehabilitated, with the exception of the property located at 611 N. Minter Street, which would 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 Ana Register of Historical Properties-the Whitson-Powelson House located at 501 E. Fifth Street. The remaii~.ing houses have primarily been the subject of "windshield" surveys to determine 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 City's Historic Resources Commission would evaluate all of the structures to determine their eligibility for 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 Toning Code would remain the same under this Alternative. In total, this Alternative would provide approximately 145 units (approximately 124 rental units and approximately 21 for sale units) on the Agency-owned parcels within the Station District. Of these, approximately 121 units would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households. (See EIR Appendix J [Alternatives Testing: Financial Analysis], Table 1, Alternatives Analysis.) This is the same number of units that would be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households in the proposed Developer Project (Id.) Alternative 5 would also offer for sale 16 low income units, one moderate income unit and four market rate units. Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-11