Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION 94-021 <br /> <br />AESTHETICS <br /> <br />The Plan would improve the overall aesthetic and visual quality of <br />the Plan area. Cumulatively, the Plan would visually improve major <br />City corridors, thus improving the overall image of the City of <br />Santa Ana. The following mitigation measure will ensure high <br />quality development design. <br /> <br />The Planning and Building Agency shall review all future <br />proposals on a project-by-project basis and ensure that said <br />proposal is in conformance with the performance, development, <br />design and use, landscape design and architectural treatment <br />guidelines and standards contained in the Specific Plan and <br />the Zoning Ordinance, which relates to submission of <br />development plans and architectural review, to ensure high- <br />quality development design. <br /> <br />CULTURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />Though no known historic structures are presently located in the <br />Plan area, there is the possibility that some could be listed in <br />the future. Plan implementation would not result in adverse plan- <br />specific or cumulative impacts to cultural resources. However, the <br />mitigation measure is recommended to ensure that structures and <br />buildings of potential historic significance would be preserved in <br />the future. <br /> <br />Throughout implementation of the Specific Plan, the cityshall <br />continue to evaluate the prehistoric and historic significance <br />of structures and buildings to be affected by proposed <br />redevelopment. If any structure or building is determined to <br />have potential prehistoric or historic significance, the City <br />shall consider placing the structure or building on a <br />historical list or register. <br /> <br />VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THEPROPOSED PLaN <br /> <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of <br />reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan. The EIR evaluated <br />three alternatives to the proposed North Harbor Boulevard Specific <br />Plan. <br /> <br />It should be noted that other more or less intensive alternatives <br />were not considered or evaluated because of their inconsistency <br />with the intent of the General Plan and/or because of their <br />inconsistency with other City policies. For example, alternatives <br />that would include the extensive construction of new housing units <br />along Harbor Boulevard were not considered because such a proposal <br />would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the General <br />Plan and other policies affecting the area. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br /> <br />