2011-005 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Findings The Agency hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the adoption of this alternative infeasible. Specifically, Alternative 5 would reduce the number of residential units by 11 and would increase costs to the Agency by approximately $6.62 million, according to the financial analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for the City of Santa Ana (as updated on May 22, 2010) and included in Appendix J of the EIR. Additionally, this alternative would cost the Agency approximately $56,800 more per unit than the proposed Developer Project, due primarily to the substantial rehabilitation and relocation costs that would be involved in this alternative. (See Appendix J (updated).) This represents a 39% increase in per unit costs. 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. The significant additional cost to the Agency of this Alternative renders it economically infeasible. Additionally, Alternative 5 does not meet the City's policy of "maximiz[ing] affordable housing on Agency-owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels." (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Nor does it go far enough to meet the City's policy 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 its policy 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). (Refer to Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014].) 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-, or 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. Further, under Alternative 5, the proposed park identified in the Developer Project would no longer be included as a project component. The park was one element of several in the overall vision for development of the Agency-owned properties. The selection of Alternative 5 effectively eliminates the ability to construct a park on the block on which it is currently envisioned given that the three structures currently located on the Agency-owned properties within that block would remain under Alternative 5. Finally, Alternative 5 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties. Nor would it meet the objective of providing an economically viable redevelopment scenario for Agency-owned properties, as explained above or 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. In light of these considerations, the Agency rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3-12 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations