2010-002 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 F/ndings Regarding Protect AlternatIves Additionally, in-place rehabilitation and/or relocation and rehabilitation of properties proposed fox demolition on Agency-owned parcels witlu:i the Lacy Neighborhood axe evaluated in Recirculated Draft EIR (Chapter 5.0). Specifically, Alternative 4 would eliminate the demolition of the structures currently existing on the Agency-owned properties and/or identified fox acquisition, and would instead require that those properties be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations. Alternative 5 would reduce the demolition of properties owned by 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 611 N. Minter Street, which would be demolished. Alternative 6 would retain and rehabilitate the bungalow court located at 611 N. Minter Street; however, the remainder of the structures located on the Agency-owned parcels would be demolished. Please see Chapter SA for additional details about these Alternatives. ~ Proposed Mitigation. Creation of a community park within the Lacy Neighborhood by taking the following actions: >Close a portion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy. Relocate 3 of the vintage houses on the south side of Sixth Street to other vacant land on Fifth Street. >Build a single row of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. Use the remainder of the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segiiient of the park. >Acquire 617 E. Sixth for park purposes. Salvage the wood components from this structure before demolition. >Preserve 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 Agency Finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Closing a partion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy is not feasible because it would severely litzzit future transit planning within the City and would be inconsistent with the Transit Zoning Code objective of "providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure." Further, 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 increased pedestrian and vehicular accessibility which serves 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 Boulevard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zo:iitig 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 (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the loss of such units would be inconsistent with the City's adopted policy to "maximize affordable housing on Agency- owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels." (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Additionally, the loss of affordable 3-18 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations