2011-005 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives 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. Alternative 6 also affects the fixed ratio of construction costs but does not commensurately reduce construction costs. Specifically, although the total cost of this alternative to the City/Agency would be slightly less than the proposed Developer Project, the cost/unit would be approximately $40,000 higher. (Appendix J (updated).) 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. Finally, Alternative 6 would not meet the objective of the Developer Proposal to redevelop all of the Agency-owned properties, and it would not meet 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. Also, it is unlikely that the City/Agency would be able to attract a quality developer to undertake a small scale scattered site development such as that which would be constructed under Alternative 6. This will seriously constrain the potential for providing economically viable redevelopment. In light of these considerations, the Agency rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3.4.3 Findings on Alternatives that were Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis in the Draft EIR In addition to the six alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Lead Agency considered two other alternatives, both of which it eliminated from detailed analysis in the EIR either because it did not meet most of the basic project objectives, would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the project as proposed, and/or is not feasible. These alternatives are discussed below. ¦ Alternative Site This alternative would use an alternative site from that proposed for the Transit Zoning Code and Developer projects. Findings The Agency hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the adoption of an Alternative Site alternative infeasible. The Transit Zoning Code is designed to guide development near existing and planned transit and is therefore dependant on the location described for the proposed project. An alternative site for the Transit Zoning Code project would not locate development or provide the framework for development near existing or planned transit infrastructure. Therefore, it would not be able to fulfill the basic project objectives of providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure, nor would it encourage alternative modes of transportation, or increase access to the rail system that 3-14 Revised Station District Project and FOL Settlement Agreement Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations