2010-002 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Protect A/ternatives Minter Street and Santa Ana Boulevard serves as one of the primary foundations of both the architectural and engineering design of the largest component of the Developer Project. By 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 fox this site and results in a significant reduction of units, all of which would be deed-restricted for long-term affordability. Elimination of 36 affordable housing units from the proposed Developer Project inhibits the City's ability to meet its housing requirements. It also inhibits the City's ability to "maximize affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels" (Policy HE-2.8). (See Santa Ana Housing Element (2006-2014).) This alternative also does not go as far to "encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low and moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-2.3) or to "facilitate and encourage a diversity and range in types, prices, and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, town homes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit-oriented developments, 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 to rehabilitate the existing units contained within the 611 N. Minter Street bungalow court 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. Minter Street are currently configured as studio units. The sleeping area is comprised of a "Murphy-style" fold-out bed and the kitchen facilities are minimal. In addition, the property is severely deteriorated. The most likely rehabilitation scenario, which would require the consolidation of existing units, would result in the creation of one one-bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. This is a much less desirable unit mix than that achieved by the Developer Project. Moreover, the California Legislature has enacted Government Code section 65589.5, the "Housing Accountability Act," which restricts the City's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions, in certain types of residential projects. Specifically, the City may not disapprove a housing development project for very low, low-, ox 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 findings at this time. Therefore, disapproval of the proposed Developer Project is legally infeasible. Alternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately reduce construction costs. Specifically, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency would be slightly less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be approximately $40,000 higher. (Appendix J (updated).) This is a significantly less efficient and effective way to spend the funds available for redevelopment of the Agency-owned parcels than the proposed Developer Project. Finally, Alternative 6 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties, and 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 G. This will seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable redevelopment. Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3_13