Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br />tMGLandscape <br />„ , 10 %Alternatrvke < <br />g rµ5 %AlternatNVU11M tr <br />Characteristic <br />"/ <br />�HistortcrPreserVation)� <br />W,, <br />Topography <br />Retained: <br />Retained: <br />"Topography" itself would not be lost, it <br />"Topography" itself would not be lost, it <br />would not "likely be recognizable as what <br />would not "likely be recognizable as what <br />exists currently." <br />exists currently." <br />Vegetation <br />Lost: <br />Impaired: <br />"The Vegetation the currently exists <br />"The Vegetation that currently exists would <br />would be lost..." <br />be lost." <br />Buildings & <br />Retained: <br />Retained: <br />Structures <br />"The Buildings and Structures -- <br />"The Buildings and Structures - specifically, <br />specifically, the residence - will remain <br />the residence and garage would remain on- <br />on- site; however, its location and <br />site." <br />orientation will be significantly <br />different." <br />Cluster <br />Not addressed <br />Retained: <br />Arrangement <br />`... the residence and garage would remain <br />on -site preserving their Cluster <br />Arrangement; however, their overall <br />setting and relationship with the landscape <br />would be impaired by the construction of <br />additional residences." <br />Views & Vistas <br />Lost: <br />Impaired: <br />... the Views and VisEwould ansition <br />".., the Views and Vistas would transition <br />om that of a pastoric small <br />from that of a pastoral and historic small <br />orange grove to that ential <br />orange grove to that of new residential <br />buildin s and roadw <br />uildin s and roadwa s." <br />URS consultant, Jeremy Hollins, concluded that the "... the Hybrid Development Alternative will <br />not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby <br />causing a significant adverse change to the SARHP- listed resource, which is considered a <br />historical resource for purposes of CEQA." Then, thirteen months later, the same consultant <br />concluded "that the Historic Preservation Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior <br />Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby causing impacts to the SARHP- listed <br />resource as being mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact to the historical resource." <br />Given the comparisons listed above how is that possible? <br />Neither of these Alternatives meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of <br />Historical Properties. The EIR is correct in its findings that the 10% Alternative would result in <br />significant impacts to the historic resource and is appropriately rejected. However, the finding <br />that the 5% Alternative is somehow superior, with half of the land and a third of the trees <br />remaining, which leaves the historic resource even more compromised, is, in a word, bizarre. <br />This misnomer, called the "historic preservation alternative" does nothing to retain the overall <br />character and integrity of the historic property. In addition, even though the 5% Alternative <br />intimates that the family home will be restored, there are no guidelines, a timeline, or any <br />analysis specifically detailing how this "restoration project" will be accomplished. There is simply <br />75A -178 <br />