2011-005 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Rationale. Closing a portion of Sixth Street between Porter and Lacy is not feasible because it would severely limit future transit planning within the City and would be inconsistent with the Transit Zoning Code objective of "providing a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure." Further, street closures are, in general, counter to the policies and design standards contained within the proposed Transit Zoning Code. Maintaining a fine-grained, gridded street network allows for increased pedestrian and vehicular accessibility which serves to disperse traffic throughout the area. In addition, maintaining the existing street grid allows for greater opportunities for future transportation alignments. Similarly, building a single row of new housing along the south side of Santa Ana Blvd. and using the remainder of the land south of this single row of new housing to create another segment of the suggested park is infeasible because it would be inconsistent with the Developer Project objective of "enhancing the streetscape and urban form of the area, particularly along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the construction of new buildings that meet the standards contained in the Transit Zoning Code and that support future transit planning." It would also result in the loss of units that would otherwise be rented to low, very-low and extremely-low income households. Construction of affordable housing units is critical to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for 2006-2014, and the loss of such units would be inconsistent with the City's adopted policy to "maximize affordable housing on Agency- owned properties that is of high quality, sustainable, and available to various income levels." (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006-2014], Policy HE-2.8.) Additionally, the loss of affordable housing units would be inconsistent with 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) and 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). (See Santa Ana Housing Element [2006- 2014].) Further, the City of Santa Ana currently has a shortage of rental units appropriately sized to accommodate families. As stated in the City's 2006-2014 Housing Element, while multiple-family housing comprises 41% of all housing stock within the City, only 13% of multiple family and single-family rental units have three or more bedrooms. It is estimated that 45% of all families who rent have five or more members. This translates into a shortage of 12,000 large family rental units. The Developer Project contains 78 two-bedroom units (two of which are manager units) and 67 three-bedroom units. In addition, the Mercy House project would provide one three-bedroom, five-one bedroom and five two-bedroom units (exclusive of manager's unit) of special needs housing. These units are appropriately sized to meet Santa Ana's identified demographic needs. Reducing the number of units that could be provided by the proposed Developer Project would not further the City's policies relating to the need for rental housing suitable for families Moreover, under Health and Safety Code section 33334.2, in redevelopment project areas, not less than 20 percent of the gross tax increment generated from a project must be used by the redevelopment agency to increase and improve the community's supply of affordable housing. Therefore, the use of funds for community serving infrastructure on the Agency-owned properties must be related and proportional to development of affordable housing. There is no evidence that funds need to construct the community park suggested by the commenter would be proportional to the provision of affordable housing. Without such proportionality, it would be legally infeasible to use the Agency's set-aside funds to construct the park suggested by the commenter. Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-19