2011-005 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Public Services ¦ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Require the application of parkland in-lieu fees in conjunction with development of the project. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from City of Tustin (TUS), comment TUS-2.) Finding. The Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Development under the Transit Zoning Code project and Developer Project is required to comply with mitigation measure MM4.10-5, which requires payment into the Park Acquisition and Development Fund pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV. Over and above the requirement for new development to pay into the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, the Redevelopment Agency is pursuing the acquisition and construction of a range of potential open space amenities within the Transit Zoning Code area, which could include a public park, new community center and a tot lot. Finally, the standards for private open space contained within the Transit Zoning Code are designed to ensure that new development provide open space and outdoor amenities on-site as part of the project design. Consequently, the impact of the project on park facilities is less than significant and no further mitigation is needed. Findings on Mitigation Measures 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 Agency 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 Safety Code ? 33334.2 ). Were the Agency to use these funds for any 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 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 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 this merged Project Area. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cru.Z (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401.) Please also refer to the Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a further discussion. Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-21