Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Protect Alternatives <br />housing units would be inconsistent with the City's policy to "encourage the construction of rental <br />housing for Santa Ana's residents and workfarce, including a commitment to very low, low and <br />moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers" (Policy HE-23) and its <br />policy 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). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006- <br />2014].) <br />Further, the City of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to <br />accommodate families. As stated in the City's 2006-2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family <br />housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only 13% of multiple family and <br />single-family rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families who <br />rent have five or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units. <br />The Developer Project contains 78 two-bedroom units (two of which are manager units) and 67 <br />three-bedroom units. In addition, the Mercy House project would provide one three-bedroom, <br />five-one bedroom and five two-bedroom units (exclusive of manager's unit) of special needs <br />housing. These units are appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana's identified demographic needs. <br />Reducing the number of units that could be provided by the proposed Developer Project would <br />not further the City's policies relating to the need fox rental housing suitable for families <br />Moreover, under Health and Safety Code section 33334.2, in redevelopment project areas, not less <br />than 20 percent of the gross tax increment generated from a project must be used by the <br />redevelopment agency to increase and improve the community's supply of affordable housing. <br />Therefore, the use of funds for community serving infrastructure on the Agency-owned properties <br />must be related and proportional to development of affordable housing. There is no evidence that <br />funds need to construct the community park suggested by the commenter would be proportional <br />to the provision of affordable housing. Without such proportionality, it would be legally infeasible <br />to use the Agency's set-aside funds to construct the park suggested by the commenter. <br />Finally, the EIR analyzed numerous alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce impacts <br />to historic resources. (See Recirculated EIR Chapter 5.0.) Specifically, Alternative 4 would <br />eliminate the demolition of existing structures on Agency-owned properties and would eliminate <br />any of the new potential acquisitions identified in Figure 5-2. Therefore, the suggestion to preserve <br />in place 701 and 713 E. Fifth Street is within the range of alternatives already analyzed in Chapter <br />5.0, In addition, CEQA does not require alternatives to individual project components. The <br />suggestions provided in the comment are not considerably different from what is already analyzed <br />in the EIR and would not clearly lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. <br />Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce /mpacts to <br />Transportadon/Traffc <br />~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Add language to the proposed project zoning code that includes <br />measures for planned safety near rail crossings and suggested mitigation measures that include <br />grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail <br />crossings, and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit access of <br />trespassers onto the railroad right-of--way. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), <br />Letter from California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), comment PUC-2.) <br />Finding. The Agency fords that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other <br />considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. <br />Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-19 <br />