My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-002 CRA
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
2010-2012
>
2010
>
2010-002 CRA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:20:47 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 12:33:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
CRA 2010-02
Date
6/7/2010
Destruction Year
P
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Protect A/ternatives <br />Minter Street and Santa Ana Boulevard serves as one of the primary foundations of both the <br />architectural and engineering design of the largest component of the Developer Project. By eliminating <br />this property from the overall site (identified as Rental Lot 1 on Figure 3-7) it forces a significant <br />redesign of the multi-family development project proposed fox this site and results in a significant <br />reduction of units, all of which would be deed-restricted for long-term affordability. <br />Elimination of 36 affordable housing units from the proposed Developer Project inhibits the City's <br />ability to meet its housing requirements. It also inhibits the City's ability to "maximize affordable housing <br />on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels" <br />(Policy HE-2.8). (See Santa Ana Housing Element (2006-2014).) This alternative also does not go as far <br />to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a <br />commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" <br />(Policy HE-2.3) or to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, <br />including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented <br />developments, and live/work housing" (Policy HE-2.4). (Id.) <br />In addition to creating infeasibilities due to the reduction in total affordable housing yield, the proposal <br />to rehabilitate the existing units contained within the 611 N. Minter Street bungalow court would not be <br />consistent with the policies contained in the 2006-2014 Housing Element, which identifies the need to <br />create rental units appropriately sized for large families. The existing bungalows at 611 N. Minter Street <br />are currently configured as studio units. The sleeping area is comprised of a "Murphy-style" fold-out bed <br />and the kitchen facilities are minimal. In addition, the property is severely deteriorated. The most likely <br />rehabilitation scenario, which would require the consolidation of existing units, would result in the <br />creation of one one-bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. This is a much less desirable unit mix than <br />that achieved by the Developer Project. <br />Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the "Housing <br />Accountability Act," which restricts the City's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions, in <br />certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City may not disapprove a housing development <br />project for very low, low-, ox moderate-income households unless it makes certain findings set forth in <br />Government Code section 65589.5, subsection (d). The City is unable to make any of these findings at <br />this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible. <br />Alternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately reduce <br />construction costs. Specifically, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency would be <br />slightly less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be approximately $40,000 higher. <br />(Appendix J (updated).) This is a significantly less efficient and effective way to spend the funds available <br />for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. <br />Finally, Alternative 6 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the <br />Agency-owned properties, and it would not meet the objective of providing new affordable housing for <br />families in furtherance of the City's affordable housing goals to the same extent as the proposed project. <br />Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency would be able to attract a quality developer to undertake a small <br />scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under Alternative G. This will <br />seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable redevelopment. <br />Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3_13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.