80A - TRANSIT ZONING CODE - FEIR - SUPPLEMENTAL - REPONSE TO COMMENTS

Home Browse Search

Chapter 12 Responses to Comments Received Since Publication of the t=tnal EIR ~I Response to Letter BHLG: Brandt-Hawley Law Group Response to Comment BHLG-1 This comment contains introductory or general background information and expresses the commenter's request that the CitSr Council reject demolition of historic properties in the Station District. The comment is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG 2 This comment contains introductoryT or general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG 3 This comment contains introductor~T or general background information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response to Comment BHLG-4 Comment BLHG-4 references the "feasibility of adaptive reuse of many of the threatened Lacy Neighborhood homes." This comment appears to relate to the Alternatives contained in the Environmental Impact Report that analyzed specific alternatives to the demolition of existing structures that would occur under the proposed Developer Project. Refer to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 in EIR Chapter 5 (Alternatives). The commenter states that the CitSr did not adequately acknowledge the feasibilit<- of such adaptive reuse. The concept of "adaptive reuse" generally refers to the process of converting a structure traditionally occupied by one use, such as a house used for residential purposes, to another use, such as house converted to an office. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 each analyzed scenarios under which the Cit<- would retain existing structures in place and provided for their rehabilitation such that they could be used for residential purposes and not for "adaptive reuse." The properties in question were all purchased using 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment Agency funding. This funding source is restricted in its use and may only be used to support projects which result in the production of affordable housing as defined by State law (Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2). Were the Agency to use these funds for an~T purposes not relating to increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply- of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost, the Redevelopment Agency would be required to make a finding that there is no longer a need in the community- to provide such housing. The Agency has not made such a finding. On the contrary, the City's recently adopted and certified Housing Element details the need for affordable housing the community at all levels of affordability. The scenarios analyzed in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 all were based on the restriction of this funding source to provide for affordable housing and, as such, provided for continued use of the identified structures for residential purposes, specifically for affordable housing. Adaptive reuse alternatives are found to be legally infeasible due to this funding restriction Adaptive reuse would result in nonresidential development which is also contrary to both the City and Agency's policy interest in promoting affordable housing in the Project Area.(Cal fo~nia NatiUe Plant Soczety v. City of Santa Ca~~ [2009] 177 Cal.App.4Th 957; 12-22 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR