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

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 13 TEXT CHANGES Findings on Mitigation Measures and Alternatives Proposed in Comments Received Since the Planning Commission Hearing on May 27, 2010 ¦ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Adaptive reuse of any of the viable Lacy Neighborhood resources. (Letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley, dated June 4, 2010.) Finding. The Cite finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. 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. All Agency-owned parcels within the Lacy Neighborhood were 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 SafetSr Code ~ 33334.2.) Were the Agency to use these funds for any purposes not relating to increasing, improving, and preserving the communityT'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 and cannot make such a finding in light of the demonstrated need for such housing. On the contrary; the City's recently adopted and certified Housing Element details the need for affordable housing the community at all levels of affordabilit~r. The scenarios analyzed in Alternafives 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. Adapfive reuse would result in nonresidenrial development, which is also contrary to both the City and Agency's policy interest in promoting affordable housing in this merged Project Area. (Cal fo~nia Native Plant Society v. City of Santa C~zr~ (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401.) Also refer to the Findings on iVlirigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a further discussion. ¦ Proposed Alternative. Of the 18 structures proposed for demolition (listed in the EIR on 5-1 as 14 demolitions but several parcels have multiple structures), at least 10 should either be rehabilitated in place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the Lacy Neighborhood. Regarding the purchase of an additional 20 properries (listed in the EIR on 3-6 as Potential Acquisitions): there should be a moratorium on additional purchases for 3 months, as these properties have not been inspected; during the 3 month period, cit~T staff should be directed to work with the "Friends of the Lacy Neighborhood" and other neighborhood groups to determine disposifion; at least 10 of the additional properties should be rehabilitated place or, if that is not feasible, moved within the neighborhood; and the rehabilitated structures should be on 5th and 6th street. Addirionally, a rehabilitation pool should be funded based on savings/cost avoidance from avoidance of moving or purchasing some of the properties. (Letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley, dated June 4, 2010.) Finding. The Cite finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR 13-1