The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01 (SCH# 2008041172), FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; VARIANCE NOS. 2012 -04(A) AND 2012 -04(B) AS CONDITIONED; AND, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE (SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD) — CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY, APPLICANTS �\ \+caw �� ► _ RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: _••:• _r, ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1s` Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2"' Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO Q 0 9-/6 - /s1 FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a revised resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting and certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 (SCH# 2008041172), adopting the mitigation monitoring program, approving variance Nos. 2012 -04(a) and 2012 -04(b) as conditioned, and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned for the property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. PRIOR ACTIONS On February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 (FEIR) (SCH# 2008041172) and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project ('Project'); adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 - 04(b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage for Lot No. 12 as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. See Exhibit A, February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report. On March 4, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing, received extensive public testimony, and, after consideration of all testimony, written and oral, and the administrative record as a whole, unanimously approved Resolution No. 2014 -009, certifying the FEIR and approving the Project, as recommended by the Planning Commission. See Exhibit B, March 4, 2014 City Council Staff Report. 75A -1 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 September 2, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION On March 4, 2014 the City Council took final action on the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orange Orchard development project. The recommended actions, and corresponding resolutions, included a recommendation to adopt a resolution certifying the FEIR, which included the Findings of Fact that were incorporated by reference. The Findings of Fact attached to the Resolution reflect the addition of an alternative analysis, the Historic Preservation Analysis, to reflect the Council's adoption of this alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an updated resolution certifying the FEIR (which attaches and incorporates by reference the findings), and the re- adoption of the underlying resolution granting the entitlements for the project, i.e., the approval of two variances and a vesting tentative tract map. The findings attached to the updated resolution certifying the FEIR summarize the information contained in the FEIR, which the City Council fully considered prior to its adoption of the March 4, 2014 resolution, and make a specific reference to the Findings of Fact as a separate action. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal No. 3 Economic Development, Objective No. 2 (create new opportunities for business /job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies); Goal No. 5 Community Health, Livability, Engagement and Sustainability, Objective No. 3 (facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserve and improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Karen Haluza Interim Executive Direc or Planning & Building Agency VF:rb vf\Tava EIR \Sexlinger RFCA Recertify 9- 2 -14.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report (February 10, 2014) B. City Council Staff Report (March 4, 2014) 75A -2 REQUE s r F' OR lan rifing Cornrin ssic° i n Acdoin lN-ANNING CORIVIISSI1 NwN uWIEE .u'.NNG IDAriz FEBRUARY 10, 2014 'It l rr.E PUBLIC HEARING — FILED BY CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01, VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE Prc:parc -,A by Vince Fregoso EXHIBIT A IPLANRwNII'4G G::OMIAIISSION SECRETARY APPROVE iD I As Recd rirnrended I ] As Arne,nded I-] Se Public, V fearing For DENIED E-] Appll(;ant' =s Requi as,t 1-1 Stiaff Recommendation C;,OINJI I'N I.J E D K) p/y ry t _._........ .... - Ac !ing f a'l')Nn, , anag6e - -- ..._ ................ 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Mr. Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), a variance and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single - family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the certification of the final environmental impact report and approval of the mitigation monitoring program; variances from Section 41 -234, Section 41- 239(g) and Section 41- 1320(b) to allow the Sexlinger farmhouse to remain in its current location; from SAMC Section 41- 237(b) to allow one of the new lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage; and a vesting tentative tract map to allow the subdivision of the five acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. 75A -3 2 Final El No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 2 Project Location and Site Description The subject property is a five -acre, rectangular shaped parcel of land located on East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property contains a single - family residence and detached garage structure that was built in 1914. The site has been unoccupied since about 2006 when the final member of the Sexlinger Family moved from the property. In addition, there are approximately 250 Valencia orange trees on the parcel that have been unharvested for several years. The site is surrounded by both single - family residential uses and Fairhaven Memorial Park to the north, single - family residences to the south and west, and Portola Park to the east (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Project Description Concordia University and Lutheran High School of Orange County, the property owner of the subject parcel, are requesting approval of several entitlements in order to allow the development of the existing five -acre parcel of land. The proposed development consists of the rehabilitation of the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse in its current location and the construction of 22 new single - family residences. A total of 23 lots will be created for the project, with the smallest lot consisting of 6,000 square feet and the largest 10,044 square feet. An average lot size of approximately 6,650 square feet is proposed for the project (Exhibit 4). Three different floor plans are proposed, ranging in size from approximately 2,340 square feet to 2,813 square feet. Each residence will be a two -story, three- bedroom (with an optional fourth bedroom in lieu of a den), two and one -half bathroom home with a two or three -car garage. All units have an additional two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. Three different architectural styles are proposed for the project; Craftsman, Spanish and Traditional. Each style will incorporate unique elements, finishes and materials commonly found within each architectural style. For example, the Spanish style residence will incorporate Spanish style roof tiles and a sand stucco finish, while the Craftsman and Traditional models will incorporate flat roof tiles, sand stucco finishes and decorative wood trim and similar elements unique to each architectural style. Finally, front yard landscaping will be installed prior to occupancy of each unit (Exhibits 5, 6 and 7). Numerous improvements will be made to the site. Eight feet of property along the Santa Clara Avenue frontage will be dedicated to the City to allow the street to be widened to be consistent with the improvements on either site of the parcel. Additionally, Santa Clara Avenue will be enhanced with a 10 -foot wide landscaped setback that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Further, a six -foot high block wall will be constructed around the project perimeter. Traffic calming devices, including curvilinear streets and bulb outs at the north and south end of the Lyon Street project entries will be incorporated into the street design to reduce the speed of traffic and to discourage cut though traffic. Finally, access to Portola Park will be provided via a pedestrian opening at the east end of the new cul -de -sac street. 75A -4 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 3 Project Background The subject site, known as the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, was occupied around 1914 when the Sexlinger Family first located to the property. The Sexlingers used this site as their residence and as a small ranch for oranges until approximately 1980. In 2006, the last of the Sexlinger Family vacated the property. In September 2007, the City received a proposal from Empire Homes to construct a 24 -unit, single - family residential project on the property. A draft environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for this project; however, due to a major shift in the economy, the EIR was never released and the applicant withdrew their proposal in May 2008. In 2010, Tava Development submitted a new proposal for a 24 -unit single - family residential development similar to the Empire Homes project. In response, the consultant that prepared the previous EIR was selected to review and update the EIR document and make modifications as necessary. In October 2011, the draft EIR for the Tava Development was released for public review and comment. Due to significant concerns from the public regarding the document, specifically the Cultural Resources section, the document was revised to identify the property as potentially historically significant and eligible for listing on the City's historical register. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. The Ad Hoc Committee considered various alternatives to demolition, including seeking private financial sources to purchase the site, publicizing the availability of the site and structure, exploring possible sites for the relocation of the building, suggesting that the City purchase the site, and a hybrid alternative that included the construction of 21 units along with the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and some orange trees. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. The 240 -day waiting period ended on February 7, 2013, but a demolition permit was unable to be issued as the City Council had yet to certify the EIR and the appeal period had not commenced. This is not expected to occur until April 2014 at the earliest (Exhibits 8 and 9). On February 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. After receiving public testimony and holding extensive deliberations, the Commission's vote was 3:3, which resulted in an impasse. Per the Commissions by -laws, the Commission gave the applicant the option to either continue the item to a future meeting or move forward to the City Council with a recommendation of denial. The applicant elected to move the project forward to the City Council. 75A -5 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 4 Prior to the City Council public hearing, the City offered to hire an independent mediator so that the applicant and the opposing The Old Orchard Conservancy (TOOC) could meet and hopefully identify a development proposal that would satisfy both parties. Although the groups declined the City's mediation offer, the two parties met on three occasions throughout the summer. At the conclusion of these meetings, it was determined that they were unable to agree on an alternative acceptable to both parties. As a result, the property owner requested to move forward with the entitlements to the City Council. In fall 2013, the City reanalyzed the numerous responses to comment letters received for the development. After careful consideration of these letters, the City decided to prepare a "Response to the Response to Comments" that included an additional alternative that addressed concerns related to the preservation of the historically designated site. This new alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative, slightly differed from the other alternatives in that it studied the preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse at its current location, the rehabilitation of the house to the Secretary of Interior standards, the preservation of existing orange trees on the Sexlinger parcel along with the planting of new trees where dead or missing trees exist, and the construction of 22 new residences. Areas of Controversy During the review of the project, release of the draft EIR and public hearings held for the project, three areas of controversy were identified: The eligibility of the site as a historic resource, the preservation of the property as an orange grove, and cut through traffic. The first area of controversy pertains to the property's designation as a historic resource. The initial release of the draft EIR in 2011 contained a Cultural Resources section that evaluated the property as not eligible for listing on the State or City's Historical Registers. The determination was based on the analysis that, while the property was associated with the development of the citrus industry in the early twentieth century, small citrus operations did not play a significant role in the development of Santa Ana. During the public review period, comments were received from the public requesting a reevaluation of the non - historic determination. In response, the City hired a new consultant to take another look at the project's historic status. In March 2012, the new study also concluded that the property was not eligible for the State register; however, the study noted that the property did appear to be eligible on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties ( SARHP). On April 5, 2012, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) considered placing the property on the SARHP but denied the listing after taking testimony from the property owner and public. However, on June 4, 2012, the City Council overturned the HRC and designated the site as "Key." As a result, the property is considered to be a City historic resource. The second area of controversy is related to the preservation of the site as an orange grove. The property owners, in conjunction with a local homebuilder, originally submitted a proposal to demolish the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and orange orchard and construct a 24 -unit residential 75A -6 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 5 development on a site that has a general plan and zoning designation consistent with the proposed project. In an effort to preserve one of the last remaining original orange groves in the City, The Old Orchard Conversancy (TOOC), in conjunction with several members of the public, have banded together and are attempting to preserve the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. While the property owners and TOOC have had discussions on the potential sale of the property for preservation purposes, no proposal has been formally submitted to the property owner. While the owners intend to build on the site in compliance with the General Plan and zoning designations, the preservation groups remain interested in preserving the last small scale orange grove in the City. The final area of controversy involves the potential for vehicular cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. During the initial public review of the project, the adjacent neighbors submitted a petition against the proposed north -south connection of Lyon Street to Santa Clara Avenue due to congestion and safety concerns. In response to the comments, the project's traffic study analyzed potential cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. The study identified approximately 15 percent of the total traffic generated from the project, or 35 daily trips, could be expected. To minimize potential for cut through traffic, the streets were designed in a curvilinear pattern and "bulb outs" are proposed at the project entries to reduce the amount of cut through traffic and slow the speeds of vehicles that do utilize the Lyon Street extension. General Plan and Zoning Analysis The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LR -7), which allows single - family development at a maximum density of seven units per acre. Development in a Low Density Residential area of the City is characterized primarily by one and two -story single - family homes. The proposed project is consistent with this General Plan land use designation as the proposed density is five units per acre. The subject site is located in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. The R -1 zoning designation allows uses such as one- family dwellings, private greenhouses and horticultural collections for domestic non - commercial use, child care facilities and churches. The project site is consistent with the zoning designation. Proiect Analysis Environmental Impact Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the preparation and approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. The environmental issues analyzed in the EIR included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and 75A -7 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 6 traffic, and utilities and service systems. In accordance with CEQA, a draft EIR was first circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on July 27, 2011 for a 45 -day review period. On August 22, 2011 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. By the close of the 45 -day review period, a total 28 written comment letters and eight verbal comments on the document were received. A significant issue identified in several of the responses pertained to the potential eligibility of the property for listing on the City's historical register. After analyzing the comment letters, staff directed the EIR consultant to revise the Cultural Resources section of the document to reflect the eligibility of the site as a historic resource. On December 1, 2011, the revised Cultural Resources section was circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45 -day review period. At the end of this comment period, an additional 11 comment letters were received. On June 4, 2012, the City Council listed the site as a "Key" property on the City's Register of Historical Properties. In response, the draft EIR was revised to reflect this designation as well as to add a "Hybrid" alternative to the Alternatives section of the document. The draft EIR was recirculated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on November 1, 2012 for a 45 -day review period. On November 13, 2012 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. At the close of the 45 -day review period, a total of 15 written and verbal comments on the document were received. The City has evaluated the comments received from persons or agencies that reviewed the EIR. In accordance with CEQA, each public agency that commented on the draft EIR will be provided with a response to its comments at least 10 days prior to the certification of the EIR. The Responses to Comments document, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR, was originally distributed at the January 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the Findings of Fact have been prepared for the project. The EIR identified one unavoidable adverse impact associated with this project, which pertains to cultural resources. The unavoidable cultural resource impact involves the demolition of the existing residential structure and adjacent outbuilding and the removal of the approximately 250 orange trees as this demolition would result in a significant adverse change due to the loss of a listed resource of the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. As a result of the impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the original 24 -unit project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. However, the Historic Preservation Alternative, which was prepared in December 2013 in response to the Responses to Comments, would result in a project that is environmentally superior to the proposed 24 -unit development and would not require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations since the loss of a historically designated resource would not occur (Exhibit 10). 75A -8 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 7 Selection of Environmentally Preferred Alternative As previously mentioned the Historic Preservation Alternative is similar to the originally proposed project except that it would preserve in place the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and detached garage on a 10,044 square foot parcel at the northwest corner of the five -acre site. The exterior of the structure and garage would be rehabilitated to Secretary of Interior historic preservation standards, and the house and garage would be returned to a single - family residential use and sold as one of the project units. Additionally, existing orange trees on this portion of the property would remain, with new trees planted to replace any dead or missing trees. A total of 22 new single family residences would be constructed on the remainder of the property. The impacts associated with this alternative have been found to be similar to the originally proposed 24 -unit project. For example, impacts related to air quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities would be similar to or less than the original project as one fewer unit is proposed. However, impacts to Cultural Resources would be significantly different as this alternative will prevent the demolition of the residence and garage and preserve them in place. This alternative will result in the rehabilitation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage in its current location and the preservation of orange trees on a new 10,044 square foot lot. The five -acre project site would be changed from an unused residence and agricultural lot into a suburban development with a small orchard and 22 new single - family residences. The property would retain many of its major elements and convey the significance of a property type that was once common but now rare in the City. Through its rehabilitation, the property would receive a compatible new use that would protect and retain the property's character defining features, historic integrity and primary building and accessory structure. Surrounding the Sexlinger residence and garage with historic and in -kind replaced trees would also contribute to the property's ability to convey a specific period, time and agricultural past important to the community. Further, this alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative as it will result in the preservation and rehabilitation of a historically designated structure and a portion of the orchard and will reduce the impacts to a cultural resource to a less than significant impact to the historic resource. As a result, staff is recommending the Historic Preservation Alternative as the preferred project. Variances Variance requests are governed by Section 41 -638 of the SAMC. Variance requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: That there exists a special circumstance related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 75A -9 Final El No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 8 • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variance. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. Variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse The applicant is requesting a variance that will allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location. Specifically, a variance from Section 41 -234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires a front yard setback of 20 feet, from Section 41- 239(g), which requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence, and from Section 41- 41- 1320(b), which requires the residence to provide a two -car garage, are needed. Staff is supportive of the request as the variances will allow the historically designated Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain in its historic setting and context, which are critical components of historic preservation. The property will be allowed to be used as it was historically, with the historic character of the property retained and preserved. Further, by leaving the residence and garage in place, the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. In analyzing the variance request, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. • The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. • The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. 75A -10 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 9 The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. Variance from Lot Frontage Standard The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires lots in the Single- Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback. The applicant's proposal is to have one new lot in the development (Lot No. 12) have 41 feet of lot frontage, which is less than the minimum 50 feet of lot frontage. During the review of the street design for the project, staff determined that the City did not have a "knuckle" standard for curvilinear streets, with the original design insufficient to adequately accommodate turning movements for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles. To address this concern, staff used the County's standard for curvilinear streets, which uses a larger "knuckle" design at street curves. The application of the County's standard impacted the width of the lot fronting the "knuckle." Due to the application of this standard, Lot No. 12 cannot meet the 50 -foot street frontage standard. The lot will be in compliance with all other applicable development standards in the R -1 zone, including lot size and setbacks. In analyzing the variance requests, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. • The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five -acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, the County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum lot width standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the 75A -11 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 10 subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. • The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owner's. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Vesting maps are governed by Chapter 34 of the SAMC and by Section 66498.1 through 66498.9 of the Subdivision Map Act. Vesting map requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: That the proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. 75A -12 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 11 • The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. • The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the vesting map. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. The applicant is proposing a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow the subdivision of the five - acre parcel of land into single - family lots. In order to subdivide the parcel, the proposed subdivision needs to comply with all applicable development standards such as lot size, lot coverage and all appropriate Public Works Agency standards. Based on a review of the vesting tentative tract map, the applicant has submitted a 23 lot project that has been designed to be in compliance with the applicable development standards found in Chapters 34 (Subdivision) and 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Additionally, the proposed streets will be public streets that have been designed to the City's public street standards as well as County standards for the design of the street "knuckle." As designed, the streets will be public streets that will accommodate safety vehicles as well as street parking. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element promotes a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, encourages a variety of residential land uses in the City and development that provides a positive contribution to the neighborhood character (Exhibit 11). • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the single - family residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. Although one lot will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012- 04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. 75A -13 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 12 • The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five -acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single- family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. • No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact associated with this project. • The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from this project. • Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site through the site as the street will be public streets. Public Notification The project site is located within the Portola Park and adjacent to the Meredith Parkwood Neighborhood Associations. There have been several public meetings regarding the project since its submittal to the City in 2010. Staff attended three neighborhood meeting on the project, including two general association meetings on December 9, 2010 and March 17, 2011 to provide the associations with a project update, and a scoping meeting for the EIR on June 1, 2011. Public notification was provided for several Historic Resources Commission meetings for the project, including June 4, 2012, June 28, 2012, October 4, 2012 and January 24, 2013. Finally, the Planning Commission held public meetings on August 22, 2011 and November 13, 2012 to receive public comments on the draft EIR during the public review period of the document as well as held a public hearing on the project on February 11, 2013. From December 19, 2013 through January 17, 2014, the additional analysis to the response to public comments that clarified, amplified or made minor modifications to the Draft EIR after it was circulated for public comment was made available for public review. A total of four comments were received, and a final version of the Additional Analysis, which includes comments and their responses, were provided in a document entitled Attachment to the Environmental Impact Report. 75A -14 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 13 The project site itself was posted with a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice was published in the Orange County Register and mailed notices were sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site. In addition, the Neighborhood Association contacts, as well as all individuals on the City's Permanent Notification List, were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. A notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted to the City's website and Facebook page. On January 17, 2014, the City received correspondence from Jeannie Gillette, President of The Old Orchard Conservancy, commenting on the additional analysis for the development of the Sexlinger site, a letter from Deborah Rosenthal outlining a related court case, and a letter from the Conservancy outlining a preservation alternative for the site (Exhibit 12). Additionally, correspondence was received from Rutan & Tucker, LLP, a law firm engaged to assist the property owners with their development applications. Their correspondence included a memorandum in response to comments received on the proposed development, a shade and shadow study of the proposed development, an arboricultural evaluation of the orange trees, and a memorandum that analyzed the potential closure of the south entrance of the project to public access (Exhibit 13). At the time of this printing, no other contact or correspondence regarding the project had been received. CEQA Analysis As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 75A -15 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 14 This EIR is intended to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the analysis contained in the draft EIR and to provide an opportunity for clarification, corrections, or minor revisions to the EIR as needed. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. Mitigation measures have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources (Exhibit 14). Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) and (b) as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. V F� Vince Fregoso,�AICP Acting Planning Manager VF:jm vRTava EIMSeAnger Project.021014.pc Attachments: Exhibit 1 — General Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 — Land Use Map Exhibit 3 — Site Photo Exhibit 4 — Site Plan Exhibit 5 — Floor Plan Exhibit 6 — Building Elevations Exhibit 7 — Conceptual Landscape Plans Exhibit 8 — HRC Intent to Demolish Final Report Exhibit 9 — HRC Resolution Exhibit 10 — Environmental Impact Report with Additional Analysis Exhibit 11 — Vesting Tract Map Exhibit 12 — Correspondence from The Old Orchard Conservancy Exhibit 13 — Correspondence from Rutan & Tucker, LLP Exhibit 14 — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 75A -16 �+ «... ��Ja1$I U ` ,�-.. FAIRHAVEN ' ezx C71_ 60A1 R _a L i° ]zao If___ __t' fli u^ Al R4 Q fi � � II Jtl 11L I R4 - _ nz is In �uv RN ,. II II Al II p m,avrr `nw CS _ RI 60 -A1 -7200 at -noon Rl„R;1_..T .I _CS..__� i. R1 ppRl e A 5'e � ut iroo � 727 CS `a I R1 4 g S R4 fj O FFFF Al CS;. y � R1 PR ECTsin All T" SFIRPED Rl Aln . _ O -- RI R1 C5 at, O nwrzo 724 nl s 721 Rl Rl,ii - nt nnu 724 ao, R1 CtE 0 ¢ T Pt R1 _ TM ? al m et -e m a ° U. -exry °1 Lv At r i Fs - CS C7 E C2 R R -I� C1 CS 7i- � rT�� t]TH ST a F—, SEVENTEENTH ST. Al G6 LACRWMMLj' CR OCMMEFUALF DMAL RI 9NC FAMILY( DMAL -f3 MM NGMODIRG4110N CC C-0VHdJMRJt� fII M FAMILYI DMM G,%A O MB AL�MAIN Mt UC fFINDUS L fa MUM 0BJ WMUMRE G1 OGMMUNIWMAMMAL M2 HEAVYINDUSIRAL FAMILYR37MM GWD NAKMAMH UMU MDISf MO MIUTARfg6s MS 727 9JBJ NA91RIMBJtS C2 � LOOMM9 AL O OF WAGE. f€. R DMAL6AM 0 (EJTMLWSNE P P FE59 AL m 9 RCD&6_MAM 0-A CBJiRALW9N6SARtI9MALL FCD RANN®CCfA�AMUNIWDEV9.OWMT 9' 9'H.IRCRAN CA RANN®910PPINGD3JIH2 FR) F N®�DeJItALDPIagTRBiT 0 AR ALCOMMMAL El R 2011 -1 NA2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 (& SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD — =500F� 1 1000FEET 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE P L A N N I N G A N 0 B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y �I EXHIBIT 1 UqTY / OA-1 I- y w BEECH WOOD STREET cc Z w 5 I N G w W t� — z a CC R E N C E ASPEN STREET z w O } J ©iii ®9i ®B�i SANTA C L A R A AVENUE r„ w r cc CHURCH LL w cc w — _ PARK w S F. R. w O W AVALON NUE 5 1 L M I Y R 5 C E El 2011 -1 /VA 2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 �& SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD n 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE SY P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75A -18 FINAL EIR NO. 2011 -01 /VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 /VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE EXHIBIT 3 75A -19 I m �Sa m Ill y a rc 2 a '3t cy O Z ¢ Z LU rc LU W F t4l 12 a Oki, W _ ✓zot 1��N �I n vdrr A'n �l I LJ� Lf i s rl m+ , ^ -,» _ „nl3 ^ ^ 75,A -20 . EXHIBIT 4 y C � O Z Z 2 J ' m r _l l 1 ti 1 � � Z 0 W y W 1- y �a � Z Y m 0 n U. t_ z Viz. c- C cc cc °C g - C7 Cad; D LP 2 W O Y (7 _ ✓zot 1��N �I n vdrr A'n �l I LJ� Lf i s rl m+ , ^ -,» _ „nl3 ^ ^ 75,A -20 . EXHIBIT 4 y C � O Z Z 2 J ' m r _l l 1 ti 1 � � Z 0 W y W 1- y �a � Z Y C U W c- C cc cc _ ✓zot 1��N �I n vdrr A'n �l I LJ� Lf i s rl m+ , ^ -,» _ „nl3 ^ ^ 75,A -20 . EXHIBIT 4 y C � O Z Z 2 J ' m r _l l 1 ti 1 � � Z 0 W y W 1- y �a ,r,_ rA ixL =jr- I L L J-11Z ksp 7SAM5 Page 1 a! -T Wilm's NNW 75Age2 2J / / � < m6m } : |, 0A � Gp )j]} �7 2Z �\ f\ \ dl 21 fi Wl�-� O O « ©£ � cJ \/ Js® �)[ ` /\ 2` \\ z ,s,_ $ � \\ t@ $ £a 75 "5 r �7� ® �\\ 75ArZ Ee, $ I \\ ^ ^� J \( �! »� /\ a\ a �) \ Page 4 of 9 -Y Gelb el"s M7,01% JL �� Q —sa Q. a� N�3Yi w Qw ^� a �C E CSEo ro con C m G m U \( $ \( ; 2a /\ /\ ° 7} \ 75ArA" w9 \( 'AT U'll nuts WOW 7 SAS 9, �� \\ \( £a /) 2a w_ �7 a C.n/ / Page \ � \\ � \( «.$ \/ �\ A2 qy � E® $\ A® Du \ � \P O\ «©M ^ Rn £( �E aa- tee` a §@\ ®� Conk\ c0 x bIJ ''-113 elves voZoloz Uz Su�� Q -1+ Qr �� W u � J C dt "J �QFJF a, < - c0 R+ O O Gds d N � c CC q ca ro con . �. . ! IHil () ! \!!( §( ! (! ! ! •,,! , ' q 2 d Iltz J � Q� � 2 9 LW % » f � 3 Q � k V �'. 1] / &0A7 kH$§ 7 }.\ .. _ 1 a, « \ I « L) q \ k \ § L) � k N � k � ) 40 z On § ^) 4 g g gRE S g is H99PI gag 01 °T 5£ q�'�a a -� � °' a tfR RIM R s11 El is 7SA -234 J W a B v D Z < V CL Z r N C4 r T A a amz� azwm 0nas U 'K� Z mxO g y� a LL� o vQ o � a � Q N H U U EWMST' FOR � 1 Historic Ra�sta�t WE �.V:WY rCr .-aC�«I)t^nrT14Essjel1A(.tIfJY1 u_w„ M, r nlsrcx�x.nE SOURC _. cc�v�res.tnnrr:-rtW7uAIr: JANUARY 24, 2013 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING -- FINAL REPORT ON THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CL.ARA AVENUE -- HRD No.2012 -01 Preraared by flally Soboleske 91MMAI J APPROVED III As Reco m ended 1:.:1 As Arno i ded 11 Sot Public t{eruing Fear moinii4t1It mml ... Executive Director Planning Mani RECOMMENDED ED ACTION Receive and file the final report on the intent to demolish the Sexlinger farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Consider a resolution suggesting that the City Council purchase the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Project Location and Site Description The Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is a five -acre property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property is currently owned by the Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (Exhibit 1). Project Background At the June 4, 2012 public hearing, the City Council voted to list the property on the City's historic register (Exhibit 2). Subsequently on June 11, 2012, the property owners applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard (Exhibit 3). Pursuant to Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the Historic Resources Commission must review all applications for demolition permits for historic properties. Section 30 -7 states that the Commission shall investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition. To meet this requirement, on June 28, 2012 at a duly noticed public hearing, the HRC appointed an Ad floc Committee to study potential alternatives to demolition. The Ad Hoc Committee members included Blair O'Callaghan, Patrick Yrarrazaval and Alberta Christy. The Ad floc Committee met on August 7, 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. The Ad floc Committee also met with concerned members of the community (Exhibit 4) on September 26, 2012 to discuss their progress and to obtain input from the community members. A briefing was also held before the FIRC at its October 4, 2012 meeting to provide an update on the status of the investigation and gave the public another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources. %W' 3d HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 2 Analysis of the Issues Whenever an application to demolish a historic property is filed, Section 30 -7 requires the HRC to investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition, which include, but are not limited to: 1) Seeking private citizens, local trusts, and other financial sources who may be willing to purchase the structure for relocation or restoration; 2) Publicizing the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes; 3) Exploring possible sites for relocation of the historic building if on -site preservation is not possible; and, 4) Suggesting to the City Council that the city purchase the structure when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. The following provides a summary of the actions taken to date as a result of the HRC's direction and helpful suggestions from the community. The intent of Section 30 -7(1) is to find alternate funding sources in an attempt to preserve the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard site. As a result, upon receipt of the intent to demolish the structure and with the input of the Ad Hoc Committee and community input, staff identified numerous organizations and funding sources that may be willing to purchase the structure for restoration or relocation. After reviewing the requirements of these organizations, which are identified in the table below, they were found to be either unable to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger site or the site was ineligible per their standards. Funding Resource Name Certified Local Government Outcome Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property National Trust for Historic Preservation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Save America's Treasures Program currently unfunded Preserve America .......... . Program currently unfunded California Cultural & Historic Endowment No funds currently available National Center for Preservation Technology & Training_ Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Humanities Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of propert The Getty Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Preservation Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of propert California Grant Watch Subscription only 75A -36 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 3 California State Parks Foundation Maximum grant available is $6,000 which is too small for its intended purpose California State Land & Water Conservation Total grant funding is too small for intended purpose and requires dollar- far - dollar match Southern California Edison — Energy Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Efficiency Strate is Plan Grant American Recovery and Investment Act of Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property 2009 Department of Energy, Sunshot Initiative Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Air Quality Management District Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of ro ert California Energy Commission Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Orange County Transportation Authority Funds only ublic right-of-way related projects United States Department of Transportation _ Funds only ublic right-of-way related projects State of California, Bicycle Transportation Funds only public right -of -way related projects Account Federal Highway Administration Transportation related projects only American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Transportation related projects only of 2009, Transportation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds only agriculture relief, trade adjustment of of 2009, Agriculture existing farmers, and a uaculture California Department of Transportation, Transportation related projects only Transportation Enhancement Program State of California Rivers and Parkways Related to ublic water systems only State of California Recreational Trails Related to public recreational trails only Program State of California Habitat Conservation Funds wetlands, wildlife, public trails, and natural Fund habitat conservation only Southern California Association of Regional funding — transportation only Governments Compass Blueprint Planning State funding — Urban greening up to $75,000 Program maximum which is too small for intended purposes Federal funding — Walkable communities development only related to urban landscape and does not fund acquisition of pLope Solid Waste grants Recycling efforts only Section 30 -7(2) Publicizing the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. The intent of this section is to publicize the availability of the structure to organizations that have an interest in historic preservation. To meet this standard, staff, in coordination with the property owner, created a single -page flyer that notified the public of the availability of the property and identified a 75A -37 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 4 staff member and the property owner's representative as contact persons. The flyer (Exhibit 5), which was distributed in September 2012, was sent and /or posted to the following entities and individuals with the additional input from members of the community that attended the Ad Hoc Committee meeting: • Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (who subsequently posted on their website) • Orange County Historical Society • City of Santa Ana Website • City of Santa Ana Facebook Account • City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook Account • OC History Roundup Blog (who subsequently posted on their website) • The Orange County Community Foundation • The Nature Conservancy • The Wildlands Conservancy • The Conservation Fund (Laguna Beach field office) • Old Orchard Conservancy • "Inside the Outdoors ", Orange County Department of Education • Rancho Santiago College • Irvine Valley College • California State Polytechnic University, Pomona • California State University, Fullerton • Discovery Science Center • Historic French Park (Debbie McEwen, President) • All Ad Hoc Committee attendees Whenever possible, parties were also notified by phone. Follow -up outreach was also made to each of these groups prior to this HRC public hearing. As of January 15, 2013, staff received no calls and /or emails regarding the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. Further, the property owner's representative received one phone call related to the flyer, which was from a real estate broker seeking land for potential development. Section 30 -7(3) Exploring possible sites for relocation of the historic building if on -site Preservation is not possible. This code section involves identifying potential sites for relocation of the structure. To date, no private individuals or organizations have contacted the City or the property owner with sites that could be used for relocation of the building. In addition, staff from the Planning Division and Community Development Agency identified eight pieces of property owned by the Successor Agency that could accommodate a house move -on. However, the lots are unavailable due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and unresolved issues with the State Department of Finance. 75A -38 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 5 This section considers the City purchase of the Sexlinger site as a means to preserve it as a historic resource. Although it is not required, the HRC may suggest to the City Council that the Sexlinger site be purchased by the City. Should the HRC wish to suggest this course of action, a sample resolution is attached for your consideration (Exhibit 6). Assuming the current processing schedule for the project, if the HRC adopts the attached resolution, the City Council would then need to consider taking action on the potential purchase either prior to or concurrent with, the regularly scheduled Council meeting of March 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Council is scheduled to consider the tentative tract map and lot width variances associated with the proposed development of the site, as well as the certification of the Draft EIR. Summary and Next Steps: Once the requirements of SAMC Section 30 -7 are complete within the required 240 days from the date of application submittal, or at the conclusion of the environmental review period, whichever is longer, a demolition permit must be issued. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall provide, to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission, and at the applicant's sole cost, complete photo - documentation of archival quality and historical profile of the structure to be demolished, prior to the scheduling of the demolition. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), tract map and variance necessary for the residential project to be approved will be considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on February 11, 2013. The Planning Commission's recommendation for the project, along with the discretionary application, will go to public hearing with the City Council for consideration on March 4, 2013. Public Notification The subject site is located within the Portola Park neighborhood. The president of this Neighborhood Association was notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing, and a notice was published in the Orange County Reporter. A notice was posted on the subject site, and public notification was provided to all those property owners and tenants with in a 500 foot radius, as well as those who requested to be placed on the permanent notification list for the project. At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or electronic, had been received from any members of the public. 75A -39 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 6 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended actions are exempt from further review under Section 15331. This Class 31 exemption is applicable as these actions are designed to preserve historic resources, A Categorical Exemption will be filed for this project. Rally SoboJ ke Associate Manner HS:jm hsWstodo Infob12412HRDUlfd1$01 IntentToDemolish.hrc Attachments: Exhibit 1 — 500 Foot Radius Map Exhibit 2 — Department of Parks and Recreation Form Exhibit 3 — Notice of Intent to Demolish Exhibit 4 - Members of the community present at the HRC Ad Exhibit 5 — Notice of Availability Flyer Exhibit 6 — Resolution 75A -40 I Vince Fregos Principal Planner Hoc Committee meeting HRD--2012-01 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY mm 75A-41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 NAME Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard REF. NO. ADDRESS 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave. CITY Santa Ana Zlp 92705 ORANGEGOUNTY YEAR BUILT 1913 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Key HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Portola Park CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 5 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE I 5S1 Location: ❑ Not for Publication ® Unrestricted ❑ Prehistoric ® Historic ❑ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Craftsman Bungalow Closely related to the English Ads and Crafts Movement, American Bungalow /Craftsman architecture was popularized by The Craftsman magazine and architects such as Chades and Henry Greene of Pasadena. It drew from the wood building traditions of Japan and Switzerland as well as the medieval themes favored by the Arts and Crafts philosophers, Craftsman architecture stressed honesty of form, materials, and workmanship, eschewing applied decoration in favor of the straightforward expression of structure. A new appreciation of nature was evident in horizontal lines that reached out to embrace the landscape and the incorporation of capacious porches into building plans. Primarily a residential style, Craftsman architecture can be Identified by low pitched gable and hipped roofs with exposed rafters and beams in deep overhangs; wood lap or shingle siding and an occasional use of stucco; extensive use of stone or brick as a secondary material; horizontal emphasis apparent in roof lines, headers, and battered porch supports; and broadly proportioned wood framed windows, often clustered in bands. Craftsman homes were built from circa 1902 until the early 1920s (McAlester, 453 -463). SUMMARY /CONCLUSION: The Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is substantially intact as a rural /agricultural landscape with a Craftsman Bungalow and Valencia orchard in proximity. The site as a whole portrays a significant period in Santa Ana's history, and Is associated with a business and use that was once common, but is now rare. The site is eligible for the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties as Key under Criterion 6. EXPLANATION OF CODES: . California Reolsler Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7, 'How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources; September 4, 2001.) 3: it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. . California Register Status Code: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, December 8, 2003.) 1551: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 75A -42 State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Primary /1 P- 30.179!190 __- Trinomial NRI4P Status Codl Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 17 "Resource Name or it: (Assigned by recorder) 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue P1. Other Identifier: Sexlinger Orchard "P2. Location: O Not for Publication IM Unreslrlcted "a. County: Orange amt (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Allach a Location Map as necessary.) 'b. USOS 7.6' Quad Orange Date 1974 T 5S; 12 9W; NIA '/. of N/A _ V. of See 5; B.M. MD c. Address 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave City—g2 nta Loa —Zip 92705 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and /or linear resources) Zone 11, 421730 mE/ 3736573 mN o. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel e, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APNs: 396. 052 -43 and 396 -052 -44. The specific project location is bounded roughly by East Santa Clara Avenue to the north, Podola Park on the east, East Avalon Avenue on the south, and Concord Street on the west. 'P3a. Doscriptiom (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This property was previously recorded in 2008, and assigned P -30. 179880. The 5 -acre property is an historic -age orchard landscape of which the major features include the remnants of a Valencia orange orchard, a residence, and a garage (McClelland el al. 1989, Revised 1999:15.18; Dolan 2009:180). The land has been historically used as an orange orchard since c. 1913, when it was likely planted by Perry Grout, and as the Sexllnger family's residence and orchard from 1914 to 2006. The boundary of the landscape is demarcated by the boundaries of the 5-acre parcel occupied by the SeAnger family for 90 years. The landscape's spatial organization is very simple Win only two clusters of land uses: residential (the residence and garage) at the northwest corner of the parcel adjacent to a main thoroughfare, Santa Clara Avenue, and the orchard that fills the remaining northeast portion of the parcel. SEE CONTINUATION SHEET ^P9. Date Recordod: December 2011 131). Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) )rchard Landscape - HP 33 'P4. Resources Prosent: NBUilding ©Structure 70bject ©Site ❑District 1DElement of District Mother (isolates, etc.) Orchard Landscape 1611b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession!!) Vlewof Xchard. November 2011 '139. Date Constructed /Age and Source: 01-lisloric Prehistoric ❑Both 1913 (orchard) 1914 (residence) (per Heumann and Howell - Milo 2007 and Padon and Marvin 20081 1137. Owner and Address: Private 1138. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) URS Corporation 4225 Executive Square Suite 1600. San Diego, CA. 92037 "1310. Survey Type: (Describe) Desktopinvesfigalion "1311. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none. ") Supplemental Technical Memorandum - Cultural Resources Eligibility Assessment of 1584 P. Santa Clara Ave Santa Ana California TAVA Development Comnanv Project December 2011. *Attachments: ❑NONE []Location Map MConfinuation Sheet ®Building, Structure, and Object Record DArchaeological Record 13Disfricl Record DUnear Feature Record Willing Station Record DRock Ad Record OAdifaet Record LIPholograph Record ElOther (List): DPR 623A (1196) *Required information 75A -43 DPR 623A (1/99) 75A -44 ARequired hiformallon t,/ agg gg INAIN/ F/F yo/ I mI //, t,/ z 0 �w� sri o. Of n 0 �tfl 1, , I t,' ME Poll I I I Al —ai 75A-45 c 0 (L V 75A -46 a O T3 ro w° s ro u• v u> o� Q M N N K d 1> June 11, 2012 Ms. Karen Haluza, AICP Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 42702 SUBJECT: Application of Intent to Demolish Historic Property RE: Sexiinger Property, 1584 lost Santa Clam Avenue Dear Ms. Haluza; The purpose of this letter Is to formally notify the City of Santa Ana that it is the Intent of the legal property owners to demolish the residential structure and to remove the existing trees, This application notice is provided in accordance with Section 30.7 (a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Also Included with the letter are a completed Building Permit Worksheet and a check in the amount of $462,60, payable to the City of Santa Ana, This amount was provided by Principal Planner Vincent C. Fregoso. Your attention to this letter Is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact our consultant, Robert Odle, at 714.401 -9231 or odleassodatesC!aaol com. , Sincerely, rdim- Kevin n Tilden Concordia University Executive Vice President for Finance Chief Financial Officer Enclosures 1 n•v.,lnpini l W�u•, 1 hnwialrL . nud 1'.idh!•nb: d t'qi: •nv &1-40"x- t4tc' Emmalee Noble Lutheran High School of Orange County Chief Financial officer liln<o•un Ji.,!5Ht ..., IiyadiU,e . un..d,.„ 07 .l Jdwu' •u..11 ?IN W NQQNpk NE 0 T E n o fy -j X W rD 0 A: E -i 0 E Ud E a 0 E 8 Ix 81 0 0 0 0 00 E 0 -g 00 0 -x Z W rn > � W UJ m w , v 0 Z A 6 o -6 0 -6 '" ' c OCUUUUU O w m m m m m EPPP"272 a c c Eamm .cm 2m<<<qc 4 �2 0 0 U U 2 >O0000mwmmm m (AN U) U) 0 0 0 F FL- 0 cc 0 c 2 w c m m -0 c c w w E E f a E E 00 E 0 (L w E E 0 H-2 1 : �? 8 w 0 w 11 0 2 I MW a o P 8 a. m IL 5 U) co y 2: y 0- 0 o 02� q) M m'mOmU E'S ZZ 9 1> . b US E n m I 8 1. w c 7FU z ca V) 0) , � ffi 2 0. CD 5x 0 VT L 0 E T u 0 0 E Ic a' E v Z 2 8) , 0 o 0 0 w c 0 M= c sg,lc�m8o a v wgyU o c E 'M �d 0 U) o o 0 o c 0 Q. 75A-48 I < < LD 0 7 > 'MwEnL" 008 0 0 S 0 SAS 0 0 V 0 VT L 0 E T u 0 0 E Ic a' E v Z 2 8) , 0 o 0 0 w c 0 M= c sg,lc�m8o a v wgyU o c E 'M �d 0 U) o o 0 o c 0 Q. 75A-48 I 641, , Notice of Availability-of Histnric i'ro�erty qgW Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse The Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse is a 5 -acre piece of property located at 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. The orchard and farmhouse were recently placed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties by the City Council. The owners of the property, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, were donated the property by Martha Sexlinger with her intent that it be sold for housing development and that the proceeds be distributed to these Christian schools to benefit their ministry. As such, these recipient owners disagreed with the historical listing of the property and have submitted a Notice of Intent to demolish the orchard and farmhouse in order to clear the property for future development. Pursuant to Section 30.7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the City of Santa Ana must explore ways to preserve the property including publicizing the availability of the property, in whole or in part, for sale or, in the case of the house, for sale and relocation. The City of Santa Ana does not own this property and sloes not have any discretion or right to participate in negotiations pertaining to the sale of either the farmhouse or the orchard. Should the orchard or farmhouse be sold, the City would work with subsequent owners to ensure that the historic preservation of the property is upheld. The deadline to submit offers to the property owner is January 15. 2013. For more information about the property go to: httpJJwwwsar ka na.urg t bafplanriinl;[, Sexli�;errarmtiousearidorchar'd asp,. For more information please contact: Owners Representative Mr. Robert H. Odle Odle & Associates LLC (714) 401 -9231 odleassociates(aol..com City Representative Mr. Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana (714) 667 -2713 vfre ,os_o r+�santa- arl�r.or , 75A -49 Date published: September 5, 2012 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 ROH — 01/24/13 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SUGGESTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY PURCHASE THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE, SANTA ANA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Sexlinger Property is rectangular in shape, approximately five acres in size, and includes a 1,350 square foot Craftsman -style farmhouse and a Valencia orange grove of approximately 250 trees. The residence was constructed in 1914 by Perry V. Grout, but was sold shortly thereafter to George and Sophia Sexlinger. Members of the Sexlinger family resided in the home until 2006. B. The legal description for the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. C. On June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger property, located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, Santa Ana, on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties, D. On June 11, 2012, the owners of the Sexlinger property, the Concordia University Foundation and the Lutheran High School of Orange County, applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard on the property. E. Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires that the Historical Resources Commission review all applications for demolition permits for historical properties, and investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition. F. SAMC Section 30- 7(a)(4) presents the alternative that the Historic Resource Commission suggests to the City Council that the city purchase the property when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. 7fA1EU0 Resolution No. 2013 -01 Page 1 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 Section 2: The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby urges the City Council that the city purchase the Sexlinger Property. After consideration by the Historic Resources Commission Ad Hoc Committee, it was determined that neither private preservation nor relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timeline available. Our urging is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Staff report and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony and correspondences, particularly the letter from Steve Ray dated January 24, 2013, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 24" day of January 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney ZA BI " O'Callaghan Vice Chairman AYES: Commission members: Bustamante Christy Hitterdale Morfin O'Callaghan, Yrarrazaval (6) NOES: Commission members: None (0) ABSTAIN: Commission members: None (0) NOT PRESENT: Commission members: Schaefer (1) 75A -51 Resolution No. 2013 -01 Page 2 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2013 -01 to be the original resolution adopted by Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 24, 2013 Date: ' 17— % /'I(F L,GYU -�� `2 (omission Secretary City of Santa Ana 75A -52 Resolution No. 2013 -01 Page 3 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURUSANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN Address Owner Names Legal Description 396- 052 -14 1584 East Santa Clara Concordia CHAPMAN TR LOT BLK A Avenue University E1/2 N 10 AC W 50 AC S Foundation and 210.27 Lutheran High School of Orange County Exhibit A Resolution No. 2013 -01 Page 4 of 4 75A -53 January 24, 2013 City of Santa Ana Historic Resources Commission Re: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana is tasked with the responsibility to identify, investigate and suggest alternatives to the proposed demolition of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. The property has been designated as historic by the Santa Ana City Council. The hearing before the Historic Resources Commission will be held on January 24, 2013. The Staff Report for the HRC hearing recommends that the commission suggest that the City buy the property to preserve it. The Old Orchard Conservancy supports this recommendation. In support of the recommendation the Conservancy offers five potential scenarios through which the City may engage in the purchase and preservation of the property. This list of scenarios is certainly not exhaustive but should provide formative discussion on the potential methodologies to acquire the property. 1) City Purchase and Preservation. The City could purchase the property and through appropriate city agencies /departments plan and execute a preservation plan for the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. The Old Orchard Conservancy and other community groups could support and assist in the preservation process. 2) City Purchase and Private Restoration and Management Under this public /private partnership, the City would purchase the property and contract with a private non -profit entity (the primary candidate being The Old Orchard Conservancy) to restore and manage the property. The contract partner would create a vision plan and a master plan to be approved by the City, perform restoration of the orchard and rehabilitation/renovation of the farmhouse, develop community and education programs, manage and maintain the site and acquire necessary funding for all these activities. A successful model for this scenario is the Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Beach, a public- private partnership between the City of Huntington Beach and the Friends of Shipley Nature Center. 3) City Put-chase with Private Buyout This scenario would closely mirror the scenario in Scenario 2 above with the additional provision that the City would, after the purchase of the property, contract with the private non -profit entity to acquire funds and purchase the property from the City at some future time specified in the agreement between the parties. 75A -54 4) City Loan to Private Entity for Purchase Given the relative brevity of time to purchase and preserve the property, the City could make a loan to a private non - profit partner for purchase of the property by the private entity with a lien held by the City until the loan is repaid. Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. 5) Private Entity Purchase with City Loan Guarantee This scenario would enable the private non -profit partner to acquire the property through traditional mortgage financing with the City guaranteeing the loan to the lending institution. The private partner would acquire funds to repay the loan per the terns of the financing agreement. Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. Other possible variations on any of the above scenarios and additional unenumerated scenarios may also be explored and discussed between the City and the private non -profit partner. As timing is of the essence, discussions should begin forthwith. The Old Orchard Conservancy is committed to preserving, restoring and managing the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse, and if possible, to acquire it. This last remaining intact family - owned orange orchard in Orange County needs to be preserved and used to benefit the public. This old orchard is not only a valuable historic asset for the City of Santa Ana, but it can also be a valuable economic and educational benefit to the community. The Old Orchard Conservancy requests that the Historic Resources Commission strongly suggests that the City purchase the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse and also propose that the City Council consider the above scenarios as the means to achieve the realization of this valuable historic asset. Thank you Steve Ray Board Member The Old Orchard Conservancy 75A -55 The complete Environmental Impact Report is available at the Planning Division public counter and on the City's webpage at http://www.santa- ana.org /pba /planning /documents /sexlinger /Sexiinger Orchard Final EIR.pdf Also, the addition analysis that was prepared in December 2013, the response letters and the responses to the letters from January 2014 is also available at the Planning Division public counter and at http: / /santa- ana.org /pba /planning /documents /Sexlinger0rchard AAforRTConDEIR 0130 14.pdf 75A -56 EXHIBIT 11 m 3�. ylj: e m o o' s, Z3sg ¢ ❑ �� I N ia WWI' z ❑ r - o_ - O ,r " of W „ - .tea a ¢ i J F. LU ¢ zcc 2 _ _ �a r -�r r,1Nrnv m m f - sercnr ro7 n re rw ictrr� ro� r snore W o y I C n n✓O�a UG dLl NLI(1MPd !n -' J In "w<< �� y ✓.v dru I � � f 3 i 1 /' ']9Aa�i _.. ene O ;'ro . 111. u i, 75A -57 EXHIBIT 11 46 # 04ift % 10 1p p y^` 4f Ale I'hu• Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bansley Vice - President Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Nick Spain "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchaid located in Santa Ana. California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educational resource for all. (7'14)296 -4642 P. O. Box 10038 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0038 Con servInCy January 17, 2014 Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex PO Box 1988, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail: vfregoso@santa- ana.org RE: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project, Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008041172) Dear Mr. Fregoso, After reviewing the Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue dated December 19, 2013, The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) continues to oppose the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project (formerly known as the TAVA Development Company Project, SCH# 2008041172) as it continues to propose inadequate alternatives for preservation. The following outlines our concerns with regard to the Additional Analysis. The staff's latest alternative to be included in the EIR is referred to as the "Historic Preservation Alternative "(HPA). Let's first review what the historic designation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is. The June 4, 2012 historic property designation by the City Council, which overturned an earlier decision by the Historic Resources Commission, defined the historic property as the intact family residence and five -acre orchard. The distinction between an orchard - residence designation and a residence -only determination has all along been a crucial element of the understanding among the Conservancy and city staff. Including the full landscape of the Sexlinger Orchard Complex as a "Key" historical vvvuvv,O4dOrc hard Cons ervancymor T he i..Ykf1,vrvavlcy! Page 2 property establishes a precedent for the city of Santa Ana. This understanding is reaffirmed in the Technical Memorandum describing the HPA when it states, "... the Sexlingerorchard [emphasis ours] is considered a historic resource under the SARHP for the purposes of CEQA." The consultant's understanding and use of various National Park Service publications and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards) is the basis for their arguments that reduce the designated historic property from five acres to 10,044 square feet. That their proposals of the restoration of the structures and the retention of a few orange trees can be considered adequate mitigation of recognized adverse impacts "to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource" is without merit. The HPA lists a series of the rehabilitation standards put forth by the Secretary's Standards, some of which the Conservancy believes do nothing to address the impacts of the essential demolition and destruction of the orchard itself and others which, based on the description of how this alternative will be implemented, will not occur at all. Example: "A property will be used as it was historically." Based on the detailed description of this alternative, the use of the property will be as a standard residential property without any reference to use in it's true historical context, that of a family farm complex. Remember, this property is an original five -acre, family owned, commercial orchard. not a remnant. The HPA invokes CEQA guidelines from the standpoint of defining substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. They sight "substantial adverse change" as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource." Examples of adverse impacts acknowledged in the HPA include "... a large portion of the [orchard] network would be lost" and that under the HPA the "natural systems and features" of the land would not be "recognizable as what exists currently." Additionally, the "overall setting and relationship with the landscape would be impaired by the construction of additional residences." It is acknowledged that the HPA would result in the loss of the spatial organization of the historic site and the "extant landscape would undergo significant change as the vast majority of the orange trees of the project site would be removed." Given these expected impacts of the proposed project we see no way that the HPA can retain the historical integrity, significance and overall character of the historic resource. The remaining 10,000 square feet will, in our view, not adequately convey the scope of the historical Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Furthermore, the Conservancy cannot, in any way, consider this proposed alternative as being a mitigation plan which will reduce adverse impacts to a "level less than significant." We feel that our proposed 50/50 development /preservation alternative is much more in keeping with the true intent of the Secretary's Standards by allowing enough acreage to retain the historical integrity of the "property's location, feeling, and overall character." a+vww.0nd0" ,cliardCoriservaticy.org 75A -59 " (onsexvancy, Page 3 An alternative, very similar to ours, is now recognized by the State of California as "standard mitigation" in issues involving development proposals where historical, cultural, agricultural or environmentally sensitive landscapes are involved. (Masonite v County of Mendocino et al., DJDAR 9784). You will also find letters attached that you have received in the past from, both, our attorney and the Conservancy, outlining the Masonite case and our proposal for a true preservation alternative. We appreciate the opportunity to have this letter and attachments included in the staff report for the February 4, 2014 City Council meeting. Sincerely, �; � ,i iii.. Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 2014_0107_E IR_Response_pdf Enclosures cc: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Miguel Pulido, Mayor Sal Tinajero, Mayor Pro Tern Vince Sarmiento Michele Martinez Angelica Amezcua David Benavides Roman Reyna wexvw.Od0rc hard Cori servancy.org 75A -60 August 21, 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Vincent C. Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency P.O. Box 1988 M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Email: vfregoso @santa- ana.org Re: Sexlinger Orchard Project Dear Mr. Fregoso: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main Fax www. s h e p pa rd m u l l) n. co m 714.424.2821 direct . drosenthal@sheppardmullin.com File Number: 0010- 174415 In prior correspondence with the City Planning Commission, the Old Orchard Conservancy objected to the failure of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Project to consider any preservation alternatives. Since submitting comments, the Conservancy has identified two potential alternatives that would preserve the historic Farmhouse in situ, as well as a substantial portion of the Orchard. Both of these alternatives allow for economically feasible residential development of the property, although at a reduced number of units from that proposed by the landowner. The alternatives also call for single -story homes, which are more compatible with the character of the Orchard and address some of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, The Conservancy would also like to bring to your attention the recent decision in Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 DJDAR 9784. Copy attached. This case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is intended to effectuate. P. 9791. Section 815 of the Civic Code recognizes that "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California." P. 9791, The Sexlinger EIR determined that no mitigation was required for impacts to agricultural resources because the Orchard is located in an urbanized area. However, in areas where lands have not been surveyed, CEQA Section 21060.1(a) defines "agricultural land" as land meeting the requirements of "prime agricultural land" under Section 51201 of the Government Code. 75A -61 • • • 1 �1 " 1 FBI City of Santa Ana Planning Department August 21, 2013 Page 2 Section 51201 defines "prime agricultural land" to include land with prime soils and orchards that normally produce more than $200 per acre. Although the Sexlinger Orchard was removed from production by its current owners, it contains unusually high - quality soils and produced citrus at economic levels for more than a century. See Section 51201 (copy attached) and Stivers Report (previously submitted). Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for loss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be an agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2.5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed in 1 of the alternatives identified by the Conservancy. Evidence collected by the Conservancy demonstrates that continued use of the Sexlinger Orchard for citrus production is possible due to its high - quality soils, making agricultural use both legally and economically feasible. Masonite also clarifies the City's obligation to adopt conditions that avoid or reduce impacts to the Farmhouse and Orchard as mitigation for impacts to these historic resources. Preservation of the designated resources in their original configuration is legally feasible and must be required of the developer, unless it is shown to be economically infeasible. In this case, the property has significant economic value with retention of both the Farmhouse and the Orchard, requiring their preservation under CEQA. The Conservancy looks forward to meeting with you to outline the alternatives they have identified and to discuss any other questions you may have about their commitment to preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Very truly yours, Z f/ Borah M. Rosenthal AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LP SMRH:409959605.1 Enclosures cc: Ms. Jeannie Gillett Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Ryan Hodge, Esq. Mr. Robert Odle Mr. Steve Ray Mr. Nick Spain 75A -62 9784 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW I " The Comity failed to adopt adequate measures to mitigate significant impacts from truck traffic along a private road associated with the Project Environmental impact report And &Wally that the EIR failed to adequately for quarry project should not evaluate Project alternatives. have been approved because it We agree with Masonite's contentions did not mitigate loss of prime involving: recirculation for comment on possible" farmland on property, mitigation measures that can protect the Frog; the infeasibility of agricultural conservation easements and in -lieu fees; discussion of cumulative impacts on farmland; and mitigation Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784 measures for truck traffic. Accordingly, we, reverse the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, with directions that the County set aside its certification of the EIR, and prepare ' and circulate a supplemental EIR that addresses MASONITE CORPORATION, the errors we identify. Petitioner and Appellant, I. BACKGROUND V. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et al., Defendants and Respondents; The Project is a sand and gravel quarry to be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one GRANITE CONSTRUCTION mile north of Ukiah. The site is bordered on the COMPANY, north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the Real Party in Interest and Russian River, on the south by property owned by Masonite, and on the west by Kunzler Ranch Respondent. Road. Most of the site is cultivated as a vineyard, i No. A134896 with an open space portion in the northeast and a (Mendocino County Super. Ct. truck maintenance shop at the northwest corner. Forty-five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified No. SCUK CVPT 1056883) California Courts of Appeal as "prime farmland' but the site has been zoned First Appellate District for industrial use since 1982. It is surrounded by lumber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek, Division Three Filed July 25, 2013 a agricultural land to the east of the Russian River, Masonites industrial property to the south (described as "vacant" on area maps), and CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* industrial and commercial properties to the west ' Granite plans to extract 3.37 trillion tons of aggregate from 30.3 acres of the site over a 25. ' Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 @) and 8.1110, this opinlm is cerntted for publication with the year period. The mine is designed to operate year- round, six days a week, 14 hours a day.' exception of parts H.B., Q.D., BE,, and IIB The mining will be done in phases to allow for concurrent site reclamation, and five years i of reclamation are planned after the mining Masonite Corporation ( Masonite) appeals operations are complete. Following reclamation, from a judgment denying its petition for writ of the northwestern portion of the property will be mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino available for future industrial uses, and the rest of County (County) of the Ktwler Terrace Mine the site will be "open space (ponds)." '- Project (Project) to be developed by Granite Granite submitted an application to the Construction Company (Granite•, Granite and the County for approval of a conditional use County are hereafter referred to collectively as permit and reclamation plan for the Project in . respondents), and the final environmental impact February 2008. The County determined that report (EIR) for its Project, for failure to comply an environmental impact report was required, with the California Environmental Quality Act solicited comments from government agencies (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). in April 2008, and noticed preparation of a draft Masonite argues the approval process and environmental impact report (Draft) in October. the EIR were deficient in several ways. The The Draft was released for public and agency County was required to recirculate the EIR review in September 2009. Among those who because the Project as approved had significantly commented critically on the Draft and the Project greater impacts than the one originally proposed. were SCS Engineers on behalf of Masonite, and Recirculation was also required because the Russian Riverkeeper, an organization dedicated ' EIR disclosed a new significant impact on the to protection of the Russian River environment ' Foothill Yellow - Tailed Frog (Frog) that was not The EIR was released for review on May adequately mitigated. The County erroneously 3, 2010, . The EIR identified two significant and - determined that conservation easements and in- unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent 4 lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the loss of prime farmland, and traffic problems that + i; loss of prime farmland "due to the Project. The would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came ' EIR did not adequately analyze the Project's before the County Planning Commission on May i. cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. 20, 2010. After considering public comments, i �1 4�'uv1Y 75A -63 Monday, ,July 29, Moss Daily Appellate Report 97$5 including those on behalf of Masonite, the Planning Commission certified the EIR and approved the Use permit and reclamation plan, The Planning Commission adopted a statement of overriding considerations noting, among other things, that the Project would provide "a reliable 20 -year supply of construction aggregate in the Mendocino County area." . Masopitq, and Russiaa Riverkeeper appealed the Plalming;corrmission decisions to the County Board of Supervisors. The appeals were heard by the board onjuly 27, 2010. The day of the hearing, Masonite filed a 49 -page letter brief challenging the EIR on approximately 20 grounds. The board .ivtasomte_:.and Russian Riverkeeper filed Petitions for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the COWAYs approval of the Project due to violations of CEQA The petitions were denied, and Masonite and Russian Riverkeeper appealed from the judgments. Russian Riverkeeper's appeal was dismissed after settlement. II. DISCUSSION A Scope of Review "In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA . the courts' inquiry 'shall extend only to. whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.' [Citation.] Such an abuse is established 'if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the deternunation or decision is not supported by substantial evidence,' [Citations.] " Anappel latecourt 'sreviewoftlieadministrative record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case ... is the same as the trial court's: The appellate court reviews the agency's action, nut, the trial court's decision; in that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is de novo, [Citations.) We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues ... by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by the Comity and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the County's .factual determinations." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412,426-427, in. omitted (Vineyard).) B, Recirculation of the EJR (1) Arguments and Standards Masonite contends that the EIR should have been recirculated for public review because the Project as approved was "different markedly'.' from the one analyzed in the Draft and had more severe environmental impacts, and because the EIR identified a new significant impact on the Frog, "Alead agency is required to recirculate an EIR When significant new information is added to the EIR,after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review , but before certhicat[mL" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, solid. (a) the CEQA Guidelines in Cal, Code Regs., ht. 14, §15000, et seq, are hereafter cited as Guidelines]; Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1) "[T)he addition of new information to an EIR after the close of the public comment period is not'siguificane Unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a. meaningful opporhmity to commentupon asubstantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect." (Laurel of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1129 Heights In; see also Vineyard, supra, 40 at p, 447, quoting Laurel Heights H.) "Sig new information" includes a disclosure that "[a] new significant environmental would result from the project..,," (Gut § 15088,5, subd. (a) (1)) (2) ProjectAIIteratiom The Project was changed in two respects from the one originally envisioned. (a) Pond -River Connection in Lieu of a Weir and Fuse Plug Granite's application for the use permit and reclamation plan recognized that, "because of its proximity to the Russian River and Ackerman Creek, the project site has valuable aquatic and riparian habitats adjacent to it. The aquatic habitat supports Chinook salmon and steelhead, both listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The primary concern for these species relative to the proposed project is the potential for fish entrapment in the pit during floods high enough to inundate the site." The application noted with respect to hydrology and drainage that, "as an alluvial terrace adjacent to the Russian River and Ackerman Creek," the Project site "is subject to Periodic Inundation.... Extensive hydrologic modeling was conducted to design an overflow structure thatwould minimize the potential for fish to become entrapped in the pit, and prevent erosion of pit banks and walls during a 100 -year flood event". Granite's application proposed, to address the potential for flooding and - trappedfish with construction of a flood control weir, and fuse plug. "The armored overflow weir gives.the creek and river a controlled access and drainage point for flood waters without eroding the mining buffer, while the erod'able [sic] fuse plug limits potential fish entrapment" In May 2008, continents on the Project, the National. Marine :Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that "reconnecting the pit to the stream" would provide better long -term Protection for endangered sahnouids than the proposed weir and fuse plug. Granite's study of the NMFS proposal, attached as Appendix F to the Draft, concluded that itwould. be preferable to use a connection channel between the mine pond and the Russian River in lieu of the weir and fuse plug. The Project as proposed in the Draft provided for use.of the weir and fuse plug,;butthe pond• river connection channel design was presented as "Alternative 3" .It replaced the, weir and fuse Plug with "a culvert (or culverts) suitable for the 9788. Dally Appellate Report Monday, fuly,29_j,?%3' project life (rather than as a permanent structure, as under the proposed project)," and eliminated the need for ongoing maintenance of the weir and fuse plug. The Draft determined that "stranding or entrapment of special- status salmonids" would be a potentially significant impact if the Project were constructed with the weir and fuse plug. However, mitigation measures that included salmonid rescue and relocation programs implemented in consultation with NMFS and the Department of Fish and Game (Fish & Game), would make this impact "[l] ess than significant" The Draftfurther stated that if Alternative 3 was implemented, it would "reduce[] fire potential significance of pit capture and salmonid entrapment" and "eliminate the need for the rescue plan.." In November 4, 2009, comments on the Draft, NMFS expressed concern that when pit mining operations resulted in ponds of standing groundwater more than 35 feet deep, anaerobic conditions would threaten the vitality of any salmonids trapped in the ponds, and the depths of the reclaimed ponds would need to be regulated to achieve suitable habitat. The County determined in the EIR that Alternative 3 was "environmentally superior" to the weir and fuse plug, an d the NMFS supported Alternative 3 in comments submitted prior to Planning Commission approval of the EIR As approved, the Project included the pond -river connection in lieu of the weir and fuse plug reflected in the revised reclamation plan appended to the EIR Although the Draft stated that the pond - river connection would eliminate the need for a salmonid rescue program, the EfR retained a rescue program during the training phase of the Project. The Draft set forth two options for the reclamation phase. Option A provided for construction of the pond -river connection unless NMFS and Fish & Game staff determined that the "potential adverse -water quality within the pit" would outweigh the connection's expected benefits to salmonid habitat. Option B required Granite to continue the salmonid rescue program until NMFS and Fish &'Game said it was no longer needed.'- In the EIR, Option B was unchanged, and Option A was amended to-provide simply for construction of the pond -river connection. The deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns over water quality in the pit was replaced in the EIR by more detailed mitigation requirements, set forth in new mitigation measure 3.4.4 -ALT 3, to address concerns raised in NMFS's November 2009letter. Specifically, the EIRstated that Granite would ]unit the depth in the reclaimed ponds to 35 feet as NMFS stated would be acceptable, or deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future. water quality assessment' (b) F000dplain Benching The term "loodplain benching' refers to a proposal by Granite in the Project application, to widen fire Ackerman Creek and 'Russian River channels "to improve channel hydraulic capacity and winter rearing habitat for salmomils above what is currently available which, in torn, will increase annual winter juvenile' {ord survivability in the project vicynry. " "" "lhis "floodplain benching" was incorporated'into'the Draft, along with mitigation measures for its impact on salmonids and riparian habitat In its comments on the Draft, SCS Engineers for Masonite criticized the floodplain benching. SCS wrote; "Artificial and unwarranted 'improvements' such as those proposed,,bay` Granite serve to upset the equilibriufil'10'fth9' fluvial system for the financial benefit' of�one not to negative impacts may include increased potential for flooding or other unanticipated; non - linear response's that may occur ... as' a re'sult'of !the proposed of the channel, .. unwarranted 111 .. [Tibereli is little or no geomorphic or other scientific justification for such a proposal and many potential; pitfalls." The Mendocino County Water' Agency also expressed concerns that erosion would occur, in the floodplain bench area. In response to these comments, Alternative 3 was revised in'theEfR to eliminate floodplain benching from the Project The EIR also observed that removal bf floodplain relative to the baseline condition." _ _ After close of the period for public comment' on the Draft, the California Department' of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation' wrote a letter" to the County noting that floodplam, benchhur was "consoicuousIv absent" 'from the most recent version of the reclamation place lhe� Department of Conservation ^(DOC) "tliougHC that floodplain benching 'likely would provide' a' great benefit to the wildlife and riparian habitat" along the active drainages and may provide 'some- flood control benefit The plans to complete the floodplain enhancement should be put 'back in the reclamation plan, or a reasonable justification for removing taus enhancement work'ehbi ld'be provided." Granite responded that- ifloodjp benching was only a' "'voluntary camponAd4ny the project! " that "'added no net environmental benefit'" and was being removed "to avoid potential environmental impacts.'" was "not tied to any specific . mitigation for the project, essen the issue as a concern under CE( .many of the potential impacts d [Draft] regarding riparian and habitats would be eliminated will the floodplain benching compon since the environmental benefl benching were "debatable," stall position and left it up to the Plard to determine whether to req benching in the Project At Commission meeting, staff ath & Game had concerns that floc would adversely affect water i habitat of the Frog. After taking discussing the matter, the Planm 29, 2013 voted to approve the project without theAoodp benching featm -e Deletion of that feature noted ,when the board of supervisors heard appeals of the Planning Commission's decision (c) Analysis for an int j' "°` °ie"aescnpdonisnecess emir. a hgent „evaluation of the potenti ninehtal. effects of a proposed acdviV (199 et S1 4 JOs Gallinas Valley Sanitary Di, desgn APP 4th 980, 990), mid a, "unstable the EIR can "mislead the public and thwar the EIIR C ants a" (San Joaquin Raptor Rescu Y fMerced (200'7) 149 Cal A5, 655,.656): Masonite argues that GAppp.4t nadequate and inconsistent project description irevemed informed review and Ojectie a on each f thepreviously, described changes. However, oth the Pond- chatmel connection and However enching were described in the Drag and the aunty received informed commentary on their eats., that the E1R'mProper1Y gave signals" about the Project uln Raptor Rescue Center u 'ra ^149 Cal.APPAtb at p, 656 of claim is based on he ElR's responseto MasoniteUs criticism of floodplain benching, but tiie response addressed Masonite's concerns and made clear that "[rjevised.Alternadve 3 would eliminate the channel widening component of the projeck" I7ie EIR was not misleading because it discussed Soth the potential benefits of floodplain benching and Its elimination from a Project alternative, nclusion of a dplain. benching was an open Ssue when the EIR was nrepn .ch i was i EIR nation about may not adequately Sion maker j supra, 40 here. an form th is any other interested no indication in the record that Masonite or the nature of flo dphou party misled about it would necessarily be included in the project, The absence of floodplain benching from the revised reclamation plan was characterized as "conspicuous[] " by the DOC. TheEIRPerformed its role as an "informational document" with respect to the prospect for floodplain benching, (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21061) The comments for. and against floodplam benching enabled the whether Commission o .intelligently weigh whether to equire it Tbere is no merit o. arguments that the Project descripoon was inadequate: �Norare we persuaded that the p' rojectchanges had aay °substantial adverse environmental effect that required recirtulary'on of the EM (Laurel Heights ll om tted I - supra, 6 Cal.4th at p, 1129, italics ) Citing the Draft, Masonite asserts that Lvn use of the pond -river counted., instead of tY. was weir and fuse plug "curtailed mitigation the and a Fish Rescue Plan.t�aH.weveertdh record reflects that the EIR retained the ever, t rescue and relocation programs specified ii connecti on with the weir and fuse plug design Masonite also notes that adoption of the pond a ayl river connection led to removal of a mitigatior mtecess that pandaod annual .inspections and, ff necessary, repair of the weir and setback areas. 1' Batas 000doutinaleCountystaffreporttothe, t g Comn»ssion, the pond -river connection Was considered an environmentally superior e alternative, in part, because it eliminated the need th for long -term maintenance of the weir. s Mascots also challenges a statement EIR that removal of floodplain bentttmant m the not create any flooding impacts relative to baseline condition." Butthe statementwas correct because the ehrm radon of floodplain benching would simply leave Ackerman Creek and the Russian River in their present state. Masonite,s proosed o tsuggest that floodplain benching was P mitigate the environmental effects of the Project, but it was not Floodplain benching was, as Granite said, a `boluntary component" of the Project that was offered, as noted in the Draft, as "an effort to improve the current degraded state of the Ackerman Creek." The enhancement was eliminated when it appeared that it might do more environmental harm than good. Masonite Is in no position to now argue for the necessity of county inain benching because its expert told the county comments on the Draft that flood Unneeded 9 was "[ajrtificial," ,unwarranted "p d under current conditions.' (3) Ike Frog (a) Record - U the Project area we status species in the the potential for.occu.,, ' a, me sne as "high " medium;' 'low" or. "unlikely" - "IAW potential" d for a particular species Was defined as follows; e role project site and /or ' there provide' itedhabitatforap ti�Ujatesptie$ �y addifion,theknownrangeforapar6 lar8 cies may be outsides the ire ediatt project area," The Draft. discussed the Project's potentially s�g'niflicant impacts on specieswith a "medium" or "high" potential for occurrence, and provided mitigation measures designed to reduce those impacts toinsigniflcance, The table of special staus species included the Frog, The table stated that the Fro Ibjreeds in shaded stream habitats with rock,• cobble substrate, usually below 6,000 feet in elevation. Absent or infrequent when introduced predators are present" The table estimated the potential for Frog oceurrence in the Project area to be 'low," because; "Ackerman Creek may provide limited habitat, (slow /low flow portions). Predator speCiespresent jci_both Ackerman Creek and Russian Rivel;" Thus, the Draft: specified no mitigation measures for the Frog,. In its comments to the Drag, Fish & Game said r. r 75A -66 _. 9788 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29,:2018 that recentsurveys had documented the presence of Frogs at a bridge crossing the Russian River bridge approximately three miles southeast of the Project site. Accordingly, Fish & Game believed that Frogs were 'Tikely to exist along riparian areas of Ackerman Creek and the Russian River;' and recommended that the special status species table be amended to list the potential for Frog occurrence at the site as "high," not "low." The table was amended in the Ea A discussion of potentially significant impacts to the Frog was added, and mitigation measures were proposed that reduced the impacts to insignificance. The impacts would . arise from operations that would impact potentially suitable upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and Ackerman Creek. Mitigation measures included retention of current riparian vegetation to the extent possible, biological monitoring of the effects of construction on the Frog, and halting of construction if impacts to the Frog became evident (b) Review Masonite argues that the EIR should have been recirculated for public comment because it contained significant new information regarding the Frog. Masonite submits the EIR disclosed "[a] new significant environmental impact' on the Frog (Guidelines, - §15085.5, subd, (a)(1)), and that the 'situation here is the same as that in Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 30 (Sierra Club), where "the presence on the project site of the potentially endangered California tiger salamander was discovered after the close ofthe publiecommegtperiodfor the draft. EIR... The'new iufortnadon, die presence of the tiger salamander, demonstrated that the draft EIR had not addressed a potentially substantial adverse environmental effect. Therefore, revision and recirculation were required .:'.." (Laurel Heights 11, supra, 6 CalAth at p. 1131.)4 Masonite questions whether the mitigation measure adopted in the EIR for the Frog would reduce impacts to insignificance and submits that in any event the adequacy of those mitigations, should have been a topic of public 'comment.' ' ` . Respondents maintain that Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2), not (a)(1), applies because under subdivision (a)(2), recirculation is necessary when a disclosure shows that "[a] substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact' would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance." _ R,espondents argue that recirculation is not required here in the EIR will reduce the newly disclosed impact on the Frog to insignificance. Respondents also distinguish the Sierra Club case on the ground that the Draft here at least discussed the Frog, whereas the Draft m SNetter' a Club apparently did not mention the bgecet, mander, (Sierra ,Club, supra, 222 Cal.'App 3dpa36) ' But Masonite hasjtlt argutliedta. This case is indistinguisl ble from Sierra Club as described in Laurel H t hts11,, where recirculation an endangered species was present at the project site. We acknowledge, as respondents argue, that Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2) could possibly apply here. The Draft stated that the Frogs potential occurrence was "low' rather than "unlikely," and could thus be construed to disclose a possible minor impact on the Frog, and when the likelihood of the Frogs presence was changed from "low" to "high," the EIR disclosed a "substantial increase in the severity of [that] impact" (Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. '(a)(2)). But regardless of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2), recirculation Was required under Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1). We disagree with respondents 'suggestion that recirculation can be avoided simply because the Draft disclosed some possible impact on the Frog. The Draft did not suggest that the Project would have any potentially significant impact on that species. Such an impact was disclosed for the first time in the -EIR, and was both "new" and "significant" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1).: A contrary conclusion would contravene Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 447 mid Laurel Heights H, supra, .6 Cal.4th at page 1129, by depriving the .public of an opportunity to effect that were first identified in also Silverado Modieska Reereada u County of Orange (2011).197 % 308 [new information that mated Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 131 [recirculation gives the public 'an. opportunity to evaluate the new information and the validity of conclusions draws from it].) ' The mitigation measures to be employed to minimize the impacts on other special status species were changed after public comment on the Draft' The same is possible for the measures to be employed to minimize impacts on the Frog.. The sections of the EIR discussing the Frog must be recirculated. (Vineyard, supra, at p. 449 [discussing the scope of a recirculation].) C. Mitigation for Loss of Prime Farmland : , Forty-five acres of the Project site are prime farmland, meaning they are "designated by the Department of Conservation FMMP [Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prograral -as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, k or runique farniland." One of the significant t; . unavoidable effects of the project identified ia' 7'•� the Draft is the loss of these 45 acres of prime agricultural. land. Masordni contends that,. the County erred when it determined that no mitigation was feasible for the loss of this prime:. farmland. Masonhe argues that this impact could have been mitigated by acquisition of agricultural conservation easements on Wake properties, or payment of "in -lieu" fees to fund uch acquisitions. tF. 75A -67 2013 plained why dus impact could not sated: " Mitigation for agricultural take the form of avoidance, prestoration, preservation, or roviding substitute resources forms of mitigation correspond 11-oes Section 15370.5 For the t avoidance is not possible, as •mineral resources corresponds Band as identified in the FMMP =u.., as Lou project is phased, and agricultural activity will continue on a phase until it is mined flits extending agricultural activity during the if of the project._ However, this will not reduce t{ie,impactto,lessthan significant. Restoration is v)foasible;,'A's the mining will result in a finished grade below the groundwater level. Preservation in this instance, is similar to avoidance, and is infeasible for the same reason, Compensation generally takes the form of off-site acquisition of faziYdand, typically an Of Conservation r'.asement (ACE): Acquisition of an ACE is considered infeasible for the proposed project for the reasons discussed below. "'An`; ACE, does not replace the on -site resources, but rather, it addresses the indirect and cuin dative effects of farmland conversion, im&ect. effects include the pressure created to e¢ courageadditional conversions ,asdevelopment piessute raises the speculative value of the land and'imcreases the economic costs of farming due to land use incompatibilities (limitations on Pesticide use, nuisance complaints duo to dust and odor, vandalism, predation by domestic pets, increased traffic etcJ. Because the project site ia, surrounded by existing and vacant f¢dustiia] use 1 tfi'the exception of the west side, it is anlikelbth,r r6; e. We uses, there are agricultural uses to but they are separated by the natural of the Russian River, In addition, the Of t?,�,..,..,�.F.._ __ _ nents. Open e, and would pressure on auciciore, feasible mitigation measures are not available, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable." (Italics and bold type deleted,) The DOC expressed concerns about the loss of agricultural lands as an unavoidable impact of the Project in its comments on the Draft Accordfng'to the DOC, the loss should have been minimized through. die acquisition of ACES on comparable land of at least equal size,. The DOC considered this means of midgation,:to be a common and appropriate means of mitigating fie loss of prime farmland. According to the DOC:' "Mitigation via agricultural conservation :asemems cari be implemented by at least two dtc {native approaches:.: the outright purchase 6$,eas," I or the donation of mitigation fees o'a local; regional or statewide organization or geney whose purpose includes the acquisition nd stewardship of agricultural, conservation 9789 easements, The conversion of agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional sigmfficance, Hence; the search for replacement lands ahould beconducted regionanyorstatewide, and not limited strictly to land within die project's surrounding area," The County did notrespond to these comments except to note that no Williamson Acts contracts would be affected by die Project, and cite contracts the discussion of mitjgation for lost farmland in the Draft. The Draft's ;'djiscussion ofithg infeasibility of such rmtfeatidn':vaa _ When Masonit, Commission eci ionstoUPeBoardof8upervisors e it said there was no "logical basis" for the conclusion that impacts to agricultural land could not be mitigated, At the hearing oil the appeal, a County representative respoded.thak "[tlhe basic purpose of an 'agricultural conservation easement is to avoid the secondary impacts that areassociated with conversion of agricultural land. You know, sometimes considered the so called domino effect. As you extinguish operations, now You're putting development pressure on the next . farmer and you're causing nuisance issues that are going to make life difficultfor, him and make it more likely that that operation is going to want to sell. , , , So that's really tvhatyou're doing because You're not replacing the resources, can putan easement somewhere else but it[']s.not going to recreate those few acres, of prime.farmland. that are present on that site 'now. So that's how we approach that analysis and you that's how look at the circumstances of the project, . , The nearest active agricultural operation is across the Russian River, which w acts as a natural barrier in terms of what I would call these nuisance. or domino effects....', [S]o giyyn that, the.' conclusion of County Staff was that. a'ri,agricultgal` easement was not the appropriate Tesponse3n this case," (2) Review' . (a)ASnculbU.alConservahon Easements CEQA provides that "public not approve, projects 6, ro agencies should feasiblemitigadonmeasUrresava lab ewhicl would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects," (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; see also id. at §21002,1, subd. [agencies (b must mitigate significant effects of projects they approve. "wheneveritisfeasible to do so"]) CEQA defines "feasible "'to mean "capable n a successful of being accomplished. iccessful manner within a reasonable period of time, ;taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technologicalfacmrs." (Guidelines, §1 5364) Agency; findines 'raowr.i;.,,.:..v.:.v._.. ..5364.) rassAcres &Neighbors u City afBeaumo t (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 350 -351 (Beaumont).) But not in this race. . - mere, me determmc on thatpho midgadon was feasible for the Joss of: farthijifid rested on a i. conclusion that. offsite agtic4ltur;d 'conservation . easements, (ACES). cannot'.imhgate for the land 75A -68 9790 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 9,1. ,i lost at the Project site because they would "not replace the on -site resources." The County Presumed that ACES were useful only to address "the indirect and cumulative effects of farmland conversion," mud were not needed here because the Project would have no such effects. Thus, the finding of infeasibility in the EIR rested on the legal conclusion that while ACES can be used to mitigate a project's indirect acid cumulative effects on agricultural resources, they do not mitigate its direct effect on those resources. As respondents put it in the trial court "Given the lack of indirect or cumulative agricultural impacts, the Draft EIR properly conclude[d] that agricultural conservation easements are legally infeasible." The legal feasibility of a mitigation measure is not a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence but rather is an issue of law that we review de novo. We disagree with respondents, We conclude that ACES may appropriately mitigate for the direct loss of farmland when a project converts agricultural land to a nonagricultural use, even though an ACE does not replace the onsite resources. Our conclusion is reinforced by the CEQA Guidelines, case law on offsite udtigadon for loss of biological resources, case law onACEs, Prevailing practice, and the public policy of this state. ACES preserve land for agricultural use in perpetuity. (See Civ. Code, §§ 815.1, 815.2 [describing agricultural and other conservation easements]; Pub. Resources Code, § 10211 [defining "agrieul total conservation ea s ements "]. ) As the California Farm. Bureau Federation (CFBF) observes in an amicus curiae brief . advocating for the conclusion we reach: "The Permanent protection of existing resources .off. site is effective mitigation for (a project's direct, cumulative, or growth- inducing) impacts,because it prevents the consumption of a resource to the Point that it no longer exists.... If agricultural land is permanently protected off -site at, for example, a 1:1 replacement ratio, then atleasthalf of the agricultural land in a region would remain after the region has developed its available open space." By thus preserving substitute resources, ACE's compensate for the loss. of. farmland within the Guidelines' definition of mitigation.. (Guidelines, § 15370, subd. (e) [mitigation includes "[clompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or There is no good reason to distinguish the use of offsite ACES to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands from the offsite preservation. of .habitats for endangered species, an accepted means of mitigating impacts on biological resources. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 278 (Santee) [loss of habitat mitigated by conservation of other habitat at a 1:1 ratio]; California Native Plant Society v Ciiy of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App,4th 603; 610- 611, 614-626 [mitigation by offsite preservation of of new habitat for each acre of by the project]; EudangeredHat v. County of Orange (2005) 131 794 [mitigation by "off- siteinese Of Sacramento (2006) 142 [purchase of a balf -acre k very acre of development]; 'ractim Under the Califon 2d oV��4Ue ,.aonaz prowae a a under Guidelines, § 15370, sr the DOC's continents on th that the rationale for ACES in that of established mitigation habitat. Our conclusion is also relatively sparse case law inv case most closely on point is 296 (Lodi), which involved a projec to the one here, converted. 40 ai farmland to other uses. The Ell that the impact on agricultural ri unavoidably significant, and the d nonetheless required to mitigate t obtaining an ACE over 40 other m farmland. (Id. at pp. 322 -323,) Alth observed, that "'such off - site; -mitt not avoid the significant impact ri the permanent loss of prime agrk at the project site "' (id, at p. 32f noted that acquisition of the offsite minimize and substantially, lessen" (id at p.'324). The Lodi court's real respondents' theory that mitigation of an offsite ACE is not legally feasib In Beaumont, supra, 190 Cal.App EIR for a housing development on la for agricultural purposes noted flu "'no feasible long -term mitigation [f< on agricultural resin vrrsi ntho ti,— the ' die . used, r blocks of farmland into conservation' em.oe —m' its, ' Williamson Act preserve status, :,ot(ter ou,y�,w y p, uLecuon or preservauonplans;`, ?,.(Id..,,. at p. 349 [italics omidedj.) But the EIR rejected;:,; those. mitigation measures as ecgnomiFat]y infeasible because the pace of urban deyeloptrlenJ':i; made long term farming no longer Ap'.p' ,ar viable, a conclusion that was upheld,as gup[p'lp by substantial evidence. (Id. at pp:.350.35 }, Q , Defend the Bay v om City of Irvine (2000;11,.. sl;o AppAth 1261, 1269 -1271 [offsite preservation of agricultural land was infeasible because of the ;alive economics of long -term agriculture. " „in,, u geCounry].) There would have beenno,mied the EIR or the court in Beaumont to aQd;gs$ z1 economic feasibility ofACEsif,asfesponftfiN ”, us, ACES are not legally feasible N, of does; :umont support respondents' claunat old review the infeasibility deternam, on:m >„ case for substantial evidence. Because thez q mty.decided that ACES were not a legallF,.�, •ible means'to mitigate the loss of farniland.�„ he Project site, it never investigated whetlTer: , s were economicallyfeasible; and there tsno lence to review._ Building Industry Assn. of Central Califoraig�; :ounty of Stanislaus (2010) 190' Ca].e,Jpp,tlti},y, (Stanislaus), involved a challenge jo a�faun s eral plan that required developer .of_,projeI -a ,;; 1; ✓ertfng agricultural land to residen ' ' ........ I W at V. 75A -69 obtain ACES on farmland of equal quality in the county at 8' 1:1 ratio, or pay "an m -lieu mitigation fee," '(Id. at p, 588) The court concluded that these mitigation requirements were reasonably related to the adverse public impact of such Projects and thus an authorized use of the county's police power. The court observed that a residential project would not be approved "until the developer provides permanent protection of on'e'acre bf farmland for every acre of farmland converted' to residential use Agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity are the primary means of accomplishing this Permanent protection requirement... [g]]... III1. , Although the developed farmland is not replaced, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar As an alternative to the outright purchase of fate." (Id. alp. 592) SfaxWaus teaches thatACEs ACES, the DOC comment letter recommended area reasonable means m mitigate the impact ofa "the donation of mitigation fees to alocal, regional or statewide organization or agency whose 'purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of [ACE,]." Masonite argues that the EIR was deficient because it did not address this suggestion. The County responds, saying it was legally precluded from accepting in -lieu fees because it does not have a comprehensive farmland mitigation program We agree with Masonite that the EIR should have addressed the DOC comment and given reasons for rejecting the DOC's" proposal. (Guidelines, § 15088; subd,. (a) & (c) [responses With reasoned analysis are required,) Again, we are not persuaded by respondents' argument for legal infeasibility. The DOC was not advocating Payment of in -lieu fees to a county program, but rather to third parties involved in acquiring and overseeing ACES, Whether the County lacks a comprehensive farmland mitigation program is immaterial, and does not explainwhyin -lieu fees are not feasible mitigation, This issue requires further analysis in the EIR D. Cumuladvelmpacts on Farmland Environmental Quality Act plays an important role in the preservation of agricultural lands. "],) To categorically exclude ACES as a means to mitigate the conversion of farmland would be contrary to one of CEQA's important purposes. We agree with the CFBF that ACES should not 'be removed from agencies' toolboxes as available mitigation" for this environmental impact. For these reasons, the EIR's determination that ACES are legally infeasible camnot be sustained. The economic feasibility of offsite ACES to mitigate the Project's imph on the loss of 45 acres of prime farmland us tb xplored. (b) In -Lieu Fees moreover, It appears thatACEs are commonly used for that purpose, The DOC described ACES in its comments as "accept[ed] and used] by lead agencies as an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA," and the administrative record includes evidence that ACE, are so employed by a number of cities and counties. The EIR at issue in Lodi stated that acquisition of ACES over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is "'standard for California communities.'" (Lodi, supra, 205 CaLAppAth at p: 322.) "'In addition to the City of Lodi, the following agencies in the surrounding area apply the 1:1 mitigation ratio: cities of Stockton and Elk Grove, counties of San Joaquin and Shudslausm , TrWalley Conservancy (Livermore /Alaeda County).'" (Nd.) This authority suggests that the County is an outlier in believing that ACES cannotfeasibly be used to mitigate the conversion Of prime farndand to other uses We note finally that our Legislature has repeatedly stated the preservation of agricultural . land is an important public policy, (Gov. Code, § 51220,. said, (a) [ "the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation ofthestate's economic resources, and is necessary not only . to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation "]; Pub. Resources Code, § 10201, subd. (c) [ "Agri cultural lands' near urban areas that are maintained in productive agricultural use are a significant Part of California's agricultural heritage.... Conserving these lands is necessary due to increasing developmernpressures and the effects of urbanization on farmland close to cities. "j; Civ.' Code; § 815 [ "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California "].) The Legislature has also declared that CEQA is intended to effectuate this public policy. (Slats. 1993, ch. 812, § 1, P. 4428 [ "(a) Agriculture is the state's' leading industry,. ., [91] ... [91] (c) The conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses threatens the long -term health of the state's agricultural industry. 1%) (d) The California The discussion of the Project's- cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, set forth in section 5.2.3 of the Draft and incorporated without change in the EM reads in full; "Some of the land in the vicinity of the proposed project is considered highly productive farmland, although a majority of it is located on the eastern side of the Russian River, A large portion of the project site is ,Iassified as Prime FarmlmdbytheDepartment of r•viRL ",Lc woma oe reclaimed to open space, 1911 Cumulative conversion of iniportantfarmhmd was determined to he less than significant in the General Plan EIR The project site is zoned for industrial use, and no adjacent larids'currendy in agriculture are planned for a conversion to urban use. The project would therefore not contribute to a $ignificant cumulative effect Masonite contends that this discussion improperly retied on the prior general plan EIR Without tiering from it:'or incorporating it by reference in the EIR fgr'the' Project, and that the discussion was factually inadequate because the information` in the general plan EIR was 75A =70 t. 9792 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013, insufficient to support the determination that the Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be insignificant For reasons we shall discuss, we agree with Masonke on both points. Respondents assert that" [clumulative impacts in the agricultural context are more properly defined as the Project's potential to result in indirect impacts to surrounding agricultural resources and, as such, cause subsequent conversions in the future." Based on this premise, respondents reason that because the Draft shows that the Project ','will not cause the conversion of other prime farmlami'q it also shows that the Project "will not result in a cumulative impact" But indirect and cumulative impacts are not the same and they entail separate analysis. (Compare Guidelines, §§ 15064, subd. (d) (2) & 15358, subd. (a)(2) [defining indirect effects] with Guidelines, §g 15065, subd. (a)(3) & 15355 [describing cumulative effects]; see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 278 [distinguishing a long -term indirect impact from a cumulative impact],) The Draft's analysis of cumulative, as opposed to,indirect, impacts consists of a single sentence that states: "Cumulative conversion of Important farmland was determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR" "A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs." (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (d).) However, an EIR that uses incorporation by reference or tiering must do so expressly. (Vineyard, supra, 40 CalAth at p, 443,) It must indicate where the earlier document is available for inspection, briefly summarize or describe the pertinent parts of earlier document, and describe how they relate to the current - :project, (Guidelines, § 15150, subds. (b) &. (c), § 16152; subd. -(g); Xostka, supra, § 1011, p. 501,) This information is required to "give the reader a :.. road map to the information [the EIRI intends to convey." (Vineyard, supra, 40 CalAth at p. 443.). The EIR here was deficient because it provides no such road map. Respondents' brief indicates that the EIR was relying on the following discussion of cumulative impacts of the draft EIR,for the.2009 update of the County's generalplart. (2009 Update Draft), "Although implementation of the General Plan would change ]and use designations, the result would be a minor loss of designated agricultural lands... thatwould notbe.considered a substantial loss of agricultural land in the county. Additionally, policies in the proposed General Plan Update support the preservation of agricultural lands and farming operations in the county ,Therefore, the proposed General. Plan Update would not result in a cumulative loss of agricultural lands." Respondents argue that neither tiering nor incorporation by reference was required here because the County was merely .relying on the general plan EIR. as evidence to support the determination in the EIR that the Project would not substantially contribute to the loss of farmland. Surely; respondents cannot be saying that because the, general. plan EIR determined that changing land use designations would not cause a. substantial loss of agricultural land within the county, no particular project consistent with the general plan could cause such a loss. There is a vast difference between land use designations that permit several alternative uses of property in a geographic area, and the approval of a specific project that changes the character of a particular property. Nor do we understand the general plan EIR to mean that no substantial loss to the County's agricultural resources would occur if all the agricultural land in the county, designated for other possible uses were to be so converted, or that no such other conversion Would be approved. The general plan EIR acknowledges the importance of preserving prime agricultural land, and while there may be no projects in the pipeline that will similarly . convert agricultural land, the EIR does not attempt to quantify the future of the County's agricultural resources, in, any meaningful way. . We recognize that "standards of pracdcalit9,. and reasonableness" govern cumulative impacts analysis, and that such impacts need not be discussed in as much detail as the direct impacts of a project (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b).) But we are not persuaded the discussion of cumulative impacts in the EIR is sufficient. Under. the- Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts" requires either "[a]- list . of past, present, and probable future, projects producing related or cumulative impacts," or "[a] . summary of projections [in, among other things, a certified EIR for an adopted local plan]' that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect" (Guidelines, § 15130, subds. (b) (1) (A) & (b) (1) (B).) The discussion . in the 2009 Update Draft includes neither of these "necessary elements. (Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth a. City of Rialto. (2012),208 Cal. APpAth 899, 928) Because the general plan amendments were concerned only with zoning ':.changes, the amendments did not consder.projects like, the one under review 'that 'convert farmland to another use without any such change,'';. Since the 2009 Update Draft does not address'. such conversions, the 2009 Update. cannot be rolled upon as a comprehensive, "sunnnary,of.,, lands, uespite the Gounty policies that, favor preservation of agricultural land, the 2009 Update Draft acknowledges: that "the proposed General Plan Update would not explicitly preclude the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA. [Prime Farmland of Statewide importance, and. - Unique Farmland] to other uses in the future "; and that "[s]ubsequent land use activities assoeiated:; with implementation of the'proposed General Plan Update. in combination with existing: the additional conversion of important farmlands, to other uses and may increase agriculture /urban interface conflicts. ". The County's more general . agricultural preservation policies do not salvage., the cumulative impacts analysis. Thus, the discussion of cumulative impacts,; on agricultural, resources "suffers &orn both procedural and factual flaws;" (Vineyard, Supra,,.. 40 CalAth at p.. 447.) 75A -71 Monday; July 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9793 E. Roadway Mitigation (1) Record The plan is for aggregate mined in the Project to he removed from the site by trucks travelling on Kunzler Ranch Road to North State Street There appears to be no dispute that Kunzler Ranch Road is the only point of ingress and egress to the Project site:' The Draft estimated that the mining could involve up to 176 truck trips per day each hauling 25 ton loads. According to the Draft, "[Vocal roadways, such as Kunzler Ranch Road and North State Street .. are generally not designed to accommodate heavy vehicles, and truck travel on these roads would have the potential to adversely affect the Pavement condition. Roadway damage can include conditions such as loose asphalt and potholes that have the potential to make driving conditions less safe. Roadways significantly impacted from project truck traffic would have to be upgraded to support vehicle weights up to 25 tons. IT] ... [9[] , , . [Tlhe project would have a significant impact on Kunzler Ranch Road and a less than significant impact on North State Street. IT ... Vj[I The project applicant has recently prepared an assessment of Kunzler Ranch Road, Kunzler Ranch Road .Pavement Evaluation and Rehabilitation Strategies, April 28, 2009. This report was submitted to the County and provides a detailed assessment of current roadway conditions and a comprehensive plan to rehabilitate and maintain the roadway over a 30 Year period. The report identified Kunzler Ranch Road as being in serious condition and identifies various alternatives for addressing the condition of the road. "d To mitigate this significant impact, the Draft' "recommended that Kunzler Ranch Road be improved as needed (e.g., overlays or reconstruction) per the April 28, 2009 Kunzler Ranch Road study and die Caitrans Design Manual standards. The project applicant would Pay the full cost of road improvements, including design and construction. [y[] Prior to operations the project applicant shall enter into -a Roadway Maintenance Agreement with Mendocino County providing their proportionate share of the responsibility to maintain the proposed haul roads." (Italics ornhtedJ When it commented on the Draft, the County Department of Transportation (MDOT) clarified that "Kunzler Ranch Road is not -a County maintained road and that MDOT has no involvement in its operation, maintenance, or upkeep.... [91] ... [9[1 ... Therefore there is no need for the applicant to enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with the County for maintenance of Kunzler Ranch "Road." The MDOT further stated: "Arriving at a. cost sharing arrangement is the responsibility of the applicant, the road's owner(s) and those property owners having rights to its use. [q1. , . [7[1. • . Ideally, all the users of Kunzler Ranch Road wouldvoluntarily forma Road Maintenance Organization for the improvement and maintenance of the road. [However,) no party can unilaterally make this happen ...." The MDOT proposed an alternative means to mitigate the significant impact to Kunzler Ranch Road, and it was adopted nearly verbatim in the EIR The EIR states: 'Traffic- related repairs on Kunzler Ranch Road shall be initiated when the owners of the road and users of the easement reach a decision that such repairs are necessary. Granite's fair share shall be calculated based on the proportion of applicant's heavy truck trips to the total number-of heavy truck trips on the road that year. Consistent with Civil Code Section 845, in the absence of a road maintenance agreement, applicant shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost and expense incurred for traffic- related repairs of Kunzler Ranch Road."a (2) Review Masonite argues that the mitigation measures for the Project's impact on Kunzler Ranch Road are inadequate for several reasons. The measures provide for "repairs" rather than "improvements" to the road, The measures are unenforceable and impermissibly deferred. And the provisions for fair share payments by Granite are ineffectual because they are not "part of a reasonable Plan of actual mitigation that the [County has] commit[tedl itself to implementing." (Anderson First Coalition u City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 1173, 1188 [discussing fee -based mitigation programs for cumulative 'traffic .impacts]:) Most of Masonite's' arguments are unconvincing. "[Mleasures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment [must be] fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or othermeasures." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, solid. (b).) The mitigation measures for the road'are enforceable because they were included among the conditions for approval of the Project, allowing the County to withdraw that approval if Granite • faits to make the required payments, (See Gray v, County Of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1116 they were incorporated as part of the approval" of the use permits].) The p "repairs" is most reasonably construes 'improvements' to the road to accommodate the increased truck traffic, There is no reason to doubt the County's commitment to enforce the mitigation measures. But Masonite makes a valid point when it says the roadway mitigation measures have been unjustifiably deferred. - The mitigation measures do not specify when the fair share payments will be made or what improvements must be fimded. The EIR states that the payments are to be made when the interested private parties decide they are necessary or, in the absence of an agreement, "[clonsistent with Civil Code section 845." These provisions leave the timing of the payments uncertain. (Compare City of Long Beach a Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009).>176, Cal.App.4th ',889, 916 `[mitigations that were "specific and ¢ontaia[ed]-identifiable timeline's' %' were not "impermissibly delayed "].)' Moreover, no standards are set to ensure that the 75A -72 9794 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013.', mitigation will be effective. Here, as in Madera, the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be unenforceable, but sufficientlyvague as to "impact [the] analysis of their viability and effectiveness." (Madera, supra, 167 CaLApp.4th at p, 1116.) The Madera court `[g]enerally agreed] that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to specific performance standards," but the county there, like Mendocino here, had not made that commitment, and the mitigation measures were found to be inadequate under CEQA (Id, at pp. 1119,. 1120; see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp, 280 -282 [without performance standards or guidelines mitigation was improperly deferred].) The County emphasizes that the mitigation measures were changed only after it discovered that it had no jurisdiction over the road. But while that discovery may have obviated the need for a roadway maintenance agreement between respondents, it did not justify deletion of criteria for the roadway improvements such as those specified in the Draft If "' "practical considerations prohibit devising [mitigation] measures, early in the planning process . , . the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria-,"'" (Oakland Heritage Alliance v City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.) But Us is not such a case. According to the Draft, Granite had completed a study that included a "comprehensive plan to rehabilitate and maintain the roadway over a 30 year period." The Draft discussed Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards, and required improvements to the road pursuant to those standards and the Granite study, In the absence of those criteria or others for the improvements, there is no substantial evidence to support the EIR's fording that the impact of the Project on Kunzler Ranch Road will be mitigated to insignificance. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p, 427 [scope of review of factual determinations), F, Discussion of Alternatives Masonite contends that the EIR did not adequately evaluate offsite or ousite alternatives to the Project. (1) Offsite Alternatives The Drafts analysis of offsite alternatives, incorporated without change in the EIR, considered nine alternative mining sites in the Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an offsite alternative, and rejected the other eight as infeasible. - Masonite says there was no reason for ['uniting consideration of alternative sites to those within the Russian River corridor in the immediate area of Ukiah, and suggests that a county-wide range of alternative sites should have been explored, "CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR Each case must be evaluated on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566, italics omitted,) 'There is no ironclad rule governirtg the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason." (Guidelines, § 15126.6, solid. (a).) In February 2009 correspondence, Granite identified various factors to be considered in selecting and evaluating alternative Project sites, such as "[ilocation (the site must be in the Ukiah market area and close to Granite owned PCC, in an industrial area, like Kunzler, would likely be compatible with its surroundings)," and "[alesthetics .(e.g. not in the direct view shed of the State Highway)." Proximity to Granite's local asphalt and concrete processing plants could reasonably be regarded as important considerations because, as Granite, noted, "distance increases the potential for significant environmental impacts from truck transportation of aggregates." We therefore disagree with Masonite that limiting the discussion of offsite alternatives to those in the Ukiah area was unreasonable and unduly restrictive, (2) Onsite Alternative Masonite argues that the onsite alternative evaluated in the EIR— Alternative. 3-was inadequate because it did not offer substantial . environmental advantages over the project as proposed. (See. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p, 566 [EIR must consider a, reasonable range of feasible alternatives that "offer'substandal environmental advantages' over the project as ' proposed "].) Masonite reasons that Alternative 3 offered no substantial environmental advantage over the weir and fuse plug originally contemplated because its pond -river connection would have the same environmental effect:, reduction of the salmonid pit capture impact to insignificance,. But while both designs could broadly speaking be found to have comparable effects, NMFS believed that the environmental advantage of Alternative 3 was sufficiently substantial to advocate for it, and its enhanced protection for salmonids could reasonably be considered a substantial advantage given that such protection was a central environmental issue for the Project Masonite asserts that "Alternative 3 did not offer any change in operations or the size of the Project, and therefore the EIR'srange of onsite alternatives was impermissibly narrow." (See WatsonvillePilotsAssn, o. CityofWatsonville (2010) _ 183 CaLApp,4th 1059, 108 &1088 [EIR should even it me alternative would not accomplish all of the project's objectives].) However, in response to comments on the EIR from NMFS regarding anaerobic conditions that could develop in the ponds, Granite agreed to mine to a lesser depth than planned in the Project application and the Draft. (See in. 3, ante.) At the Planning Commission meeting, Granite . estimated that this change would reduce the amount of aggregate mined by 10 to 15 percent Thus, Alternative 3 - 75A -73 Monday, July 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9795 as finally approved did in fact reduce the scale of the Project. Mas-onite's challenges to Alternative 3 aremithout merit. III. DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate is reversed, with directions to issue a writ requiring the County to set aside its certification of the,EIR, set aside its approvals of the conditional use permit and reclamation plat[ for the Project, and prepare and circulate a supplemental EIR, which includes the EIR's provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses the deficiencies we have identified in the EIR concerning: the feasibility of ACES and in-lieu fees as mitigation for the Project's conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use; the discussion of the We concur: McGujness, P.J. Pollak, J. Phase I'§I Option A Prior to completion of reclamation, Granite shall, in coordination with NMFS and Irish & Game], evaluate the results of the biological feasibility, and design and construct an alternative reclamation design Consistent with the extended hydrologic connection concept discussed above during the 5-year reclamation phase (see also Chapter 4, ProjectAlternatives). If, during coordination with NMFS and [Fish & Game], regulatory agency staff determine that the potential adverse water quality effects within the pit would outweigh the expected benefits to salmordd habitat, Granite shalt not implement this midgathe measure. 11) OPMOMB,.; Granite shaltmainiain a sahnonid rescue and relocation program in consultation with NMFS and Mob & Game] uotll it is determined by those agencies that such a program Is no longer necessary." ' Mining to a greater depth of 65 feet had been contemplated in the project application and the Drag Nees; and 1 Sierra Club was disapproved on another ground in Western for truck States Petroleum Amn. u Superior Court (1996)9Cal.4th559, appeal to 576, m. 6. Siggins, J. Trial Court Superior Court of Mendocino Comfy Trial Judge: Hon. John A. Behnke Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant Masonite Corporation Christian Lucjer Marsh DOVMY BRAND David Nester BRISCO, NESTER & BAZEL Counsel for Defendant and Respondent: Mendocino County et al. Jeanine B. Nadel Terry Nan Gross OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Respondent; Granite Construction Company Mark David Harrison HARRISON TEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD & JOHNSON 'Granite advised at the Cmmty board of supervisors hearing on the Project that, in reap.... P, comments from the Regional Water Board, it agreed to suspend mining during the wet season between November and March. ' The Drat stated: "Measure 3.,t.4 1911 ... (T] Redamafion ' This Guideline provides; "'Mitigation' Includes: IT] (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. - IT (b) Minimizing impacts . by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its Implementation. ['§] (e) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment [9[] (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by Preservation and maintenlace.pemdous during the fife of theaction. [§j] (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or eov'uonments," "A Williamson Act contract obligates the landowner to maintain the land as agricultural for 30 or more yams, with resulting tax benefits. ((Gov. Code,l §§ 51240:51244.) Absent contrary action, each year the contract renews for an additional year, so that the use restrictions are always in Place for the next nine to 10 years. (Id., § 51244.)° (Friends of East Willits Valley u County OfIlfendocom (2002) 101 Cal, APR4th 191, 195.) r The amendments' hmted�ocus and theirfailure to account for the Projectare shown by the discussion oflmpact4.2.1 in the 2009 Update Draft, which, as revised in the final EIR for the 2009 update, states: "Overall, as a result of the approved land use changes, 82.10 acres of agricultural lands (including agriculture, farm land and forest land) would be converted m :mother land use designado l.'Of the total vacant land ta the county (1,881,946.1 acres), the net loss of 82.10 acres of agricultural lands would be approximately 0.000044 percent of land within the county. Out of the 82.10 acres of vacant agricultural lands associated with the proposed land use changes, only 1.82 acres are prime agricultural land, which equals only 0.02 percent of potential prime agricultural land lost with the proposed land use changes.... Tj ... 191 ... Out of the 736,46 vacant acres proposed for land use changes in the proposed General Plan Update, there are approximately 0.94 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.68 acres of Unique Farmland." a This pavement report is not included in the Draft or MR. a This statute requires the owner "of any easement in the nature of a private right -of -way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, [to] maintain it in repair." '(Civ. Code, § 845, solid, (a).) If there are multiple such owners, they will share the costs pursuant to any agreement they reach or, in the absence of an agreement, in proportion to their use of the easement. (Id at subd; (b).) The statute provides 'for court enforcement 'of that proportionate Obligation. (lot . at solid, (c).) 75A -74 t CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51200 -51207 51200. This chapter shall be known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or as the Williamson Act. 51201. As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Agricultural commodity" means any and all plant and animal products produced in this state for commercial purposes, including, but not limited to, plant products used for producing biofuels. (b) "Agricultural use" means use of land, including but not limited to greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, (c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following: (1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability class!ficat i. ons. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the 5torie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (A) Land planted with fruit- or nut - bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant . production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agr.i. cultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. (d) "Agri cultural preserve" means an area devoted to either agricultural use, as defined in subdivision (b), recreational use as defined in subdivision (n), or open -space use as defined in subdivision (o), or any combination of those uses and which is established in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (e) "Compatible use" is any use determined by the county or city administering the preserve pursuant to Section 51231, 51238, or 51238.1 or by this act to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open -space use of land within the preserve and subject to contract. "Compatible use" includes agricultural. use, recreational use or open -space use unless the board or council finds after notice and hearing that the use is not compatible with the agricultural, recreational or open -space use to which the land is restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. (f) "Board" means the board of supervisors of a county which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. (g) "Council" means the city council of a city which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural Page 1 of 6 httn:// www. leuiiifo. ca .aov /cei- binldisiDta,lcod7�jAm7rDv &group= 51001 -52000 &file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) preserve pursuant to this chapter. (h) Except where it is otherwise apparent from the context, "county" or "city" means the county or city having jurisdiction over the land. (i) A "scenic highway corridor" is an area adjacent to, and within view o£, the right -of -way of: (7.) An existing or proposed state scenic highway in the state scenic highway system established by the Legislature pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code and which has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official state scenic highway; or (2) A county scenic highway established pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, if each of the following conditions have been met: (A) The scenic highway is included in an adopted genera]. plan of the county or city; and (6) The scenic highway corridor is included in an adopted specific plan of the county or city; and (C) Specific proposals for implementing the plan, including regulation of land use, have been approved by the Advisory Committee on a Master Plan for Scenic Highways, and the county or city highway has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official county scenic highway. (j) A "wildlife habitat area" is a land or water area designated by a board or council, after consulting with and considering the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game, as an area of importance for the protection or enhancement of the wildlife resources of the state. (k) A "saltpond" is an area which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, has been used for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of salt production for commercial purposes. (1) A "managed wetland area" is an area, which may be an area diked off from the ocean or any bay, river or stream to which water is occasionally admitted, and which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, was used and maintained as a waterfowl hunting preserve or game refuge or for agricultural purposes. (m) A "submerged area" is any land determined by the board or council . to be submerged or subject to tidal action and found by the board or council to be of great value to the state as open space. (n) " recreational use" is the use of land in its agricultural or natural state by the public, with or without charge, for any of the following: walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor games or sports for which facilities are provided for public participation. Any fee charged for the recreational use of land as defined in this subdivision shall be in a reasonable amount and shall not have the effect of unduly limiting its use by the public. Any ancillary structures necessary for a recreational use shall comply with the provisions of Section 51238.1. (o) "Open -space use" is the use or maintenance of land in a. manner that preserves its natural characteristics, beauty, or openness for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, to provide habitat for wildlife, or for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of salt production for commercial purposes, if the land is within: Page 2 of 6 littp: / /www,leginfo.ca.gov /egi- bin /displayco:75AQ7Sv &group = 51001- 52000 &f i 1e =5... 8/19/2013) CA Codes (gov:5 1 200- 5 1207) (1) A scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i). (2) A wildlife habitat area, as defined in subdivision (j). (3) A saltpond, as defined in subdivision (k). (4) A managed wetland area, as defined in subdivision (1). (5) A submerged area, as defined in subdivision (m). (6) An area enrolled in the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. (p) "Development" means, as used in Section 51223, the construction of buildings or the use of the restricted property if the buildings or use are unrelated to the agricultural use, the open -space use, or uses compatible with either agricultural or open -space uses of the property, or substantially impair the agricultural, open - space, or a combination of the agricultural and open -space uses of the property. Agricultural use, open -space use, uses compatible with either agricultural or open -space uses, or the acquisition of land or an interest in land are not development. 51203. (a) The assessor shall determine the current fair market value of the land as if it were free of the contractual restriction pursuant to Section 51.283. The Department of Conservation or the landowner, also referred to in this section as "parties," may provide information to assist the assessor to determine the value. Any information provided to the assessor shall be served on the other party, unless the information was provided at the request of the assessor, and would be confidential under law if required of an assesses. (b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessor's notice pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 51283 or Section 57.283.4, if the Department of Conservation or the landowner believes that the current fair market valuation certified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51283 or Section 51283.4 is not accurate, the department or the landowner may request formal review from the county assessor in the county considering the petition to cancel the contract. The department or the landowner shall submit to the assessor and the other party the reasons for believing the valuation is not accurate and the additional information the requesting party believes may substantiate a recalculation of the property valuation. The assessor may recover his or her reasonable costs of the formal review from the party requesting the review, and may provide an estimate of those costs to the requesting party. The recovery of these costs from the department may be deducted by the city or county from cancellation fees received pursuant to this chapter prior to transmittal to the Controller for deposit in the Soil Conservation Fund. The assessor may require a deposit from the landowner to cover the contingency that payment of a cancellation fee will not necessarily result from tiie completion of a formal review. This subdivision shall not be construed as a limitation on the authority provided in Section 51287 for cities or counties to recover their costs in the cancellation process, except that the assessor's costs of conducting a formal review shall riot be borne by the nonrequesting party. (1) 1E no request is made within 45 days of receiving notice by certified mail of the valuation, the assessor's valuation shall be used to calculate the fee. (2) Upon receiving a request for formal review, the assessor shall formally review his or her valuation if, based on the determination of the assessor, the information may have a material effect on valuation of the property, The assessor shall notify the parties that Page 3 of 6 hUn / /www.lecrinfo.ca.2ov /cLi- bin /disptavcoc7fiA* 7 ov &group= 51001- 52000&file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) the formal review is being undertaken and that information to aid the assessor's review shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of the notice to the parties. Any information submitted to the assessor shall be served on the other party who shall have 30 days to respond to that information to the assessor. If the response to the assessor contains new information, Lhe party receiving that response shall have 20 days to respond to the assessor as to the new information. All submittals and responses to the assessor shall be served on the other party by personal service or an affidavit of mailing. The assessor shall avoid ex parts contacts during the formal review and shall report any such contacts to the department and the landowner at the same time the review is complete. The assessor shall complete the review no later than 120 days of receiving the request. (3) At the conclusion of the formal review, the assessor shall either revise the cancellation valuation or determine that the original cancellation valuation is accurate. The assessor shall send the revised valuation or notice of the determination that the valuation is accurate to the department, the landowner, and the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. The assessor shall include a brief narrative of what consideration was given to the items of information and responses directly relating to the cancellation value submitted by the parties. The assessor shall give no consideration to a party's information or response that was not served on the other party. If the assessor denies a formal review, a brief narrative shall be provided to the parties indicating the basis for the denial, if requested. (c) For purposes of this section, the valuation date of any revised valuation pursuant to formal review or following judicial challenge shall remain the date of the assessor's initial valuation, or his or her initial recomputation pursuant to Section 51283.4. For purposes of cancellation fee calculation in a tentative cancellation as provided in Section 51283, or in a recomputation for final cancellation as provided in Section 51283.4, a cancellation value shall be considered current for one year after its determination and certification by the assessor, (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department and the landowner may agree on a cancellation valuation of the land. The agreed valuation shall serve as the cancellation valuation pursuant to Section 51283 or Section 51283.4. The agreement shall be transmitted to the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. (e) This section represents the exclusive administrative procedure for appealing a cancellation valuation calculated pursuant to this section. The Department of Conservation shall represent the interests of the state in the administrative and judicial remedies for challenging the determination of a cancellation valuation or cancellation fee. 51205. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, land devoted to recreational use or land within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife habitat area, a saltpond, a managed wetland area, or a submerged area may be included within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. When such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city or county within which it is situated may contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to recreational or open space use and uses compatible therewith in the same manner as provided in this chapter for land devoted to agricultural use. For purposes of this section, Page 4 of 6 http:// www. leginfo. ea. gov/ cgi- bin /displayeoc7 eiT &v&group= 51001 -52000 &file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) where the term "agricultural land" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include land devoted to recreational use and land within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife habitat area, a saltpond, a managed wetland area, or a submerged area, and where the term "agricultural use" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include recreational. and open space use. 51205.7. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, .Land within a scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 51201, shall, upon the .request of the owner, be included in an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. Wher. such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city or county within which it is situated shall contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to agricultural use as defined in subdivision (b), recreational use as defined in subdivision (n), open -space use as defined in subdivision (o), compatible use as defined in subdivision (e), or any combination of such uses. 51206. The Department of Conservation may meet with and assist local, regional, state, and federal agencies, organizations, landowners, or any other person or entity in the interpretation of this chapter. The department may research, publish, and disseminate .information regarding the policies, purposes, procedures, administration, and implementation of this chapter. This section shall be liberally construed to permit the department to advise any interested person or entity regarding this chapter. 51207. (a) On or before May 1 of every other year, the Department of Conservation shall report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of this chanter by cities and counties. (b) The report shall contain, but not be Limited to, the number of acres of land under contract in each category and the number of acres of land which were removed from contract through cancellation, eminent domain, annexation, or nonrenewal. (c) The report shall also contain the following specific information relating to not less than one - third of all cities and counties participating in the Williamson Act program: (1) The number of contract cancellation requests for which notices of hearings were mailed to the Director of Conservation pursuant to Section 51264 which were approved by boards or councils during the prior two years or for which approval is sti11 pending by boards or councils. (2) The amount of cancellation fees payable to the county treasurer as deferred taxes and which are required to be transmitted to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 51263 which have not been collected or which remain unpaid. (3) The total number of acres covered by certificates of cancellation of contracts during the previous two years. (4) The number of nonrenewal and withdrawal of renewal notices received pursuant to Section 51245 and the number of expiration notices received pursuant to Section 51246 during the previous two years. (5) The number of acres covered by nonrenewal notices that were Page 5 of 6 6rrn / /xrr,ia, Irninfn rn nnv /cai- hin /disnlavcod7:A5Li M7L9v &group= 5 1 00 1- 52000&file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) not withdrawn and expiration notices during the previous two years. (d) The department, may reco{nmend changes to this chapter which would further promote its purposes. (e) The Legislature may, upon request of the department, appropriate funds from the deferred taxes deposited in the General Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 51283 in an amount sufficient to prepare the report required by this section. Page 6 of 6 litip: / /www.leginfo.ca. gov /cgi- bialdisplayco7e5Aia8#v &group =51001 - 52000 &file =5... 8/19/2013 w w sir N kid"„ �rru w 3 Off cerS. Jeannie Gillett Pre.sidenl Ryan Bensley Vice - President Treasurer Board Memhers: Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Nick Spain F1dIDI7 "To pl'eser p, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educational rosour cc for all " Contact (714) 20-6 -4642 R O. Box 10038 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0038 Old (')rtchard November 6, 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Members of the Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Ana City Council: As you know, members of The Old Orchard Conservancy have been working tirelessly for more than two years toward the preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. It is the official position of The Conservancy to preserve the entire five - acre property; however, we are now open to considering a preservation alternative acceptable under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would allow up to half of the property to be developed and the remainder preserved. One of our principal objections to the environmental review process has been, and continues to be, that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed development project has never included a feasible preservation alternative. The EIR currently includes an alternative that would provide for the development of 21 single family houses on the Sexlinger property, which would result in the destruction of more than 90 percent of the orchard and the irreparable loss of the integrity of the historic resource. Lack of a preservation alternative was one of the reasons the Planning Commission voted not to recommend approval of the project. Earlier this year, we met several times with representatives of Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University of Irvine in an effort to reach an agreement for the purchase of the property by The Conservancy. When it became clear that our discussions were not going to lead to a successful resolution, The Conservancy began to think more broadly about other preservation options which could include a limited amount of residential development. We have come to the position that the development of up to 50 percent of the orchard could take place while still maintaining a significant portion of the original historic integrity of the resource. Acceptable development would include single -story architecture consistent with the historic character, period and style of the property with transitional landscaping that would seamlessly blend into the orchard. This approach would respect the City's decision to add this last example of our agricultural past to the historic register and preserve this irreplaceable landscape creating a community resource with a huge potential for educational and health and wellness programming, trvtn w. � d 0 1 hard Con servancy,o rg 75A -81 Yld Ovidhard Page 2 while also allowing the current owners to realize a substantial economic benefit from this generous gift bequeathed to them by Martha Sexlinger. The recent California appellate case, Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 DJDAR 9784, as summarized in the attached letter from our legal counsel, Deborah Rosenthal, to Vincent Fregoso, dated August 21, 2013, would seem especially relevant to the above proposed alternative. In her letter, Ms. Rosenthal outlines that "[t]his case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is intended to effectuate. P. 9791." "Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for loss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be an agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2.5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed in" the option outlined above. Depending on design, The Conservancy believes that such an alternative for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard could comply with CEQA. We respectfully request that you consider directing staff to revise the EIR prepared for the project to include a preservation option such as the one presented above that could truly assure long -term preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard in accordance with CEQA. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett President The Old Orchard Conservancy Enclosure cc: Ryan Bensley, TOOC Vice President Patrick Mitchell, TOOC Director Moises Plascencia, TOOC Director Steve Ray, TOOC Director Nick Spain, TOOC Director Deborah Rosenthal, AICP, Esq. Matthew Holbrook, Esq. Sonia Carvalho, Esq. vv ww,O�cl rcfiardCorisev- va�icy.org 75A -82 RUTAN RUTAIV S TUCKER, LLP January 24, 2014 VIA E -MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Vince C. Fregoso Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Drive, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jeffrey T. Melching Direct Dial: (714) 641 -3422 Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Mr. Fregoso: This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, the "Schools "), in connection with their development applications for the property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, The City recently distributed for public corn went a document entitled "ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE" (the "Additional Analysis "). Among other things, the Additional Analysis analyzed a "Historic Preservation Alternative" to the development originally proposed by the Schools, which would call for the permanent preservation in situ of the Sexlinger Farmhouse, the restoration of the farmhouse to Secretary of the Interior standards, the partial preservation of the associated orchard trees, and the planting of additional like -kind orange trees. To accomplish these improvements, the total number of for -sale homes on the property would be reduced from 24 to 23 (22 plus the farmhouse), After careful study, the Additional Analysis concludes that the Historic Preservation Alternative would not have a significant impact on cultural resources, The Schools appreciate the City's hard work and creativity in suggesting and causing the study of the Historic Preservation Alternative. And, after carefully considering the results of the Additional Analysis, the Schools have submitted revised applications to the City so that the proposed development will be consistent with that alternative. It is our understanding that those revised applications will be presented to the City's Planning Commission on February 10, 2014, Rutan R Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1950 1 714 -641 -5100 1 Fax 714 -546 -9035 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com ffZ:. ':. C 4 680/048170 -0940 6e02364.1 ,01n411 n RUTAN Vince C. Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 2 The Schools have prepared the Response Memorandum attached to this letter as Exhibit A, which surveys community member comments on the originally- proposed project, and explains in how the Historic Preservation Alternative addresses those concerns. The Response Memorandum also suggests modifications to the Draft EIR, so that the record of the City's exhaustive efforts at historic preservation on the project site are more fully documented. In addition to the Response Memorandum, we attach the following supplemental materials to this letter to assist the City in evaluating the project: • Shade and Shadow Renderines: At the January 2013 Planning Commission meeting on this matter, questions were raised concerning the shade and shadow effects of the proposed development. In response to those inquires, the Schools commissioned a shade and shadow analysis, which is attached to this Ietter as Exhibit B. As the renderings show, the shade and shadow effects on adjoining development are minimal, with no shadows cast on structures and only minor shadows cast on back yards doing the late fall and winter morning hoes. • Arborist Study: Throughout the entitlement process, the Schools and the City have heard various claims concerning the health of the trees on the property. The Schools retained an expert arborist to study this issue. The arborist's report is attached as Exhibit C. h1 short, the arborist concluded that only 24 of the trees are healthy, that the property is not currently a viable orchard, and that restoration and operation of the entire property as an orchard is economically infeasible. • Traffic Analysis. Through the public review and outreach process, community members inquired as to whether the installation of a "crash gate" at the south end of Lyon Avenue on the project site would cause any additional traffic impacts beyond those analyzed in the EIR for the project. The additional traffic analysis is attached as Exhibit D. That analysis concludes that, with or without a crash gate, the impacts of the project will be identical. All of the materials attached to this letter have been provided in an effort to ensure that the City has the information it needs to make a fully informed decision. To that end, please do not 6 80/048770 -0940 6602364.1 .011.4 114 75A -84 RUTAN Vince C. Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 3 hesitate to contact me, or any of the School's project representatives, if there is any additional information or explanation that we may provide. MILY11 689/448170 -0940 66423641 101/24/14 Sincerely, I Jeffrey T. Melching RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 75A -85 690/ - o.0,u0i00i00 75A -86 ORANGE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL'S AND CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE 1. Introduction. During the public comment and hearing process on this project, the Planning Commission and City staff have received comments from the public that addressed the sufficiency of (1) the Environmental Impact Report (E1R), (2) the proposed variance findings for Lots 7 and 13 of the proposed project, and (3) the General Plan consistency findings for the proposed tentative tract map. City staff has responded to these issues by commissioning an additional environmental analysis ( "Additional Analysis ") that, among other things, examines the viability of a new Historical Preservation Alternative. Based on the Additional Analysis' conclusions, Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University (collectively, the "applicant") have proposed significant revisions to its development proposal that effectively seek to implement the Historic Preservation Alternative. This memorandum explains how those revisions respond to and meaningfully address the most frequently recurring issues and concerns raised during the public review process. 2. The City Has Complied With Its General Plan Policy To "Encouragge the Retention and Reuse of Historical Buildings." In comment letters the City received on December 17, 2012 and on February 11, 2013, The Old Orchard Conservancy asserted that the FIR found a "clear conflict" with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.2, which states that the City should "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites." This asserted conflict was raised as a challenge to both the sufficiency of the land use analysis in the EIR and the General Plan consistency findings for the tentative tract map. As discussed below, the project does not conflict with the General Plan because (1) the City has actively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of the historic resources on the project site, (2) the proposed project has been revised to include preservation of the farmhouse building, together with orchard trees, on -site, and (3) based on the foregoing, the City's draft FIR concludes that development in the manner now proposed by the applicant will not result in significant impacts to historic resources. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the following land use goal: "Protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life." To advance that goal, the City established Land Use Element Policy 4.2 as follows: "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites." Consistent with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 4.2, the City created a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ordinance that defines the processes and means by which the City encourages the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites. (Santa Ana Mun. Code ( "SAMC ") Ch. 30 [`Historic Preservation Ordinance "].) Those regulations have been applied to the Sexlinger Property. 75A -87 Specifically, on June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger Property on the Santa Ana Register o {'Historic Properties. The property owners thereafter applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard on the property. Under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, that application triggered the Historic Resources Commission's obligation to evaluate "all feasible alternatives to demolition," and to hold a public hexing on the demolition proposal within two hundred and forty (240) days. To meet the requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Resources Commission appointed an ad hoc committee to study potential alternatives to demolition. The committee consisted of two Historic Resources Commission members, two members of City staff, five representatives from The Old Orchard Conservancy, and two representatives of the property owners. The committee met in August of 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. It also met with concerned members of the community in September of 2012 to discuss private preservation options, and to obtain community input. In addition to those meetings and community outreach activities, City staff investigated whether a number of organizations would be willing to purchase, restore, and /or relocate the historic resources on site. Those organizations included: (1) Certified Local Government; (2) National Trust for Historic Preservation; (3) Save America's Treasures; (4) Preserve America; (5) California Cultural & Historic Endowment; (6) National Center for Preservation Technology; (7) California Humanities; (8) the Getty Foundation; (9) California Preservation Foundation; (10) California Grant Watch; (11) California State Parks Foundation; (12) California State Land & Water Conservation; (13) Southern California Edison — Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan Grant; (14) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; (15) Department of Energy; Sunshot Initiative; (16) South Coast Air Quality Management District; (17) Orange County Transportation Authority; (18) United States Department of Transportation; (19) State of California, Bicycle Transportation Account; (20) Federal Highway Administration; (21) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Agriculture; (22) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Transportation; (23) California Department of Transportation, Transportation Enhancement Program; (24) State of California Rivers and Parkways; (25) State of California Recreational Trails Program; (26) State of California Habitat Conservation Fund; (27) Southern California Association of Governments Compass Blueprint Planning Program; and (28) Solid Waste Grants. None of these organizations were in a position to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger Property. City staff also oversaw the creation of a notice that publicized the availability of the Sexlinger Property for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. The notice was distributed in September of 2012, and was sent and /or posted to the following entities and individuals: (1) Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (2) Orange County Historical Society; (3) City of Santa Ana website; (4) City of Santa Ana Facebook page; (5) City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook page; (6) OC History Roundup Blog (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (7) The Orange County Community Foundation; (8) The Nature Conservancy; (9) The Wildlands Conservancy; (10) The Conservation Fund; (11) The Old Orchard Conservancy; (12) "Inside The Outdoors," Orange County Department of Education; (13) Rancho Santiago College; (14) Irvine Valley College; (15) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; (16) California State University, Fullerton; (17) Discovery Science Center; (18) Historic French Park (Debbie -2- 75A-88 McEwen, President); and (19) all Historic Resources Commission ad hoc committee meeting attendees. Whenever possible, each of these organizations was also contacted by phone. Despite these extensive public outreach efforts, the City received no calls and /or emails expressing interest in purchasing the Sexlinger Property for restoration or relocation proposes. In a third attempt at preservation, City staff explored possible sites for the relocation of the historic building to an off-site location. No private individuals or organizations contacted the City or the property owners with sites that could be used for relocation purposes. Nor did the City's independent examination of potentially available sites yield any solutions. In October 2012, the Historic Resources Commission received an update from the ad hoc committee on the status of the investigation, and the public was provided another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources for restoration or relocation of the Sexlinger Property. No significant new information or resources were presented. The foregoing comprehensive efforts to encourage preservation of the historic resources on the Sexlinger Property were reported to the Historic Resources Commission, and were the subject of a duly noticed public hearing before that body on January 24, 2013. The Historic Resources Commission, after hearing all of the evidence, and considering all of the correspondence and public testimony, expressly "determined that neither private preservation nor relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timeframe available."' The Historic Resources Commission's determination was appealable to the City Council, but no appeal was filed. Therefore, the Historic Resources Commission's determination regarding the feasibility of preservation became final and conclusive. The applicant responded to the City's efforts to encourage preservation of the property through the sale to an entity seeking to re- establish an orchard there. To that end, in August of 2012, representatives of the property owners sent The Old Orchard Conservancy a letter outlining the terns under which the religious institutions would consider a sale of the Sexlinger Property on or before December 31, 2012. The property owners and The Old Orchard Conservancy participated in a series of subsequent conversations and correspondence in late 2012, through which the deadline to enter into a letter of intent to purchase the property was extended to February 15, 2013, and the deadline to enter into a purchase agreement for the property was extended to March 15, 2013. Both of those dates were beyond the 240 - day time period for investigating the feasibility of preservation as set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The February 15, 2013 and March 15, 2013 dates passed without any significant progress by the Old Orchard Conservancy towards a purchase of the Sexlinger Property for preservation proposes. In fact, in a January 7, 2013 letter to the Historic Resources Commission, The Old Orchard Conservancy confirmed that it had, to that point, not raised sufficient funds to enter into a purchase agreement with the owners.2 1 The `limited fineframe" is a reference to the 240 days (i.e., eight months) within which the Historic Resources Commission must complete its feasibility evaluation for demolition permits. ' As of the date of this submittal —fully 17 months after the August 2012 letter —The Old Orchard Conservancy still has not made any meaningful progress toward a purchase agreement -3- 75A-89 In an attempt to further encourage these discussions, the City convened a meeting among City staff (including the Interim City Manager, Planting Director, and City Attorney), The Old Orchard Conservancy, and the property owners on May 13, 2013. At the meeting, the City offered to facilitate a mediation between the property owners and The Old Orchard Conservancy. After carefully considering that offer, The Old Orchard Conservancy and the property owners jointly declined the offer to mediate, but indicated they would continue discussing among themselves the potential sale of the property. Those discussions have continued, but no tangible progress toward a mutually satisfactory resolution has been achieved. On August 29, 2013, the City received an email from a representative of The Old Orchard Conservancy, requesting that an additional preservation alternative be considered. The City had previously considered a "Hybrid Development Alternative" that involved the relocation of the existing residential structure and the rectangular outbuilding to the northeast corner of the property, and the retention of approximately 20 to 30 trees in the northeast portion of the property as an orchard area. To accomplish this design configuration, the number of homes under the Hybrid Development Alternative would be reduced from 24 to 21. The EIR concluded that the Hybrid Development Alternative would not reduce impacts to historic resources to below a level of significance because the relationship of the residence to the orchard would be substantially altered. An important factor in that determination was the Pact that the relocation of the farmhouse, and changing its orientation, could create a false sense of historic development. In an attempt to address the August 29, 2013 request, and to devise a better preservation alternative, in November, 2013, the City commissioned the "Additional Analysis for Response to Continents on the Draft Environmental Impact Report." That analysis includes a description and discussion of a "Historic Preservation Alternative" that would (1) keep in place the existing farmhouse and garage., (2) require that those buildings be rehabilitated to Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, (3) maintain the home as a single family residential use that would be available for sale, (4) retain those orange trees that are currently located on the 10,044 square foot lot, and (5) provide for the planting of additional orange trees. To achieve this design, the number of homes would be reduced from 24 to 23 (the restored farmhouse plus 22 new homes). The Supplemental Analysis applied The National Pat* Service (NPS)National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (MeLelland et al. 1999:15 -17) rubric for purposes of analyzing impacts to cultural resources associated with the Historic Preservation Alternative. That analysis considered thirteen different landscape characteristics that can apply to orchards, including: (1) Natural Systems and Features; (2) Spatial Organization; (3) Land Use; (4) Cultural Traditions; (5) Circulation; (6) Topography; (7) Vegetation; (8) Buildings and Structures; (9) Cluster Arrangements; (10) Small Scale Features; (11) Constucted Water Features; (12) Views and Vistas; and (13) Archaeology Sites. In the context of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, small scale features (criterion 10), constructed water features (criterion 11), and archeology sites (criterion 13), are either not applicable or minimally applicable, and are therefore not discussed in the Additional Analysis. As to the remaining ten factors, the Additional Analysis acknowledges that natural systems and for the property. -4- 75A-90 features (criterion 1), hand use (criterion 3), cultural traditions (criterion 4), topography (criterion 6), and buildings and structures (criterion 8) are all characteristics that are retained in the Historic Preservation Alternative. Of the remaining five factors, the Additional Analysis concludes that circulation (criterion 5), cluster arrangements (criterion 9), would be partially retained. As to the remaining three factors — spatial organization, vegetation, and views and vistas — the Additional Analysis concludes as follows: • Spatial Organization: "The spatial relationship between the residence and garage, orientation of the property, and the property's visual narrative of a small scale orchard would also be retained." Vegetation: "There would be substantially fewer trees than what historically existed; however, new trees would be planted in -kind to fill out the parcel and to replace any dead or decaying trees. The new trees would match the existing type (Valencia, grafted to lemon rootstock) ...." Views and Vistas: "Lastly, the views and vistas would transition from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that of new residential buildings and roadways." In sum, the Additional Analysis concludes that 9 of the 10 applicable criteria are at least partially satisfied. We respectfully submit that the tenth factor — views and vistas — is also at least partially satisfied, inasmuch as the farmhouse will not be relocated, will be rehabilitated per Secretary of Interior standards, and will remain visible from the street. Orange trees near the house will also remain visible. In this regard, the property "would retain many of its major elements and still convey the significance of a property type that was once common and is now a rare surviving example in the City." (Additional Analysis, p. 7.) Based on the above, the Additional Analysis both (a) concludes that the Historic Preservation Alternative will mitigate impacts to cultural resources to a less- than - significant level, and (b) finds that the alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for CEQA analysis proposes. Importantly, as compared to the Hybrid Development Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative better meets the City's objectives — particularly the goal of adding to the City's stock of move -up housing — because it would allow for the development of 23 of the originally proposed 24 homes on the site. The foregoing illustrates the extraordinary steps the City has taken in an effort to minimize impacts to historic resources. These steps show, in compelling fashion, that the City has proactively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of historic buildings and sites, and therefore complied with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 4.2. To highlight this conclusion, we respectfully request that the language in the Final EIR that could be construed to suggest a conflict with Land Use Element Goal 4 and /or Land Use Element Policy 4.2 be revised as follows. The text of Final EIR Section 9.3 (,Page 56, first full paragraph) should be modified as follows: -5- 75A-91 The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Followit that designation. the property owners proposed demolition of the on site sttuctures,_which triggered an open, public. athd comprehensive process through which all feasible preservation alternatives were thorou'Flily evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed, which included members of the Crty'sHrstoric Resources Commission, City staff, members of the ub is interested in preserving the site and representatives of the property....owers. The committee and City staff explo4: preservation options by examining 28 different potential public funding sources and actively soliciting interest in purchasing the Uro )ertty from no less than 19_private groups and organizations. At the conclusion of this process, the Crtv_'s Historic Resources Commission held a public hearing at which it cott.ttsively determined that there are no feasible preservation alternatives for the Site. Despite that conclusion, City staff nevertheless in reSlJOnse to a comm_ ent on the EIR — commissioned an additional analysis to study a Historic_ Preservation Alternative he Historic Preservation Alternative would preserve the existing funnahouse and garage in place. and call for the preservation of some of the trees on site (together with the planting of additional like -kind trees). The additional analysis found that the Historic Preservation Alternative would avoid impacts to cultural resources. and would constitute an environmentally superior alternative. Upon receiving and reviewing the additional analysis, the applicant has agreed to modify its develo went rronosal to reflect the Historic Preservation Alternative. By these actions. it is clear that _the City has proactively encouraged the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites as required by the s, ,,u t�r-t w l>mpox i d I)iolee wartrF9 eerr6firC will* --- City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4 and ;- Policy 4.2_Tkvhic h crar:(sxu,wes lhc, ra.l.rrtion �trr1 ra. �F= Erf dit,Yr,ta� -a1 l'riulria3 r., araeC ;raw, f ti -� omlfl+,H tlrt t r[:y or' `awl ) l n. t General Hmi Laiid Usf i,teraacnt Coal �N, Polkly 4.2 FExalel... rc-At ns €Eta , "YMI C existing, residefl gal strtwiura ^. , rreiibrailrhrr« raarR( n- alloou (recs. However, r, n �,fl� +tcaG.isHtk,r ¢ " -E.,:y irCrs,�ctta- ,htit flex +i:rFo-1 Milli, — -Am(l ll e l,kr,rryr;rafi; Iiatprlertnc�rE,Hrrrrt--Plrua, tFrr�- ;.rt�l rrllat! ^r�--trrrrl¢.e.ir r;c ��arlhleafi.[a 17rF�;e,,t m�� latrrtk <r. t,i�, . , rr.y +r�a ]a:errc,,rrrv.- unrr.t lx +rlsct� E>otrr.;(t+s ,cr+ietl =t:r [i €. € =�,�tk�rlvsrl 4}ho-�oiN�*Gt f(rra - -( iEy'1� re�.,��iiew larf>rw�(�,er4, with a r.�lar,c�,r +IroE. +;¢�r�i4, amf pc +olaer�� .a€ -alai, o,rV;:; -'w d,c�aerra�1'R�t., [,,rrrd P rep 12 lc rnrciat: • The text of Section 7.3.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planning" (Pages 7 -4 to 7 -5) is modified as follows: -b- 75A-92 This alternative would not be consistent with the existing single family land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR -7) or zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R -1). This alternative would require a zone change and land use designation change to Open Space (0). htirl4�c, Nt €° 4'Ny G WUncil,t;li �tcd a t�io.l.tdtkrn 4Gi�t-9;�*ed4he ml th( SAPM11 on -hide 4, 22(411 1'4e, ,iclk m rlw,v;n�Pt� d- -[tire Sits r W y" i th.A.a hed ht S✓rl"hJt ,�xr�- awr ..) . �(Iw ?) I hii-tiltelmativw v,,:a u lc{ rosuIf ina Lie Nf�II ) VHI f th6. Hs i(,IeaiiEII ;I en rare, ,i ae, &III outhk�il�Rsu +�, �dw:d- isao,i�f ^, Pc�+u�e�� <�ni; icslrl,oc4lntt,nt - rai €It ,t t>t }t 1. � Ftr }� *;. p NBr t akc-1 <i #c �c- ro�«ru@�I G,�7 4(oda std: -dC . C4 y- 4 Sas la Aa,t rtd, f4an 4 �4�bEb 4 i ,i�, U ,d oij4;ti.t; :,�rr�l • i + t� 4 x. -��1 vgiei)u ii l- the rclunnoa at lcj ia:ur ,o h- i;itorica[ bnikkB "s ,ttsi- ��tlHed in tke C- ly'14 -__- K6.n¢aal- .. -.Phm- Land 9 Ise — I:hsit,?taj tfaIPJecl- Iell aio�r - -ILh r- 4 iy� -a1N.1 1411 fH,A(Mtti ) E clUVOkYlf iw,i4 ;r:oje+ -,tri wes��l�l he +i4i,e; rr ta5 lir pct leview tlirnu, h d1c= City � aw,irw ;raa�� F :; ,tt:�N 1xr�=1N�� r.rr4+t;tt¢i €t tdu`oul'li F]1 <; C�rM1y, , tivt.ya� ttiaii�s,. The City of Santa Ana Land Use Element Goals and policies also includes promoting land uses which enhance the City's economic and financial viability (Goal 2. Land Use Element), l m4 W.", 1.tt mes itit, supporting development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet (Policy 1.4, Land Use Element) -, and encouraging new development and /or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood (Policy 3.5, Land Use Element). As such, this alternative would conflict with portions of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies and existing land use and zoning designations. The text of Section 7.5.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planing" (Page 7 -11) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARI -IP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Following that designation, the property owners jXoWsed demolition of the on -site structures, which triggered an of en. - public and comprehensive process through which_ all feasible preservation alternatives were thoroughly evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed, which included members of the City's Historic Resources Commission City s ff, members of the public interested in preserving the site and representatives of the property owners. The committee and City staff explored presery adon options by examimn& 28 different potential public funding-,sources and actively soliciting interest m put�chasing the property from no less thgn 19 private groups and organizations. At -7- 75A-93 the conclusion of this process. the City's Historic Resources Commission held a public..-- J1..mon—, at which it conclusively determined_ that there are no feasible preservation atteru atives for the site. Despite that conclusion. City staff nevertheless in response to a comment on the EIR - _ commissioned _an...additional an dysis to study., a Historic Preservation Alternative. ,Tile Historic Preservation Alternative would preserve the existing farmhouse and ear ree. -c.n place and call for the Dreservation of some of the trees on site ether with the plant ng ofadditional like kind trees Historic Preservation Alternative would avoid impacts to cultural resources, and would constitute an environmentally- supgriior alternative. Upon receiving and reviewing the additional analysis the applicant has-agreed to Modify its development proposal to reflect the Historic Preservation Alternative. By these actions, it is clear that the Citv has proactive] encouraged ed tj>_e retention and reuse of historical _ .... - buildings -and sites as required by the ,a;Ar such 410 ; rotlfr^ ml [)Iojei war d .air +llyd, W41-i City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4 and - Policv 4 2 . As m 4r, thk aftomative, 1lrril ar hr,-- lur>�rHSer�IrrojtK't. wiflrCity of - Ssnt.t A -kul (4un ravtl Plan Wirer! 44w, 0,➢ gmefi-4 Gill 4, Poke 472 - ,vhwh IJE2l.flLda{ xC,s tlM1e r h�nik 11 m fd [CmjsL th -f dlr 4t4x if -iiiNi d( in-19 mid iw Iii-mvrrvc,t, ,r, staW roe 0w, 01Y t+l S -s nl a n crlk.ral Plrrrr, La,trl is,et t awl l are subtcctlo ploj et r €,vsr,wa [Imm,dr tic City', re,v+ov, and li x :; it air 41G,._vdo-l[ .F9 ,a- ra tv�alurtFel flilol1p1r Vlx, ,i y IeViewa Willi 61t1d policie" of i °Ln:t rr,lil s =, IAennr.tr't, The text of Section 7.6.1, under the heading "Land Use and Planning" (Page 7 -14) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Followirn that designation, the property owners proposed demolition of the on -site structures, which tiggered_an open, public. and comprehensive process through which all feasible preservation alternatives were thorou Ielly evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed, which members of the City's Historic Resources Commission. City staff, members of the public interested in preserving the site and representatives of the property owners The committee and City staff explored preservation options by_examining 28 different potential public funding sources and actively soliciting interest in purchasin" the property from no less than 19 private groups and organizations. At the conclusion of this process. the City's Historic Resources -8- 75A-94 Commission held a public hearin * at which conclusively - - - - -- - - ............. determined that there are no feasible preservation alternatives for the site Demote that conclusion. City staff nevertheless _ in response to a comment on the FIR - commissioned an additional analysis to study _t Historic Preservation Alternative The Historic Preservation Alternative would-..Preseive the existine farmhouse and ggraae in place. and call for; -the preservation of some of the trees on site (together with the planting of additional like-kind Me—es. The additional analysis found that the Historic Preservation Alternative would avoid impacts to cultural resources,_ and Would . constitute all environmentally superior alternative. Upon receiving- and reviewing-the additional analysis. the applicant has agreed to - — _ ......._-......_. -- modify its development proposal to reflect the Historic Preservation Alternative. By these - actions. it is clear that the City has proactively encouraged the retention and reuse of historical buildinLs and sites, as required by the 4, �,ne:h -tic Ir xoep d iprarprr<:tP,: vt rlu - -c f niiaf --- v,�41t-City of Santa Ana General Plan T. and Use Element Goal 4 and - Policy 4 As�ueh, flik sa[[rrlut� wa �lridilsrr to fia=, ,w€mki ck flee[ wkh.t fly of Swim Mr I ( iencnd 1'1.111-- Limc -1 Use l?Ispltn l t if r,r! 4-r. - 1'�.lie�; -- -4: "r, %A6eh crx.ratur'a"e , tlx i,'e;c;rlti�)lr and €eusu, hu lrlisrgs-,md ,kcsr 1 m dleP City el!- Saliu1 i�91 R•- .'�;+ey1C;l ill n'�l c}67, L.n-IJ UH,e Wef)xnll � lltsM; this mad otke jw<)iccN a vIl Yll'r.( Lk t4] "47jei - -:'$' YC'dlf ^N' -i11 C-4 )tlk'I bile t Itt 9 4'Q9"v tl ^`1'v l7fOt) eS`r HIld-H grsoJ;l;t�s lwHcfit� will LIW� he fht+sis�.;h thr t "tEs� n.wicw piro ess w4h 1'e,a>f>c.ea Etp td+cs- larm!t, .tsie4 11a16rc- t- �-cpf 4fte^ i il,y�' ,-&,c lactrrd flail L >and Use Ikdcfuelrt� • The text of Section 7.6.2 (page 7 -15) should be modified as follows: The Lower Density Alternativc�t would result in decreased impacts to air quality, noise, population and housings This alternative would result in significant impacts to cultural resources. r1nf(.ea ��t11 Phc�- "ily os' (icrl la€ ptarr d lfld -Lk i.krmcnt 4.lsr4 k- Polic...4l 2 whiel h wir1 rr�tM <rof--h1 d;>�rr1 xoila,li,a;_ �rsx.l �ritc� Furthermore, because of the significant reduction in residential units and larger estate -type lots, the Low Density Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected. 3. Commercial Orchards and Museum Uses are Not Permitted or Conditionally Permitted on the Proiect Site. Some of the written and oral comments on the Draft and Final EIR focused on proposals that would reinstate orchard operations on the project site. For example, in comments on the proposed Final FIR, The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed a "Citrus Orchard Alternative" that world involve the "operation of a commercial citrus operation on the site." (See also December -9- 75A-95 17, 2012 letter from The Old Orchard Conservancy, p. 5 [ "The 2012 RDEIR does not consider the feasibility of utilizing the Orchard for commercial citrus production, either in its entirety or as a part of a broader mitigation effort.. .. Further study may demonstrate citrus growing operation on the Property to be feasible, revenue - neutral, or even profitable, endeavor that could support a private, a non -profit Urban Garden or similar education project. The profits of a citrus - growing operation could be used to fund ongoing maintenance and repair of the Farmhouse or the construction of a small -scale museum. "]; January 7, 2013 letter from the Old Orchard Conservancy [ "The Conservancy is prepared to argue an economically viable and self- sustaining commercial citrus operation is possible at the Sexlinger Site which could be cost - neutral to the land owners. "].) A fundamental problem with those proposals is that a commercial orchard use is currently illegal on the site, as is a museum use. The property is in a Single - Family Residence (R -1) district. R -1 districts do not permit or conditionally permit commercial agricultural uses and/or museums (other than museums owned and operated by a university). (See SAMC 41 -232 [permitted uses], 41 -232.5 [conditionally permitted uses].) The former agricultural use on the property was a grandfathered legal non - conforming use. However, the commercial orchard operations (indeed, all operations on the site) have been discontinued for several years, and the City Code deems a non - conforming use to be abandoned if the use is suspended for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of the Santa Ana Zoning Code. (SAMC 41 -683.) Thus, while the proposed project requires no zone change and is consistent with existing City laws, the proposed commercial operation of the Sexlinger Property would violate City zoning laws under the zoning designation that governs the site. 4. The Selection and Application of Project Objectives. The project objectives selected by the City have been criticized in the public comment process as having been (1) drawn too narrowly, and (2) misstated and misapplied to the project's alternatives. Those claims are addressed in turn below. The following four project objectives were carefully chosen by City staff to: (1) provide for the current and future "move up" housing needs for the City; (2) provide land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Element designation and zoning designation of LR -7 and R -1, respectively; (3) provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character and visually cohesive with the area; and (4) prevent further dilapidation of the site, discourage vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized use of the site. These objectives all flow from either critical City -wide or super - regional policy documents and directives, or from common sense land use planning and management concepts. For example, the "move up" housing objective is grounded in an analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments. That analysis indicates that the City needs to add 3,393 residential units for the period between 2006 and 2014 to meet the regional need assigned to the City for new housing construction. The need for additional housing is driven, in part, by a projected 10,500 job increase in Santa Ana during that same time period. The -10- 75A-96 development of a five -acre vacant parcel with new housing will simultaneously increase the City's housing stock and provide "move up" opportunities for existing Santa Ana residents as additional, higher paying,, jobs come to the City over time. In this respect, the provision of a significant number of new homes on the project site will help the City fulfill its regionally recognized housing goals. On a more local level, the City's General Plan acts as the "constitution for all future development" within the City, and the City's Zoning Code acts to implement the General Plan on a district -by- district basis. Because the General Plan and Zoning Code are an expression of the City's land use policies, it was entirely appropriate for the City to include, as one of the project objectives, the pursuit of development that is consistent with those policies. The third objective — achieving land use compatibility — is important, but not unique. With all development proposals, the City respects the interests of neighboring landowners and communities by ensuring that proposed new development is consistent with its surroundings. In this instance, the proposed project meets that objective by providing a single family residential development with approximately 6,000 square foot lots in an area that it bounded to the east and the south by developments with similar sized residential lots. It is appropriate, but not exceptional, to expect equivalent compatibility from any alternative to the proposed project. Fourth, the City recognized that the current condition of the property must be remedied. In its current dilapidated condition, the property is a potential target of vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized uses. To protect the public health and safety, and to improve the character of the overall community, it is important to remedy those conditions. The Old Orchard Conservancy conceded that "the Project Objectives were properly drawn" but claims that they were "misstated and misapplied in selecting alternatives for the EIR." Specifically, The Old Orchard Conservancy claimed that the EIR unlawfully constrained its evaluation of alternatives in the EIR by defining the Project Objective as the construction of exactly 24 single - family housing units, rather than the provision of some level of "move -up" housing. That statement is not accurate. While 24 single family units would achieve the "move - up" housing objective to the greatest extent possible, the EIR recognized that the Alternative Design /Cul de Sac Alternative (providing 23 houses) and the Hybrid Development Alternative (providing 21 houses) would also achieve the `Shove -up" housing objective. At a point where a significant reduction in housing was proposed — for example in the Lower Density Alternative — the EIR acknowledges that the objective of providing "move -up" housing is no longer fully achieved This determination is reasonable. While providing 1 or 3 fewer homes than the proposed project can fairly be construed as meeting the project's "move -up" housing objective, a significant reduction in the number of houses does not meet that objective. Thus, the EIR's analysis was not tied to the construction of "exactly 24 single - family housing units," and the project objectives were fairly applied to the project. This conclusion is reinforced and bolstered by the City's election to study, and the applicant's decision to pursue, a Historic Preservation Alternative that reduces the number of proposed homes from 24 to 23. Thus, the assertion that the City (or the applicant) were intransigent in their pursuit of the move - up housing objective is simply wrong. -11- 75A-97 5. The Preservation Alternative. The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed in its comments on the Draft EIR that the City evaluate a "preservation alternative" that would "preserve the Orchard and Farmhouse in situ, require maintenance and security as a condition of project approval, and design a smaller residential subdivision compatible with the existing historic resources." This alternative, according to The Old Orchard Conservancy "would allow the minimum of new construction determined to be feasible, and would require a street pattern that respects the existing farmhouse and the surrounding neighborhood." The Historic Preservation Alternative effectively addresses The Old Orchard Conservancy's assertions. It preserves the farmhouse in sutra and also calls for the preservation of sonic of the orchard trees in situ. As specified in the Additional Analysis, these preservation efforts avoid impacts to cultural resources while still maximizing achievement of the project's objectives. In contrast, the "preservation alternative" alternative posited by The Old Orchard Conservancy would not meet most of the project's basic objectives. Given that the existing orchard and farmhouse currently cover the vast majority of the Sexlinger Property, the amount of residential development in The Old Orchard Conservancy's proposal would be reduced to less than 10 homes. Indeed, even that number of homes would require the removal of significant portions of the orchard. That level of development would provide significantly less housing, as compared to the project, and therefore cannot be fairly characterized as satisfying the project objective of providing for the City's current and future move -up housing needs. A preservation alternative also would not meet the City's objective of providing for uses that are consistent with the R -1 zoning designation insofar as the conversion of the residential structure to a community center (as suggested by The Old Orchard Conservancy) would require a zone change. Nor would a preservation alternative be similar in character to surrounding uses. Over the years, the surrounding neighborhood has become predominantly residential. The proposed project continues that trend, while a preservation alternative would result in a use that is not consistent with the surrounding properties. The City studied a reasonable range of alternatives, and, through that process, has identified an alternative that will avoid environmental impacts while also achieving most of the project's objectives- In contrast, because the Old Orchard Conservancy's "preservation alternative" would not meet the project's basic objectives, there was no need for a more detailed analysis of that alternative in the EIR. 6. The City Council May Make the Findines Necessary to Grant a Variance. hn this case, the applicant is proposing that Lot No. 12 have a street frontage that is less than what is otherwise currently required by City code. The Old Orchard Conservancy previously objected to this request (and another similar request which is now unnecessary, due to project revisions to accommodate the Historic Preservation Alterantive). As explained below, The Old Orchard Conservancy's objections are misplaced. -12- 75A-98 The reduced street frontage for Lot 12 is a product of requests made by community members, and endorsed by City staff, to create a curve to discourage cat - through traffic in the proposed extension of Lyon Street through the project site. After the applicant agreed to this modification, City staff further determined that a "knuckle" needed to be included in the newly - created curve in Lyon Street in order to accommodate the turning movement for trash trucks and similarly sized vehicles. The applicant agreed to that modification as well. As a result of these two modifications, Lot 12 will have an irregular shape. It will be particularly narrow in the front, and substantially wider toward the rear of the lot. Under SAMC section 41 -638, variance requests may be granted when (1) there are special circumstances related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, (2) the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, (3) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property, and (4) the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. In this case, all four of the required criteria are satisfied. First, the modifications to Lyon Street caused an irregular shape and configuration to Lot No. 12. While 50 feet of street frontage is a standard that makes sense in the context of typical rectangular lots, the insertion of roadway curves tends to encourage generally "pie shaped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are narrow in the front and wider in the back. This is a special circumstance relating to the size, shape, location, and surroundings of the two parcels. Second, granting the variance will allow for the development of Lot 12, whereas denying the variance would deny that lot from being developed to its planned, and highest and best, use. hr this regard, the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property owners' substantial property rights. Third, the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Lot 12 is part of an overall planned development, and will be compliant with all other applicable development standards. Fourth, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the property, will support move -up housing, and will advance each of the following General Plan policies: Policy 1.4 — support development of single - family residential lots; Policy 1.9 — result in a coordinated street and parkway design that is attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development; Policy 3.5 — encourage new development that is compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style of the neighborhood; and Policy 5.10 — support a circulation system that is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Comments the City received on February 11, 2013 assert that there are no circumstances justifying the grant of a variance here because the overall Sexlinger property is a 5 acre rectangular parcel, and because there is nothing unique about its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. The focus on the overall five acre property is misplaced. The variance is sought for the irregular shaped Lot 12 that will result from a subdivision of the property in the manner necessary to accommodate staff and community concerns. In addition, -13- 75A-99 even if one were to focus on the overall five acre parcel, the expressed interest to avoid "cut through" traffic on Lyon Street is a unique circumstance that necessitated subdividing the parcel in a manner that made compliance with the street frontage standards impossible for Lot 12. -14- 75A -100 6xW_ O.0 AW00 /00 IN blol, 1, a 009 75A -101 MOP 75A.102 Ei U2 nfi i= G- 75A -103 2-W$ 3a- c � 0 0 a � El c 0 0 oN o� _,o 75A.104 \\ ` \\ � Jm 2[ ):)( 2 ©� �7J n#\ 2 ©/ � 75A.105 Nazi � Nazi «2 / \ \ 2kƒ =7g r � =2 \ ©/ coon 75A -106 iz rsa �1 Nue; =U?d Li z G x u a x u a x a i N L a 3 0 0 4> a.� � � o i� eC �' cs� b o c� vz G 0 0 -a N 0 -�o o, �� o 75A -107 TV =n' I2� <_'za QUg� Li z F u x u x u a x a N x a 3 N U y 6J O V U CJ � 6J cz �y r� ctl V J ^CJ p U� ti 6J C c' C/] q O O .y m o `- N p o� N o i asoi 0.0,00100/00 75A -108 l ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. ARBORICULTURE & HORTICUti URI May 22, 2013 Mr. Robert Odle Odle & Associates 6007 E. Mabury Ave Orange, CA 92867 Re: Sexlinger Orange Grove Dear Mr. Odle: Thank you for asking me to provide an arboricultural evaluation of the orange trees' health and condition, professional opinions regarding its viability as an orchard, requirements to maintain an orchard, and report as appropriate. 1, r r On May 8, 2013 we met on site and walked the orchard. I took photographs from ground level and ordered an aerial infrared photo to be flown by Focal Flightcom. See attached the aerial infrared photograph. Healthy plants show up the reddest There are about 24 healthy trees at this time. Of about 480 spaces 256 are empty, i.e, they died and were removed, 226 are alive, and 24 of those are healthy. Color infrared technology is most useful when comparing trees of the same species in the same setting at the same time, as in this case. You will notice what was evident when we walked the site, i.e. that other than the tees closest to the front and several along the very edge, nearly all the other tees are in severe decline. It is easy to drive by the site on Santa Clara and get the impression that the trees are healthy. The trees along the road get runoff from the street and may be getting hose water from off the house. People that can take the time to walk it, as we did, get quite a different impression of how healthy they are. The aerial infrared photograph is included for those who for one reason or another cannot or will not see it first -hand. Several of the larger trees in the aerial photograph are actually weed trees. There are a couple holly oaks and a large pecan in the middle. Most of the citrus trees have lost most of their leaves and many are wilted. The weed trees need less water. The foliage color of the orange tees is not healthy green. A large amount of the fine branches are dead or dying. The disking of the soil to control weeds has damaged roots. There is almost no part of the trees south of the third row down that is healthy or capable of producing edible fruit. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. JI0fUCLdn.ue & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, T'u,47n, CA 92780, IS A409 409 Cell: 714.292.7t S -1, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 2 ''= M health of the trees along the top edge compared to the others, especially at the two north corners.. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Vz7]Q.73161b Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page The same property photographed the same day with normal color film does not show as graphically the decline in tree health. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. 1- Ior(iculmre &.Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, 7IR7jrt.A611 Cell: 714292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Note the health of the trees along the top edge compared to the others. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I'fortindture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, ISAA42 Cell: 714.292.7184, Fas 714.731.6138 Page 4 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 5 The lower shaded leaves are also generally healthier. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I °lorticulmre & Arboriculture 1131 LuCinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, 18 A 7 21 CeIl: 714.292.7134, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove The large tree at left is a pecan tree probably started from a bird dropped seed. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way,'fustin, CA 92780, 716A44l Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 774.731.6138 Page 6 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 7 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horuculture & arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, Cpl 92780, �S7&J 3ff5 Cell: 714392.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Note the declining health as you Look more to the south. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horuculrure & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way,'Puson, CA 92780, I AA6 % Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 Page 8 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 9 Several edge trees are healthier, possibly due to water from the adjoining Portola Park. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucincla Way, Tustin, CA 92780, IS A4-A17 Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 10 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, 7A,1.7 , 1 Cell: 714292.7184, Mix 714.731.6138 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page I1 Some trees are nearly bare (right) and some are wilting (left). ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I forticulture & .Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda W 11 Way, Tustin, CA 92780, 76AA9 Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6738 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 12 :t'7= Considering the price of water in Orange County, the value of land, the tax rate, and the ever- increasing number of citrus pests and diseases, there is no way to make a Valencia orange grove even pay for itself. The only similar size grove in this area is, according to one family member, "an expensive hobby ", and they have a road -side stand so they are making more money per Pound. Consider that packing houses are paying about $0.05 per pound and one healthy average Valencia orange produces about 200 pounds. Ten dollars per year per tree might cover the cost of water in a wet year. If healthy trees filled all the available spaces (480) on this site, (only 226 now are filled and 24 of'which are healthy),, the crop might be worth $4,800, assuming you picked them yourself and shipping was free. However, there are many other expenses. In speaking to Nick Nisson at the Agriculture Commissioner's office, whose family has the last, or one of the last,, "commercial" orchards in Orange County, I learned that there is no way to make a go of it at any size unless you have your own well and a larger property under the Williamson Act. At five cents a pound, maybe not even then would it pay for itself. At the Sexlinger orchard 456 new trees would be needed to refill the property with healthy trees that would have a chance of growing into a orchard capable of producing $4,800 worth of fruit per year. Another expense would be the cost of buying and planting those trees, and then taking care of them for the next five to seven years until they can produce a worthwhile crop of fi-uit. Replanting should be with 5 gallon container size trees. Each tree will cost approximately $15 wholesale. Planting will also cost about $15. The total cost to install them for installation and materials will then be $13,680. Removal of the 202 old unhealthy trees will cost about $100 per tree, or $20,200. Fruit trees in general tend to have more pests because they produce more sugar that insects like to feed on. Citrus are often infested by scale, psyllids, fruit flies, and mites. Typical commercial and cost effective spraying methods would not be acceptable to the neighbors and local community. Now we have the Asian psyllid,, which brings the threat of Huanglongbing, a deadly bacterial disease. Huanglongbing is one of the most devastating citrus diseases in the world and incurable. Infected trees must be removed and destroyed quickly to avoid infecting other citrus. As privately held property by Concordia and Lutheran High, expecting them to make money growing citrus is unreasonable. Now that this property is almost surrounded by residential properties and parks, and zoned RI, the highest and best use of the property is R residential use. The Guy Stivers report is in error expecting any significant root growth to five feet deep. If there are any roots at five feet it will be less than I percent of the root system. The amount of roots glowing to four feet deep is also extremely small. Over 90 percent of the roots will be in the 'top 30 inches of soil. Considering the current decline and death of the trees, the report is a extreme exaggeration of the amount of roots and their depth. Growing an orchard as a carbon bank does not make sense in this area. Conclusions This property is not some sort of carbon bank, Orange museum or a one species botanic garden. At one time it may have been a viable orchard, or part of one. That time has long pasted. There is a nice public park next door and two cemeteries that can serve as "carbon banks ". Few if any People would spend time to visit an orange museum. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulhite & Arboriculture 1'131 Lucinda Wiy, Tustin, CA 92780, 7A I.7�.0 A Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.61:38 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 13 The neighbors would not want to breathe the fumes of the pesticides used to control the pests and keep an orange orchard healthy. This property would require replanting, an experienced caretaker, water, fertilizer, pest control, harvesting, and shipping, at considerable cost, but for no significant benefit. Please call me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, Arborg to Consulting, Inc. Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA Registered Consulting Arborist #365 Enclosures ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Hor6culhire & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, -76 .All Cell: 714292.7184, Fax 714.731.613$ 680/ - O.O u00 /00 /00 I�A�:IIi�Y1T�. 75A -122 R %�� KOA CORPORATION R%, PLANNING & ENGINEERING Date: July 18, 2013 To: Mr. Robert Odle Odle Associates From: Min Zhou, P.E., Vice President — KOA Corporation Subject: Traffic Engineering Services for the TAVA Homes Project in the City of Santa Ana t s r KOA Corporation (KOA) is pleased to submit this traffic analysis of a proposed site plan change for the TAVA Homes project in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the expected effect of closing the south entrance of the project to public access. The south entrance would have a "crash gate" only, allowing only emergency vehicle access. The analysis will consider the effect this change may have on Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street, and reconsider recommendations for improvements to the Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street intersection. A traffic impact study was completed for the TAVA Homes project by KOA in 2011. This study analyzed the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed 24 -unit residential project as well as their expected impacts to the surrounding roadway network. Access to the development was provided on Santa Clara Avenue on the north side of the project site and at Avalon Avenue on the south side of the project site. Eighty -five percent of project traffic was presumed to access the site via the north entrance, and fifteen percent was presumed to access the site via the south entrance. The 2011 study determined that the project would generate 230 net daily trips, including 18 AM peak hour trips and 24 PM peak hour trips. The study also determined that added traffic from the proposed project would result in a significant impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street. Mitigation measures designed to mitigate this impact were recommended. The recommended measures were a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide 2 -way left -turn lane. Additional background information can be found in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. / r The proposed project description based on the revised site plan includes 24 single - family dwelling units on an approximately 5 -acre site. The project site is located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, east of Wright Street, and 75A -123 KOA CORPORATION currently is occupied by one dwelling unit and an orange grove. The project would be accessed via a single entrance on the north side of the project site, an extension of Lyon Street. There would be a "crash gate" on the south side of the development for emergency vehicle access only. There would be no public access to the development from Avalon Avenue on the south side. The project is expected to generate a total of 230 net daily trips, including 18 trips dining the AM peak hour and 24 trips during the PM peak hour. Figure I shows the revised project site plan. Z' The following presents an analysis of traffic volumes and intersection operating conditions with the change in project site plan (closure of the south entrance to public access). This change affects the project trip distribution, resulting in more project trips entering /exiting the site via the north entrance on Santa Clara Avenue. The change in trip distribution affects the following intersections for the "With Project" scenarios only (Year 2013 and Year 2035): • East Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street • East Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access (Lyon Street) • Avalon Avenue at Wright Street Average daily traffic on the following street segments is also affected by the change in project trip distribution: • East Santa Clara Avenue between Wight Street and Project Access (Lyon Street) • Wright Street south of Santa Clara Avenue • Avalon Avenue east of Wright Street Trip Distribution The anticipated trip distribution for the revised project is presented in Figures 2 and 3 for the intersections affected by the change in project access. These figures indicate the proportion (percent) of project traffic that will use the street segments and tuning movements indicated. Forecast Intersection Traffic Volumes Near -Term Future and Long -Range Buildout (2035) AM and PM peak hour- project- related traffic volumes increases, and peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project for intersections affected by the change in trip distribution are shown in Figure 4. Future traffic levels in the project vicinity are expected to be changed by the amounts shown on this figure. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -124 1 19 ,4 ° F 5' 5' 700' 12, +3 a 2 N N b 30' 22' \ \} n 6n 3 as a" 109' ,�,y .} 12 e, a, q 29, 114 , 9. w N 23, 18' ] 5 I 17 70' s;, '� 8 66' 100' 3 Ii s 55 15 71' . 10' 73' N 20 1 r s• w _� 14 13 x•51 fa• s `$• w 84' n 0 r r L ( \ ty 21 I 11 35' I J - N 2' RTM N LEGEND POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION I,�C —, c. A,,VJBMI, v.TAYA H—, see Pl,,w,,ip Tg.m *9enon_Fe„lw NettoScale KO C A CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure I �VI I At,jmw a r uurl ml r, TAVA Nomes �912/south Entrance Closure Site Plan a 9, ry e 5 i9• $• 10' $• J S Fj C' I 11 35' I J - N 2' RTM N LEGEND POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION I,�C —, c. A,,VJBMI, v.TAYA H—, see Pl,,w,,ip Tg.m *9enon_Fe„lw NettoScale KO C A CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure I �VI I At,jmw a r uurl ml r, TAVA Nomes �912/south Entrance Closure Site Plan KOA CORPORATION „gym PLANNING A ENGINEF(ING FIGURE 2— INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION J N C O r J 60% Santa Clara Ave 25% 40% i + Avalon Ave cn 15% a.� s ao > Q FIGURE 3 — OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION N C O 25% 40% Santa Clara Ave Ak 60% Avalon Ave V) s L FAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July I6, 2013 75A -126 x--3/2 1/4 —� 2/1 FI/ 2 ♦ i s uo 2/6 3/9 NI 5/31 I Santa Clara Ave Project Only 1 I Peak HourTrafcVolumes Avalon Ave / IO 24/1(1 I� /1 14/19 J tO/3 231/435 79 100 —292/316 40/37 AS/123 (44/35 0/1 I 2]9/135 IL /25 5113 C6/3 y 1 r/4 151/152 Buildout With Project Peale Hour Traffic Volumes 0LO -f t 0/0 296/505 — 351/377 2/6-1 3/9 5/3� F0/5 I Clara Ave ( Future With Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes J70J 0/0 �0 8/3)1 333/554 -- 365/416 2/6 /9 �n II 5/3� r/5 i J I r Sanm Clara Ave U/�l IF LEGEND ;`j Project Site ® Study Intersection XX/XX AM /PM Peale Hour Volumes NOT To SCALE 16C— &— A,,,g533m/ 5n.rnvn H,—, S- P-W,I rmes.. .. ye33m2�e,r —r g�� f��RA7 TQ City of Santa Ana Figure 4 �� " N A[If M ,, r , f "'M i I [I,; TAVA Homes Ti I u outh Entrance Closure AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes �p I{OA CORPORATION KANNING & ENGINEFRING Forecast Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service The future "WITH Project" intersection level of service in the AM and PM peak hours for intersections affected by the change in trip distribution is summarized in Table I below. The buildout "WITH Project" intersection level of service for the "WITH Project" conditions is summarized in Table 2. Table 1 AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance Future WITH Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay 2 LOS 2 Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 14.5 B 34.3 D Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.3 B 13.9 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 9.9 A 9.6 A Note 1: For intersections affected by change in project trip distribution Note 2: LOS = Level of Service; Delay in Seconds /Vehicle Average Table 2 AM/PM Peale Hour Intersection Performance r Buildout WITH Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay 2 LOS 2 Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 18.0 C 84.9 F Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.7 B 14.8 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 10.3 B 9.8 A Note I: for intersections affected by change in project trip distribution Note 2: LOS = Level of Service; Delay in Seconds /Vehicle Average Forecast Street Segment Conditions Figures S and 6 illustrate the Future With Project and Buildout With Project average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, respectively, for the roadways affected by the change in project trip distribution. Tables 3 and 4 present the daily traffic volume segment analysis for these street segments. FAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -128 I '4..'° KOA CORPORATION PI.ANNIING &. ENGINFFRING FIGURE 5 — FUTURE WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FIGURE 6 — BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 11748 CO N C T J 1 9938 CO IN J 11142 9370 9504 � J Santa Clara Ave a+ � j� 423 Avalon Ave N �O � N Cp_q y� FIGURE 6 — BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 11748 � 1� V' 12493 N C T J 1 9938 Santa Clara Ave IN 415 Avalon Ave Ln M � M M a+ � j� FAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -129 „�,,m„ KOA CORPORATION 'W "e'o.� PLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 3 Roadway Segment Future With Project Level of Service Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Future Future LOS "D" Street Between And ADT Level of Capacity Volume Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 9,370 11,300 C Wright Street Santa Clara Ave 17' Street 2,962 5,000 A Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 423 2,000 A Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution. Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these intersections. Traffic impacts created by the project can be calculated by comparing the "Future With Project” conditions to the "Future Without Project" conditions, or the "Buildout With Project" conditions to the "Buildout Without Project" conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa And', March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. FAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -130 Future Future LOS "D„ Street Between And ADT Level of Capacity Volume Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 12,493 11,300 E Wright Street Santa Clara Ave 17`h Street 3,335 S,000 B Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 415 2,000 A Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution. Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these intersections. Traffic impacts created by the project can be calculated by comparing the "Future With Project” conditions to the "Future Without Project" conditions, or the "Buildout With Project" conditions to the "Buildout Without Project" conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa And', March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. FAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -130 KOA CORPORATION 4 PLANNING £ eNCir ecalNc Table 5 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Near Term Future Project Conditions Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -131 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant Intersection Without Project With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 14.4 B 14.5 B 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A NA N/A 11.3 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street/ 9.$ A 9.8 A 9.9 A 0.1 No Avalon Avenue PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS 2 Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 33.5 D 34.3 D 0.8 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ Project Access NA N/A NA N/A 13.9 B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -131 PW K ®A CORPORATION ,;° v[AnlrvuruG a FruclNFrulr,lG Table 6 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Buildout Project Conditions Note I: Uclay In seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project" and "Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at I584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study intersections as a result of the project. The intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted in the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (20 1 1) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: ® Santa Clara Ave at Wight Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -132 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant Intersection Without Project With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay LOS z Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 17.9 C 18.0 C 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A N/A N/A 11.7 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street/ 9.8 A 10.3 B 103 B 0.0 No Avalon Avenue PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS 2 Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 81.3 F 84.9 F 3.6 Yes Wright Street Santa Clara Project Access ss NA N/A N/A N/A 14.8 B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 9.8 A 9.8 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note I: Uclay In seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project" and "Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at I584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study intersections as a result of the project. The intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted in the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (20 1 1) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: ® Santa Clara Ave at Wight Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -132 KOA CORPORATION NANNING & ENGIWEVONG Stop delay on Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street is expected to increase by 3.6 seconds in the PM peak hour under buildout conditions due to the proposed project. Level of Service is at LOS F under these conditions. The proposed project contributes 9 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour. The poor level of service reported for Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street is due to the northbound left movement of vehicles turning from the minor leg (Wright Street) onto the major street (Santa Clara Avenue). Mitigation measures are recommended at this location to maintain an adequate intersection level of service. Possible measures include installation of a traffic signal or by construction of a roundabout or wide (14 -foot) 2 -way left -turn lane. These measures are the same as recommended in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Traffic signal warrants were tested for the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street. Under near -term traffic conditions, the 8 -hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant was met. Under buildout with project traffic conditions, the Peak Hour Warrant and the 8 -hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant were both met. Conclusions The intersection level of service analysis conducted for the proposed site plan change and revised project trip distribution determined that there is a significant impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street, as a result of the project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Mitigation measures will be required at this intersection. Recommended measures include a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide (14 -foot) 2 -way left -turn lane. Again, the recommended mitigation measures are the same as recommended in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Expected street segment level of service on Santa Clara Avenue between Grand Avenue and Tustin Avenue conducted for the revised project trip distribution under Buildout With Project conditions is poor (Level E). The expected LOS E conditions are due to a combination of existing traffic volumes and ambient traffic growth, not as a result of added traffic volumes from the project. KOA Corporation hopes that the review and recommendations conducted for the revised site plan and trip distribution for the TAVA Homes project will assist the City in evaluating the potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project. KOA is available to assist the City in any further traffic analysis of the project area as needed. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -133 X /��11[[ j� \v 2 • L O 2 i 0 i`. C N Q m f6 a U oU 41.2 U0 0 N P N Q U c Q c U M T 0 N L B c R Q La e a E c 0 W r Z h: Y v L v on CL w o Y Q m v as E " c bb ro c L G C O p 2 C C W p m ao u a u C3 v o n. ° a o � a E o N a" m v C -p h � 75A -135 O L v O. N CL 0 Q 46 ° W Y ro c o v � m m > a >v a o g ° a m a o u° a 0 q ° v on c o c N E N 0f1 N ate+ w o v .°n u Q ma , c m m m g a o 0 0 � L CL C c w- m e a m ..° o h a v > a. CL Yi O CL Zu u U h9 0 0 a c a E v m° E -° L °L' o O s m �n c a .O u_ �L., iv a m o m °{ m m' co •i '� u ai 'c t • ; >o m •>,. c � �; .mm c * o m c roE c m m o. �' m c c +YO no +' N_,� u m c' v ;� a m> O .4 �, C E m m a— a m �i o u c m •p E L :N o m �i °° p c 'a ' o v U a Q U ao m ltq e v m a Y m w m n u .c v w. ° c a C m CL -- ¢ v °- a u v a •P m p- (7 ++ m v� Oq u- "a ._ a m O c a 'U tl9 _ c •0 1O a v .o ° E w, 'm 3 a3 °' s E O d .°�' .n m aEi +: m U mcL v° c o o o °'�yy a `° va, a m �; v •N C p C ¢ L O C a m + 0¢ L a O a E 'Y ;0 3 u u O O Oao > C d G hO0 Q a m 75A -135 a c v E c 0 W O u o O a b N n o ° � v E o e � C �a � a 75A -136 C o� aQ w 0 v m ❑ c o u " ❑ m C h OA a m y^ c N O, j O a u a s o s o m •c m 4 m ovi C m "' v co 7 •'''G'' 0 0 ~ °a ¢ G Q R ¢ C .O m V CL CL m m m' s m m a 4' m ro a CL Q O a a ° c Q O Q O a a a_+ m c C C U A j ui LL Q! N m N c v evn O °' m Y a L C c m a U} m ❑ a �. YJ O� s a o UN E 2 v '° c E U E •� v m -O '-' °c a= -c E o v ,c a f ° a c m 4r 'v 'o 'S o w .c o .o u v ai s aUi '^ c m ° a o v .m o y u o° a c b x' °= N ,a_' a voi no a '� c .c w m 42 u °i y v v <+- to E s ..c •+ g p 0 19 — '° `o m .° s - ro � �, E c � a ° � � ¢ •� o. o �., c o •� _ A C L U G m m E N N 'C E vci C O m y0 N m° co .°_n c +-• v o a V- u a o- m 3 .N a U m e c n W ai 2 E w m� °, � a 'n a� vmi m� o v o° v= amt a m s o .� ti u _c o m~ a c" a E w o m m% .a m -o v °' o `-_' `o o .-� s b +� c° v c E '3 a 1^. ''' c o a. a w m z o a a -� m t c v ., g t, m e `a ° J v v 'O- '> 0 3 •�. m ro o v o u v v v on a v u .,, v .` _ M 4 E .vc ~ a- a° `—' �.,v_, o`. v m o E `a E v v a o .c ¢ N E O f9 W V .c N v W. -I d y .a t H L L S m N C a O r c n o w m a n u U atom- ro a. O a F y H E U O w h 75A -136 C 0 C, 6 a c 0 W J z a `a t -c m O a a O � 5 � o � v O 4 O v " � c c b 75A -137 v c c 0 5, v oa Q� a0 4 a 0 Y R c o C �' M �tl>1 m � C N N w w Q> o 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ O ¢ O o. ¢ c O p. ¢ c O¢ a c O CL 0 Q c Oo v' w z c • cn ro > u a m O o a w ¢ O a u_ C CL mm , c Z7 'u m v a a h n c w a o m c c° a ' °o v > c > c w c m o u a. m °- v m .=o a r °c° f° >, '� a u .D 0 .E a m a c m zr o v_ c ° N m 2 m 'y a a x o o E m m> o a °- °c° ° E E v ati I�z o c= '3 u 'v s v v —"' .o -° c a v m s a c v. !� c u a m a m a on c E u `^ m .y .m" c u a$ u w a ,�„ 'C v m c m aci m "c Q a m° o. o u 3 v a a m u ro "O >> i°n a ++ c C "O O v o c• o -'a o° o. m `—° E m o v °.n' w o f0 ' n v •� o, .:' m .� 'c% v o c`n w °. c v c °-moo c 0 c a t'cj o n 0 m o w m m v= `m 'c i w •°° i °- -o ,.. o a '" o a 3 ,� o m >..o `o axi a u c o a c c o c c m c N 3 a v o c o u a o a 0 z m s m a+ 'a O p a U O O' c E p. � (p U ¢? g `m °° m e Q " o. E c c o a c E aci w C o Y c ri a a ni o v u a�i ,� v° v N N >, m a a o w 'a o E D¢ £ E =° m o c v 'p Q o v v o. 3 `Y o m u¢ �., - U¢ o. ro ro¢ u m Q a m¢ u 75A -137 v c c 0 5, v 0 c m E c 0 W J 'O I -r v O a a v o � � v E o 4 ` a � m C � m � a O. c a4 Q 0 m 0 c o 3 C b �a e > a .-° o o g a ',,,..... m m u CL Q O Q O (D 'C •Y nn j « w x u O � .O r a .0 u_ m m m m ro m c v v v a v N CL ` p o O 4 O ¢ O¢ O Q O ¢ O om o N �m'oo a t 0 y 46 of E o -4 .` p a a ,on E °O m c c - . m u "�' .0 L o 0 E m o m a� o E a mn6 ro m a H c A o� o E E > m a N o ro a a o Q m o c CU a c rL r O a m a°_-_' ^u, m= - o o 'o v .ac .On m u m w ` -d c o " LL E c a` m F ro o O U m m= v _ U a -0 O O Y a O v O> C O> ttp r 'O m a O 'i'' C O C vi N 0. 1'S 0 y C U a m ro x 4 .�+ } 4- C a u .y C O m o •C30 Q a a c m N C a M vuj .i-+ C •O ^fit d- o a ._ ^.� 'y v'. E .o m bn .c c w bb :' u .Y r = >+ a E `) o `� a c E = ro o'a ova- m = o m o bn Y o mo am -o = m w„ .=� m a mc.ac o v w a Q v E r o a o v -o ro v E ,; a o z E ,ca,'%' m Oc v Oc c o o s ,,,, o ¢ ro H a u 1- 3 DD W 1- V C O" d a in C N 'o 0 M Ln a - O TJ Cn !� X m 0 C cc 'f'i in u 0 E O X A d O O a J -O ++ a N m L E m m> m E bn C c C O o 0] m ro E a a m ¢ uu c� a° ° ou v E v 75A -138 N c 4 c h b U O 1.� C na c 0 S 5`r 5 O V -c v O � 4 Q v O CL s v � O LEI W o G b 75A -139 r 2 K m N O U Y O � fl. aQ aL+ 46 4 M m O C O u e F- m a > °4 0 E o fl U CL m CL Q O w o w e o c c p 'L m E v U z _ c by j w X m G M a m u CL N > m T m m m m > > w a o ° > ° > Q N n 4 p a O 4 O ¢ O q "� •o > N `m 'QO O G O. C X c `° O v aci N o E= m a v ° v w a a •'" m y ° w v N t N L N Q E N v N v u a v E t o a c c a ao c c c a '.Y-. m o � �-' L m w, o o m c � a ,-� c a c° a 2 o Z E. i Qu o c° 'ro Z o v v E m°° U o N �c a N o o m a m v v E- v 0 u= rot c > 3 w s o• c v Y E .� E w Y °¢ bn o a o w U c W O _ m u w m m o .w mW,;, w --° c `•'= p 0, W —ocn `o m o- > �? s c '" c Q° r a v c E *' c> o O E O� 4 N C m •cY C m O N O o u _ 3 '�D E L v .n v m c ° -o- a L O c m V c L o 0 o w a m ° a Y V °• � 'a-+ o i° ° cOa W a L L a c Y ro o v m i2a `° v •= m m `w m E o s m w mom° o w °- °° -o L -6 E ,u :a L-� acn o .n L Q w o_ o. 4 n Y. +L., L CO ° a c o ° o o o E m w o a m o w m CL v^i u 'emu° �~'., E L u N N 1A p p O V V °- N = L C V L Ol p� N iti V1 3: 'e v a w ++ N N a V A N N w V m A O- 75A -139 r 2 K m N O U 4 a.. C a E O L } W -G N O o a p a o ° � a O a � w �a �� 75A -140 c m `o U' of a .c Q 4 CI v c O m H '9 y" v + CY m m C E q 3 n n m a o a o u q, ,ti Q c a c E C 4 z h0 L 7 w j} V O -0 F a .Lt m u CL a m c m m m m 47 v 'q 'o v w o a 0 0 w 0 CL a n O Q O d O Q p q C c c_ vi O �_ a a> u ry m E= N C O u O 0 y, Q�J to E a G'� 2 v G u 4 N -a ` a• m a m c"n as O 0 , m c w E2 a o E o a u° o c L v° o c v O L° o Z a •- m u s e— c E •,N w c E c u c — o m oa u s v c m m c u �' 0 u C �i .� .a o E L v m a O v 7 _C u m a .0 C O ++ a O- m E 4- ,n +. = o m s a c m a v o ,-� ?.= o m a �, i o v s N a c a° .E Y o ocn u c v '� v `aao v w v C c c E v v v ,on '° v o v S u O O .Y = a .u, .,°- 'O C C? '0 u: -0 v an .cu C C tZ i n C O + .,-• n C C ELU UO i a O m E L. 6 N s�n� N n C C a) C C O C 0 v> c a T C E 0 0 C "�' U -o m v o= o ii u u_ :o C o_ 0 E a ,n O :-• E CU c c c C a o> c ;= C a 0. n v ° .c a u m V`- = r a .. t _ n 16 m m C ' m d a t a+ a m m a a N m m m O m °1 c v `w *' v i c o° 3 0 c a`n n Q 0 •3 N o? u m c c '° a v ,. u 3 v 0 o m c c m c c_ m N w2 o a a ; o +- °- w m o a O > q 0 0 w _o O a v a •�" c 4 c m 0 0 0 0 -o o a p m o o> m o rm E E `a. 3 Q" a v z a v z E q. u S Q u m w- a _a 75A -140 c m `o U' v O W J �G 2t d U QI C� q` p N c y a w v C -p ro °. Y CL Q 0 0 ° V m Q C ° y ;? QI i+ Q F to m i G CL > U'3 C to CL w Q o c C u N G v� z 'M 5 Y W 3 x o m 91 .G u_ d a � m . C u m n m y N C m O O v C 2 O m U C Z N U o ° c ° m � N N u w c v 75A -141 C 4 m 0 ii ROH — 03/04/14 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01 AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; APPROVING VARIANCE NOS. 2012 -04(A) AND 2012 -04(B) AS CONDITIONED; AND, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17231) AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Mr. Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), two variances, and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single - family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. B. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2014, and voted to recommend that the City Council: Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -142 Page 1 of 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012- 02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. D. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. E. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. 1. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. 2. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 3. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. 4. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. Mitigation measures Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -143 Page 2 of 9 have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources. 5. At its regular meeting of February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, following a duly noticed public hearing, voted to recommend to the City Council that it adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011- 01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana has fully considered this matter, and all public testimony, at a duly noticed public hearing held at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 4, 2014. F. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(a) to allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41 -234 requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet. SAMC section 41- 239(g) requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence. SAMC section 41- 1320(b) requires the residence to provide a two -car garage. The applicant requires reductions in each of these standards to keep the historic Farmhouse in its current location. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638 in order to grant a variance, have been established: i. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -144 Page 3 of 9 variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -145 Page 4 of 9 Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. G. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow one new lot in the development with less than 50 feet of street frontage in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback, while the applicant is proposing to reduce the street frontage to 41 feet for Lot No. 12. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: i. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five - acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, a County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum street standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -146 Page 5 of 9 The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owners. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owners right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of a vacant parcel from the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -147 Page 6 of 9 H. Applicant has further requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) to allow the subdivision of the five (5) acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. To adopt a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, California Government Code Section 66474 requires the following findings: i. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the District Center designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the low density residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. Although two lots will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012 -04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five - acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single - family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -148 Page 7 of 9 iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact to fish or wildlife that may be associated with this project. V. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious impacts resulting from this project. vi. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site as the streets will be public streets. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any CEQA review or approval, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -149 Page 8 of 9 Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 meets all requirements of CEQA, including, but not limited to: finding that Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 adequately addresses the impacts of the project; that it identifies and through the mitigation monitoring program imposes all feasible mitigation measures which will reduce all of the significant environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance; discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; identifies the environmentally superior alternative; and based upon all of which and the record as a whole the City Council chooses to approve the project. The City Council hereby certifies and approves Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and the mitigation monitoring program attached herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby: A. Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approves the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. B. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(a) as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(b) as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. D. Approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated March 4, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -150 Page 9 of 9 Section 5. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney By: Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers 2014 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -151 Page 10 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2014 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -152 Page 11 of Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -041a1 Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(a), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 75A-01'153 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -041b1 Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(b), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 758AW -454 Conditions for Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) Should the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this vesting tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the vesting tentative tract map. A. Planning Division The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. Any amendment to the vesting tentative tract map must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the map must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. This requirement shall also be incorporated into the CC &R's for the project. 4. The CC &R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. 5. A solid block wall not less than six feet in height must be provided around the project perimeter. In the event the applicant is unable to secure approval from the adjacent property owners, a revised fence plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 6. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building pe rm its. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. Exhibit "C" 75A -155 March 4, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 9. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 2010 -47). 10. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC &R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Authority, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 12. The interior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse shall be rehabilitated to building code standards in order to return the structure to a habitable condition. 13. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, a covenant shall be recorded that requires the existing and replacement oranges trees be maintained on the Sexlinger Farmhouse site Exhibit "C" 75A -156 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 2014 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01, VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012-02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE — CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY, APPLICANTS 'ITY MANAGER JA *i�irty,14►11741mmIIl EXHIBIT B CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended Ordinance on I5' Reading Ordinance on 2nd Reading El Implementing Resolution © Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned by a vote of 6:1 (Yrarrazaval opposed) to allow the construction of a new 23 -unit single family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue located in the Single Family Residential (131) zoning district. The Planning Commission added three conditions of approval that require landscaped parkways along the new streets, that requires the exterior rehabilitation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage meet the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, and that a minimum of 16 orange trees be maintained and /or planted on the Sexlinger Farmhouse parcel (Exhibit A). 75A -157 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 March 4, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION At the February 10, 2014 Planning Commission hearing, one of the primary topics raised by both the public and the Commission pertained to the alternatives analysis of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). More specifically, several speakers expressed concerns with the lack of a preservation alternative that consisted of 50 percent development and 50 percent preservation (50/50 alternative). Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines requires an EIR to consider and discuss a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. To comply with this guideline, the EIR considered a total of eight different alternatives. Of the alternatives considered, the 50/50 alternative was not studied for several reasons. First, the EIR complied with the CEQA guidelines as it studied a wide range of alternatives that had different environmental impacts. The eight alternatives that were studied included a No Build alternative, a lower density alternative, a hybrid alternative and an alternative that consisted of the demolition of the farmhouse, garage and orange trees. Second, it was determined that the 50/50 alternative could not feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives, including provide for the current and future move -up housing needs of the City and provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character. Finally, since the original project of 24 units and no preservation of the historically designated site represents the environmentally "worst case" scenario, and the full preservation of the site as agriculture represents the alternative with the fewest environmental impacts, no other alternatives that consider different proportions of housing and orchard preservation is needed. The "worst case project' was found, with mitigation, to not have any significant impacts except for cultural resources, based on the demolition of the residence. The new Historic Preservation alternative was found to comply with Secretary of Interior standards, and therefore mitigates cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significance. All variations with less than 24 -units and some protection of the Sexlinger site have similar or lesser impacts than the original 24 -unit project analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR is adequate for any combination of the Sexlinger residence and some orchard preservation in conjunction with less than 24 new houses. As a result of the public review process, a Historic Preservation alternative was developed. This alternative consists of a 23 -unit development, including the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and garage and a small portion of the orchard while allowing for development of the site with 22 new single family residences. This new alternative would protect and renovate the existing residence and garage in their current location along with 16 existing and /or new orange trees, evoking the historic setting, topography and context consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Due to its preservation of the historic resources and reduction of environmental impacts to less than significant, this alternative has evolved into the proposed project for the site. 75A -158 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 March 4, 2014 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Karen Haluza Interim Executive Director Planning & Building Agency VF:rb vATava EIMSexlinger Project.oc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Environmental Documents (city web addresses) C. Correspondence 75A -159 75A -160 REQ11EST FOR f • 4 i [aS1Tf>•IP►£�Z+Z7tTinil��C�7au r t ._ FEBRUARY 10, 2014 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FILED BY CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AND LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01, VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 TO ALLOW A 23 -UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE Prepared by Vince Fregoso Int� —erim Executive D1 .ctor RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED • As Recommended • As Amended • Set Public Hearing For DENIED • Applicant's Request • Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO A t nc ii g naPl ning,Manager 1, Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04 (b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Mr. Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), a variance and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single - family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the certification of the final environmental impact report and approval of the mitigation monitoring program; variances from Section 41 -234, Section 41- 239(g) and Section 41- 1320(b) to allow the Sexlinger farmhouse to remain in its current location; from SAMC Section 41- 237(b) to allow one of the new lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage; and a vesting tentative tract map to allow the subdivision of the five acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. EXHIBIT A 75A -161 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No, 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 2 Project Location and Site Description The subject property is a five -acre, rectangular shaped parcel of land located on East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property contains a single - family residence and detached garage structure that was built in 1914. The site has been unoccupied since about 2006 when the final member of the Sexlinger Family moved from the property. In addition, there are approximately 250 Valencia orange trees on the parcel that have been unharvested for several years. The site is surrounded by both single - family residential uses and Fairhaven Memorial Park to the north; single - family residences to the south and west, and Portola Park to the east (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Project Description Concordia University and Lutheran High School of Orange County, the property owner of the subject parcel, are requesting approval of several entitlements in order to allow the development of the existing five -acre parcel of land. The proposed development consists of the rehabilitation of the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse in its current location and the construction of 22 new single - family residences. A total of 23 lots will be created for the project, with the smallest lot consisting of 6,000 square feet and the largest 10,044 square feet. An average lot size of approximately 6;650 square feet is proposed for the project (Exhibit 4). Three different floor plans are proposed, ranging in size from approximately 2,340 square feet to 2,813 square feet. Each residence will be a two -story, three - bedroom (with an optional fourth bedroom in lieu of a den), two and one -hall bathroom home with a two or three -car garage. All units have an additional two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. Three different architectural styles are proposed for the project; Craftsman, Spanish and Traditional. Each style will incorporate unique elements, finishes and materials commonly found within each architectural style. For example, the Spanish style residence will incorporate Spanish style roof tiles and a sand stucco finish, while the Craftsman and Traditional models will incorporate flat roof tiles, sand stucco finishes and decorative wood trim and similar elements unique to each architectural style. Finally, front yard landscaping will be installed prior to occupancy of each unit (Exhibits 5, 6 and 7). Numerous improvements will be made to the site. Eight feet of property along the Santa Clara Avenue frontage will be dedicated to the City to allow the street to be widened to be consistent with the improvements on either site of the parcel. Additionally, Santa Clara Avenue will be enhanced with a 10 -foot wide landscaped setback that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Further, a six -foot high block wall will be constructed around the project perimeter. Traffic calming devices, including curvilinear streets and bulb outs at the north and south end of the Lyon Street project entries will be incorporated into the street design to reduce the speed of traffic and to discourage cut though traffic. Finally, access to Portola Park will be provided via a pedestrian opening at the east end of the new cul -de -sac street. 75A -162 Final EIR No. 2011.01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 3 Project Backaround The subject site, known as the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, was occupied around 1914 when the Sexlinger Family first located to the property. The Sexlingers used this site as their residence and as a small ranch for oranges until approximately 1980. In 2006, the last of the Sexlinger Family vacated the property. In September 2007, the City received a proposal from Empire Homes to construct a 24 -unit, single - family residential project on the property. A draft environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for this project; however, due to a major shift in the economy, the EIR was never released and the applicant withdrew their proposal in May 2008. In 2010, Tava Development submitted a new proposal for a 24 -unit single - family residential development similar to the Empire Homes project. In response, the consultant that prepared the previous EIR was selected to review and update the EIR document and make modifications as necessary. In October 2011, the draft EIR for the Tava Development was released for public review and comment. Due to significant concerns from the public regarding the document, specifically the Cultural Resources section, the document was revised to identify the property as potentially historically significant and eligible for listing on the City's historical register. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. The Ad Hoc Committee considered various alternatives to demolition, including seeking private financial sources to purchase the site, publicizing the availability of the site and structure, exploring possible sites for the relocation of the building, suggesting that the City purchase the site, and a hybrid alternative that included the construction of 21 units along with the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and some orange trees. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. The 240 -day waiting period ended on February 7, 2013, but a demolition permit was unable to be issued as the City Council had yet to certify the EIR and the appeal period had not commenced. This is not expected to occur until April 2014 at the earliest (Exhibits 8 and 9). On February 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. After receiving public testimony and holding extensive deliberations, the Commission's vote was 3:3, which resulted in an impasse. Per the Commissions by -laws, the Commission gave the applicant the option to either continue the item to a future meeting or move forward to the City Council with a recommendation of denial. The applicant elected to move the project forward to the City Council. 75A -163 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 4 Prior to the City Council public hearing, the City offered to hire an independent mediator so that the applicant and the opposing The Old Orchard Conservancy (TOOC) could meet and hopefully identify a development proposal that would satisfy both parties. Although the groups declined the City's mediation offer, the two parties met on three occasions throughout the summer. At the conclusion of these meetings, it was determined that they were unable to agree on an alternative acceptable to both parties. As a result, the property owner requested to move forward with the entitlements to the City Council. In fall 2013, the City reanalyzed the numerous responses to comment letters received for the development. After careful consideration of these letters, the City decided to prepare a "Response to the Response to Comments" that included an additional alternative that addressed concerns related to the preservation of the historically designated site. This new alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative, slightly differed from the other alternatives in that it studied the preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse at its current location, the rehabilitation of the house to the Secretary of Interior standards, the preservation of existing orange trees on the Sexlinger parcel along with the planting of new trees where dead or missing trees exist, and the construction of 22 new residences. Areas of Controversy During the review of the project, release of the draft EIR and public hearings held for the project, three areas of controversy were identified: The eligibility of the site as a historic resource, the preservation of the property as an orange grove, and cut through traffic.. The first area of controversy pertains to the property's designation as a historic resource. The initial release of the draft EIR in 2011 contained a Cultural Resources section that evaluated the property as not eligible for listing on the State or City's Historical Registers. The determination was based on the analysis that, while the property was associated with the development of the citrus industry in the early twentieth century, small citrus operations did not play a significant role in the development of Santa Ana. During the public review period, comments were received from the public requesting a reevaluation of the non - historic determination. In response, the City hired a new consultant to take another look at the project's historic status. In March 2012, the new study also concluded that the property was not eligible for the State register; however, the study noted that the property did appear to be eligible on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties ( SARHP). On April 5, 2012, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) considered placing the property on the SARHP but denied the listing after taking testimony from the property owner and public. However, on June 4, 2012, the City Council overturned the HRC and designated the site as "Key" As a result, the property is considered to be a City historic resource. The second area of controversy is related to the preservation of the site as an orange grove. The property owners, in conjunction with a local homebuilder, originally submitted a proposal to demolish the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and orange orchard and construct a 24 -unit residential 75A -164 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 5 development on a site that has a general plan and zoning designation consistent with the proposed project. in an effort to preserve one of the last remaining original orange groves in the City, The Old Orchard Conversancy (TOOL), in conjunction with several members of the public, have banded together and are attempting to preserve the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. While the property owners and TOOC have had discussions on the potential sale of the property for preservation purposes, no proposal has been formally submitted to the property owner. While the owners intend to build on the site in compliance with the General Plan and zoning designations, the preservation groups remain interested in preserving the last small scale orange grove in the City. The final area of controversy involves the potential for vehicular cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. During the initial public review of the project, the adjacent neighbors submitted a petition against the proposed north -south connection of Lyon Street to Santa Clara Avenue due to congestion and safety concerns. In response to the comments, the project's traffic study analyzed potential cut through traffic through the existing neighborhood. The study identified approximately 15 percent of the total traffic generated from the project, or 35 daily trips, could be expected. To minimize potential for cut through traffic, the streets were designed in a curvilinear pattern and "bulb outs" are proposed at the project entries to reduce the amount of cut through traffic and slow the speeds of vehicles that do utilize the Lyon Street extension. General Plan and Zonina Analysis The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential (LR -7), which allows single - family development at a maximum density of seven units per acre. Development in a Low Density Residential area of the City is characterized primarily by one and two -story single - family homes. The proposed project is consistent with this General Plan land use designation as the proposed density is five units per acre. The subject site is located in the Single- Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. The R -1 zoning designation allows uses such as one - family dwellings, private greenhouses and horticultural collections for domestic non - commercial use, child care facilities and churches. The project site is consistent with the zoning designation. ProiectAnalvsis Environmental Imoact Report The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the preparation and approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for this project, The environmental issues analyzed in the EIR included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and 75A -165 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 6 traffic, and utilities and service systems, In accordance with CEQA, a draft EIR was first circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on July 27, 2011 for a 45 -day review period. On August 22, 2011 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. By the close of the 45 -day review period, a total 28 written comment letters and eight verbal comments on the document were received. A significant issue identified in several of the responses pertained to the potential eligibility of the property for listing on the City's historical register. After analyzing the comment letters, staff directed the EIR consultant to revise the Cultural Resources section of the document to reflect the eligibility of the site as a historic resource. On December 1, 2011, the revised Cultural Resources section was circulated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45 -day review period. At the end of this comment period, an additional 11 comment letters were received. On June 4, 2012, the City Council listed the site as a "Key' property on the City's Register of Historical Properties. In response, the draft EIR was revised to reflect this designation as well as to add a "Hybrid" alternative to the Alternatives section of the document. The draft EIR was recirculated for review and comment to public, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties on November 1, 2012 for a 45 -day review period. On November 13, 2012 a public hearing was held on the document in order to obtain input from interested members of the public. At the close of the 45 -day review period, a total of 15 written and verbal comments on the document were received. The City has evaluated the comments received from persons or agencies that reviewed the EIR. In accordance with CEQA, each public agency that commented on the draft EIR will be provided with a response to its comments at least 10 days prior to the certification of the EIR. The Responses to Comments document, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR, was originally distributed at the January 28; 2013 Planning Commission meeting. in addition, the Findings of Fact have been prepared for the project. The EIR identified one unavoidable adverse impact associated with this project, which pertains to cultural resources, The unavoidable cultural resource impact involves the demolition of the existing residential structure and adjacent outbuilding and the removal of the approximately 250 orange trees as this demolition would result in a significant adverse change due to the loss of a listed resource of the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. As a result of the impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the original 24-unit project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. However, the Historic Preservation Alternative, which was prepared in December 2013 in response to the Responses to Comments, would result in a project that is environmentally superior to the proposed 24 -unit development and would not require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations since the loss of a 'historically designated resource would not occur (Exhibit 10). 75A -166 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 7 Selection of Environmentallv Preferred Alternative As previously mentioned the Historic Preservation Alternative is similar to the originally proposed project except that it would preserve in place the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and detached garage on a 10,044 square foot parcel at the northwest corner of the five -acre site. The exterior of the structure and garage would be rehabilitated to Secretary of Interior historic preservation standards, and the house and garage would be returned to a single - family residential use and sold as one of the project units. Additionally, existing orange trees on this portion of the property would remain, with new trees planted to replace any dead or missing trees. A total of 22 new single family residences would be constructed on the remainder of the property. The impacts associated with this altemative have been found to be similar to the originally proposed 24 -unit project. For example, impacts related to air quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities would be similar to or less than the original project as one fewer unit is proposed. However, impacts to Cultural Resources would be significantly different as this alternative will prevent the demolition of the residence and garage and preserve them in place. This alternative will result in the rehabilitation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage in its current location and the preservation of orange trees on a new 10,044 square foot dot. The five -acre project site would be changed from an unused residence and agricultural lot into a suburban development with a small orchard and 22 new single - family residences. The property would retain many of its major elements and convey the significance of a property type that was once common but now rare in the City. Through its rehabilitation, the property would receive a compatible new use that would protect and retain the property's character defining features, historic integrity and primary building and accessory structure. Surrounding the Sexlinger residence and garage with historic and in -kind replaced trees would also contribute to the property's ability to convey a specific period, time and agricultural past important to the community. Further, this alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative as it will result in the preservation and rehabilitation of a historically designated structure and a portion of the orchard and will reduce the impacts to a cultural resource to a less than significant impact to the historic resource. As a result, staff is recommending the Historic Preservation Alternative as the preferred project. Variances Variance requests are governed by Section 41 -638 of the SAMC. Variance requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: That there exists a special circumstance related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 75A -167 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 8 • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property. • That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variance. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial, Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. Variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse The applicant is requesting a variance that will allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location. Specifically; a variance from Section 41 -234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires a front yard setback of 20 feet, from Section 41- 239(g), which requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence, and from Section 41- 41- 1320(b), which requires the residence to provide a two -car garage, are needed. Staff is supportive of the request as the variances will allow the historically designated Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain in its historic setting and context, which are critical components of historic preservation. The property will be allowed to be used as it was historically, with the historic character of the property retained and preserved. Further, by leaving the residence and garage in place, the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property Will be avoided. In analyzing the variance request, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter, The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. 75A -168 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 9 • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. • Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. Variance from Lot Frontage Standard The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), which requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback. The applicant's proposal is to have one new lot in the development (Lot No. 12) have 41 feet of lot frontage, which is less than the minimum 50 feet of lot frontage. During the review of the street design for the project, staff determined that the City did not have a "knuckle" standard for curvilinear streets, with the original design insufficient to adequately accommodate turning movements for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles. To address this concern, staff used the County's standard for curvilinear streets, which uses a larger "knuckle" design at street curves. The application of the County's standard impacted the width of the lot fronting the "knuckle." Due to the application of this standard, Lot No. 12 cannot meet the 50 -foot street frontage standard, The lot will be in compliance with all other applicable development standards in the R -1 zone, including lot size and setbacks. In analyzing the variance requests, staff must be able to show that findings can be made that support the criteria listed above. » The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five -acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, the County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum lot width standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the 75A -169 Final EIR No, 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 10 subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. • The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owner's. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property, • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. • Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single- family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5,10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Vesting Tentative Tract Man Vesting maps are governed by Chapter 34 of the SAMC and by Section 66498.1 through 66498.9 of the Subdivision Map Act. Vesting map requests may be granted when it can be shown that the following can be established: That the proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low density Residential designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. 75A -170 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 11 • The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. • The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. • The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the vesting map. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Using this information, staff has prepared the following analysis, which forms the basis for the recommendation contained in this report. The applicant is proposing a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow the subdivision of the five - acre parcel of land into single - family lots. In order to subdivide the parcel, the proposed subdivision needs to comply with all applicable development standards such as lot size, lot coverage and all appropriate Public Works Agency standards. Based on a review of the vesting tentative tract map, the applicant has submitted a 23 lot project that has been designed to be in compliance with the applicable development standards found in Chapters 34 (Subdivision) and 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Additionally, the proposed streets will be public streets that have been designed to the City's public street standards as well as County standards for the design of the street "knuckle." As designed, the streets will be public streets that will accommodate safety vehicles as well as street parking. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, The General Plan Land Use Element promotes a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, encourages a variety of residential land uses in the City and development that provides a positive contribution to the neighborhood character (Exhibit 11). • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the single - family residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site, Although one lot will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012- 04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. 75A -171 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 12 The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five -acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single- family residences (R -1), The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact associated with this project. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles, Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from this project. • Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site through the site as the street will be public streets. Public Notification The project site is located within the Portola Park and adjacent to the Meredith Parkwood Neighborhood Associations. There have been several public meetings regarding the project since its submittal to the City in 2010. Staff attended three neighborhood meeting on the project, including two general association meetings on December 9, 2010 and March 17, 2011 to provide the associations with a project update, and a scoping meeting for the EIR on June 1, 2011. Public notification was provided for several Historic Resources Commission meetings for the project, including June 4, 2012, June 28, 2012, October 4, 2012 and January 24, 2013, Finally, the Planning Commission held public meetings on August 22, 2011 and November 13, 2012 to receive public comments on the draft EIR during the public review period of the document as well as held a public hearing on the project on February 11, 2013. From December 19, 2013 through January 17, 2014, the additional analysis to the response to public comments that clarified, amplified or made minor modifications to the Draft EIR after it was circulated for public comment was made available for public review. A total of four comments were received, and a final version of the Additional Analysis, which includes comments and their responses, were provided in a document entitled Attachment to the Environmental Impact Report. 75A -172 Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 13 The project site itself was posted with a notice advertising this public hearing, a notice was published in the Orange County Register and mailed notices were sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site. In addition, the Neighborhood Association contacts, as well as all individuals on the City's Permanent Notification List, were notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing. A notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was posted to the City's website and Facebook page. On January 17, 2014, the City received correspondence from Jeannie Gillette, President of The Old Orchard Conservancy, commenting on the additional analysis for the development of the Sexlinger site, a letter from Deborah Rosenthal outlining a related court case, and a letter from the Conservancy outlining a preservation alternative for the site (Exhibit 12). Additionally, correspondence was received from Rutan & Tucker, LLP, a law firm engaged to assist the property owners with their development applications. Their correspondence included a memorandum in response to comments received on the proposed development, a shade and shadow study of the proposed development, an arboricultural evaluation of the orange trees, and a memorandum that analyzed the potential closure of the south entrance of the project to public access (Exhibit 13). At the time of this printing, no other contact or correspondence regarding the project had been received. CEQA Analvsis As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study;. 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 75A -173 Final EIR No, 2011 -01, VA No, 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 14 This EIR is intended to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the analysis contained in the draft EIR and to provide an opportunity for clarification, corrections, or minor revisions to the EIR as needed. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary, Mitigation measures have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources (Exhibit 14). Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) and (b) as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No, 17231) as conditioned. ' <,,' Vince FregosoW.QP' Acting Planning Manager VF:jm v %Tava EIRVSeAnger Project.021014.pc Attachments: Exhibit 1 — General Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 — Land Use Map Exhibit 3 — Site Photo Exhibit 4— Site Plan Exhibit 5— Floor Plan Exhibit 6 Building Elevations Exhibit 7 — Conceptual Landscape Plans Exhibit 8 — HRC Intent to Demolish Final Report Exhibit 9 — HRC Resolution Exhibit 10 — Environmental Impact Report with Additional Analysis Exhibit 11 — Vesting Tract Map Exhibit 12 — Correspondence from The Old Orchard Conservancy Exhibit 13 — Correspondence from Rutan & Tucker, LLP Exhibit 14 — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 75A -174 FAIRHAVEN AVE. � Cl R4 Pl nx Al 11 11 II �I 1..�m.. 4 4 60 Al I'JtI jllii �avaoexe tl i� t \ °. R4 RTC. a II $ Al uvMm� (I II II un uw C5 Rl I� jl Ij ;� 60-A1 -7700 5 l II T Jli Rl R1 ou A 6aA1.TaYO p • •. C5 Ill Rl Pl mfio Ili x' 3 PI A Al 6 R7 Rr i 6�1 CS _ a' I -:m ?r 3 vxa° 6o.m s m R4 A7 5s - I � Al 'I RI PR EGT ITE Ar F RI �,NI -m _. of co.m -n00 R7 i aeuun c muw, m. xw n .: 4 R1 - A1 ao:n�.t�xuo Ri' At 0 -'-T r pt CS 0 inAl „• �R4 RI Rl - R14zo6 s R4. 4 R7 Clir. .a Rl� 4I Rt m -P. xr -a � �� ^I a � RI �� ciei" SEVENTEENTH ST, Al GNJ LAGRQILTURALl CR 00MMEUALFESOMAL m SNCIEFAMILYMIDEIRAL -0 FAWNGMU)IFlCATION m COV"MhJTMI1 N WIQPNIILYFS OMCE ON WMMH AL9CUIHMNN Ml MITINDUS L Ri MULTIPLEQUATYMULTIPLE Cl COMMUNITYCOMMSTIAL M2 HFAVYI USIRAL FAMILYIau90RtlCE CI -MD COMM. WAM6gA(JA4MMI)I"ff MO MIIJTAWOF6i4TI0N5 PA SUBU ANAPARI INM a W4 1-07JMIMAL 0 OFMAM Fi F DEJRALETATE 0 CEJIMLWSNB P I FFMCRAL >0 F]' ACOLAIWMW aA CE MLOWNESAMI"AU.AGE FrA FWNN®CCMMUNITYG OPMLTO' E+' E RGMN C! FLANK S40PFTNGCtM PA7 R NMRESDWIIALDMOFMFNP G ARI62ALCL'MMUKIAL El R 2011 -1 NA2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD k —,500 F91' V =1000 F37 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y EXHIBIT 7 VICINITY MAP 75A -175 CHURCH s l7 s . r I —R. �1��89 w cc J U z c z o Bpi SANTA CLARA H- w Fi-i �JI o w cc J U z c z o v AVENUE I D _ NI CIE Y AVENUE P A R K OR 2011 -1 /VA 2012- 41VTTM 2012 -2 SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD. 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE _w 1n L_ P L A N N I N G A N D 6 U I L D I N G A E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75A -176 _1 FINAL EIR NO. 2011 -01 /VARIANCE NO. 2012 -04 /VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE EXHIBIT 3 75A -177 �q O vis IN o y.£ z i x t➢ W ti ZI 1_ S�wi - r .fHa15 JI IMVS AL.VHN 111 d GaI pN �U/F4- A -:i+dl NCI1:I!'+Y.IhrOi naa '1mlFpga1 H all, A L3q d Ti%NIS - - t ' tnm: z I .a 1 i 0 W F- W i 1 % )� N \§ !_|, � !a � �I Ti, � Af® ~ 5f/ EXHIBIT 75AA79 \£ §) )§ Page a3 75A-1 80 §% }) a, {§ {m t_ Ili Af$ �7$ «\\ 7)/ $ . . . , PAM __ /( � \/ ;, �I »_ !� �I n \ i\ � \ . . . . . \( / ) J. Alp E e� § \] �)a Page a! 75A.181 \\ � <§�: 1 UM Puts JOIN )4AV {§ | \r \ � � \( � \ }Qlwgge: [ t[ Pam I a, �]) � � \ }Qlwgge: Pam I a, ! ;.3 ©\a R \ / ® ©/y �2. \ / / \\ �]) � qg � $a a§q J)/ ! ;.3 ©\a R \ / ® ©/y �2. \ / / \\ 'JAY M1349ts WOW II —p 9z In fl� grg¢ 3Cfl 'S2$3 C to Cg- 75A810 G N 4-. C 0 FG 4-1 44 d y ®w ct Cn EW con F --I ILE ` + +9 �+nJeloe519iU1A2 x� ^� X84§ gx�4 JAB , d 941 75A-1!940" G d 53 H coon d 53 ITMOZ 5( {) )jll �{) t& ea , }} !) ) -HIM \ //I z2lGgG8 � �]) e: Ae2 § ! —3 � § : % \u \� ~QQ AUBE \ / // /\ d z .c ao c2 an7uq�eiveS fOZOtCI iti � gJ��E 1 �9 w� 3a� C E 4-. e a 75A-18 9 .a g.. a ai � H X7«900 .a g.. a . 1 ) ,z._ \[ Ee / ] ~K) DON t 75A= 87 ) �7] ; 722 !\ §!.; •,!!!, ebJQpv! ;#lGwSb ) w! ƒ/ /2 !e /5 C§ 2« L $ %\ 7J/ ) WY 'IM3 MUDS ` \( «[ \\ t_ f9k -1§§ @; \a- a@° _ «[ JJ4 §§ f ƒ Page r, 75A-1 90 3 � {( � t) .-!. \( � �«m 3z 7)} of go gill n e� oil E i T i, t I i i i LQ U Q . 13?11�i NOA7 i Q �d U. Z vi 1-g 84� NQ.(7 75 I's �; ,� 4 T J W (L V U) O Z LLI s z w Q U z T M h T R s B n a a Wry W =mtLL � N3 W V W N � 11 >1 o a 75X- aik J 4LJ C. Q V1 J :.a F- z M r M N r- r 11 rJ R w gam oFo�z Z 0 X0 g y- iy U N 'L A a a 0 0 5 2 99 4944 93444443 94394 39 934 94334 44 4 @ B s 4s z 4�¢g34 it Iii$ L 4g �GS�5 �Cd 3n gy€ 33 gy §t 111111151 � $g � #EA a M 1 13 y � y 4g ] 99 gaag g 33 pp @@ gS 55 py gI HIM, 9] Ili e3 ?ii iBBe� 9 8 31 I y5 75X- aik J 4LJ C. Q V1 J :.a F- z M r M N r- r 11 rJ R w gam oFo�z Z 0 X0 g y- iy U N 'L A a a 0 0 5 2 REQUEST FOR Historic Resources Commission Action HMO= RESOURCESC ONNEErtNGDATE: JANUARY 24, 2013 k � Pg 1 k TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL REPORT ON THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE -- HRD No.2012.01 Prepared by _-lolly Soboleske APPROVED As Rmornmended rJ As Amended Cl Set PLINIc Clearing For CONTINUED TO Executive Director Planning ManU er RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Receive and file the final report on the intent to demolish the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Consider a resolution suggesting that the City Council purchase the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, Project Location and Site Description The Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is a five -acre property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, between Grand and Tustin Avenues. The property is currently owned by the Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (Exhibit 1). Prefect Back rg ounci At the June 4, 2012 public hearing, the City Council voted to list the property on the City's historic register (Exhibit 2). Subsequently on June 11, 2012, the property owners applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard (Exhibit 3). Pursuant to Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), the Historic Resources Commission must review all applications for demolition permits for historic properties. Section 30 -7 states that the Commission shall investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition, To meet this requirement, on June 28, 2012 at a duly noticed public hearing, the FIRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to study potential alternatives to demolition, The Ad Hoc Committee members Included Blair O'Callaghan, Patrick Yrarrazaval and Alberta Christy. The Ad Floc Committee met on August 7, 2012 to discuss resources that Could be used to preserve the site. The Ad Floc Committee also met with concerned members of the community (Exhibit 4) on September 26, 2012 to discuss their progress and to obtain input from the community members. A briefing was also held before the HRC at its October 4, 2012 meeting to provide an update on the status of the investigation and gave the public another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources, EXHIBIT 8 75A -193 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 2 Analysis of the issues Whenever an application to demolish a historic property is filed, Section 30 -7 requires the HRC to Investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition, which Include, but are not limited to: 1) Seeking private citizens, local trusts, and other financial sources who may be willing to purchase the structure for relocation or restoration; 2) Publicizing the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes 3) Exploring possible sites for relocation of the historic building if on -site preservation is not possible; and, 4) Suggesting to the City Council that the city purchase the structure when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. The following provides a summary of the actions taken to date as a result of the HRC's direction and helpful suggestions from the community. The intent of Section 30 -7(1) is to find alternate funding sources in an attempt to preserve the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard site. As a result, upon receipt of the intent to demolish the structure and with the input of the Ad Hoc Committee and community input, staff identified numerous organizations and funding sources that may be willing to purchase the structure for restoration or relocation. After reviewing the requirements of these organizations, which are identified in the table below, they were found to he either unable to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger site or the site was ineligible per their standards. Funding ReSOUrce Nqrne Certified Local Government Outcome I Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property National Trust for Historic Preservation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Save America's Treasures Program currently unfunded Preserve America_ Pram currently unfunded Cultural Historic Endowment No funds currently available _California _& National Center for Preservation Technology & Training Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Humanities _. Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of_pro e _ The Getty Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Preservation Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Grant Watch Subscription only _ 75A -194 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 3 California State Parks Foundation Maximum grant available is $6,000 which is too small _ for its intended purpose California State Land & Water Conservation Total grant funding is too small for intended purpose and re ulres dollar for dollar match Southern California Edison — Energy Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Efficiency Strategic Plan Grant American Recovery and Investment Act of Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property 2009 Department of EnerM Sunshot Initiative Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Air Qualit Mana ement District Dees not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of proparty California Energy Commission Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Orange County Transportation Authority Funds only ublic right-.of-way related projects United States Department of Transportation Funds only ublic right-of-way related projects State of California, Bicycle Transportation Funds only public right -of -way related projects Account Federal Highway Administration Transportation related projects only American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Transportation related projects only of 2009, Transportation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act _ Funds only agriculture relief, trade adjustment of of 2009, Agriculture__ _ existing farmers, and a uaculture California Department of Transportation, Transportation related projects only Transportation Enhancement Program State of California Rivers and Parkways Related to public water systems only State of California Recreational Trails Related to public recreational trails only Program State of California Habitat Conservation Funds wetlands, wildlife, public trails, and natural Fund habitat conservation onl Southern California Association of Regional funding — transportation only Governments Compass Blueprint Planning State funding — Urban greening up to $75,000 Program maximum which is too small for intended purposes Federal funding — Walkable communities development only related to urban landscape and does not fund acquisition of roperty Solid Waste grants Reocling efforts only The intent of this section is to publicize the availability of the structure to organizations that have an interest in historic preservation. To meet this standard, staff, in coordination with the property owner, created a single -page flyer that notified the public of the availability of the property and identified a 75A -195 HRD No, 2012.01 January 24, 2013 Page 4 staff member and the property owner's representative as contact persons, The flyer (Exhibit 5), which was distributed in September 2012, was sent and /or posted to the following entities and individuals with the additional input from members of the community that attended the Ad Hoc Committee meeting: • Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (who subsequently posted on their website) • Orange County Historical Society • City of Santa Ana Website • City of Santa Ana Facebook Account • City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook Account • OC History Roundup Blog (who subsequently posted on their website) • The Orange County Community Foundation • The Nature Conservancy • The Wildlands Conservancy • The Conservation Fund (Laguna Beach field office) • Old Orchard Conservancy • "Inside the Outdoors ", Orange County Department of Education • Rancho Santiago College • Irvine Valley College • California State Polytechnic University, Pomona • California State University, Fullerton • Discovery Science Center • Historic French Park (Debbie MCEWen, President) • All Ad Hoc Committee attendees Whenever possible, parties were also notified by phone. Follow -up outreach was also made to each of these groups prior to this HRC public hearing. As of January 15, 2013, staff received no calls and /or smalls regarding the availability of the structure for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. Further, the property owner's representative received one phone call related to the flyer, which was from a real estate broker seeking land for potential development. This code section involves identifying potential sites for relocation of the structure. To date, no private individuals or organizations have contacted the City or the property owner with sites that could be used for relocation of the building. In addition, staff from the Planning Division and Community Development Agency identified eight pieces of property owned by the Successor Agency that could accommodate a house move -on. However, the lots are unavailable due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and unresolved issues with the State Department of Finance, 75A -196 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2013 Page 5 This section considers the City purchase of the Sexlinger site as a means to preserve it as a historic resource, Although it Is not required, the HRC may suggest to the City Council that the Sexlinger site be purchased by the City, Should the HRC wish to suggest this course of action, a sample resolution is attached for your consideration (Exhibit 6). Assuming the current processing schedule for the project, if the HRC adopts the attached resolution, the City Council would then need to consider taking action on the potential purchase either prior to or concurrent with, the regularly scheduled Council meeting of March 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Council is scheduled to consider the tentative tract map and lot width variances associated with the proposed development of the site, as well as the certification of the Draft EIR. Summary and Next Steas: Once the requirements of SAMC Section 30 -7 are complete within the required 240 days from the date of application submittal, or at the conclusion of the environmental review period, whichever is longer, a demolition permit must be issued. Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall provide, to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission, and at the applicants sole cost, complete photo- documentation of archival quality and historical profile of the structure to be demolished, prior to the scheduling of the demolition. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), tract map and variance necessary for the residential project to be approved will be considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on February 11, 2013. The Planning Commission's recommendation for the project, along with the discretionary application, will go to public hearing with the City Council for consideration on March 4, 2013. Public Notification The subject site is located within the Portola Park neighborhood. The president of this Neighborhood Association was notified by mail 10 days prior to this public hearing, and a notice was published in the Orange County Reporter. A notice was posted on the subject site, and public notification was provided to all those property owners and tenants with in a 500 foot radius, as well as those who requested to he placed on the permanent notification list for the project. At the time of this printing, no correspondence, either written or electronic, had been received from any members of the public. 75A -197 HRD No, 2012.01 January 24, 2013 Page 6 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended actions are exempt from further review under Section 15331. This Class 31 exemption is applicable as these actions are designed to preserve historic resources, A Categorical Exemption will be filed for this project. cu Bally Sobo ke Manner anner HS:jm hs*islodo In(ole12Al2HRGUIfdl2.,01 Inlenl7obemollsh,hre Vince Fregos ' Principal Planner Attachments Exhibit 1 -- 500 Foot Radius Map Exhibit 2 — Department of Parks and Recreation Form Exhibit 3 — Notice of Intent to Demolish Exhibit 4 - Members of the community present at the HRC Ad I-loc Committee meeting Exhibit 5 — Notice of Availability Flyer Exhibit 6 Resolution 75A -198 111 ®G _ � IIIIIs VIII® A ®`a �1 /1111 ° ® ® ■n' IN fill lllr ®, ®' ®1werul® ■h s_u .rte a r� e =r P ®�I ®IIIIIAI # mm Raw plrllg; /®N ® ®® ®�ru mid (♦ = �r rid Ir® ®III ® ® ®� P® �.�q Cs ■� �� e: �r `�IIIIIIIIIII® � ;Mr,' � ri � � \11111111111 / / /// • s w� 1 OI ,0 HRD- 2012 -01 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY 75A -199 Wf4RTWVh Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 NAME Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard REF, NO. ADDRESS 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave, CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92705 ORANGE COUNTY YEAR BUILT 1913 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Key HISTORIC DISTRICT NIA NEIGHBORHOOD I Portola Park CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 5 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODS I 5S1 Location: ❑ Not for Publication ® Unrestricted E) Prehistoric 19 Historic ❑ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Craftsman Bungalow Closely related to the English Ads and Crafts Movement, American Bungalow /Craftsmen architecture was popularized by The Craftsman magazine and architects such as Charles and Henry Greene of Pasadena. It drew from the wood building traditions of Japan and Switzerland as well as the medieval themes favored by the Ada and Crafts philosophers. Craftsman architecture stressed honesty of form, materials, and workmanship, eschewing applied decoration In favor of the straightforward expression of structure, A now appreciation of nature was evident in horizontal lines that reached out to embrace the landscape and the Incorporation of capacious porches into building plans. Primarily a residential style, Craftsman architecture can be Identified by low pitched gable and hipped roofs With exposed rafters and beams in deep overhangs; wood lap or shingle siding and an occasional use of stucco; extensive use of stone or brick as a secondary material; horizontal emphasis apparent in roof lines, headers, and battered porch supports; and broadly prapodioned wood framed windows, often clustered in bands. Craftsman homes were built from circa 1002 until the early 1920s (McAlester, 453403). SUMMARYICONC Ul, SION: The Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is substantially intact as a ruralfagriculturai landscape with a Craftsman Bungalow and Valencia orchard in proximity. The site as a whole portrays a significant period in Santa Ana's history, and Is associated with a business and use that was once common, but Is now rare. The site is eligible for the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties as Key under Criterion 6. EXPLANATION OF CODES: CaliforniaReelster Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7, 'How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Rasources, September 4, 2001.) 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, • California Register Status Code: (From California Once of Historic Preservation, December 8, 2993.) 881'. Individual property that Is listed or designated locally, 75A -200 State of California . The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OP PARIS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Prlmaryli P -30. 170000 Trinomial NRNP Status Corte Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date. Page 1 of 17 "Reaourco Name or rN (Assigned by recorder) 1504E Sant ) Clara Avenue P1, Otherhlontifior: SoxlingerOrollard 1132. Location: ONot for Publication ®Unrestrlctod "a. county: QM= slid (P20, Pte, and P2b or PZd. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) "b. USES 7.6' Quad fir_ n= Data J974 T 6S; R 9W; NIA ya of N/A y, of Soo ¢; B.M. MD c. Address 1684 E. Santa Clara Ave City San a Ai La Zip 92705 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large androriinear resources) Zone 11, 421739 mE1 azm a 36 mN a. Other Loeational Data: (e.g „parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, sic., as appropriate) APN& 306.062.43 and 396052.44. The specific project location Is bounded roughly by East Santa Clara Avenue to Ilia north, Panels Park on the east, East Avalon Avenue on Ilia south, and Concord Street an the west. "P3a. Doseriptlow (Describe resource and Its major elements, Include design, matedals, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundares) This properly was previously recorded In 2000, and assigned P- 30479880. The 5 -acre property is an hlslorio�age orchard landscape of which the major features Include the remnants of a Valencia orange orchard, a residence, and a garage (McClelland at al. 1989, Revised 1999:15.18; Delon 2009:180). The land has heart historically used as an orange orchard since c. 1013, when it was likely planted by Perry Grout, and as the Soxlinger farilly's residence and orchard from 1014 to 2006. The boundary of the landscape Is demarcated by the boundaries of the 5•acrel parcel occupied by Ilia Soxlinger family for 90 years. Tire landscape's spatial organization is very simple with only two clusters of land uses: residential (the residence and garage) at the northwest corner of the parcel adjacent to a main thoroughfare, Santa Clara Avenue, and the orchard that fills the remainhng northeast lattice of the parcel, SEE CONTINUATION SHEET "Pg.. Data Racordod:.Do�s_t0bsr2011 031). Resource Attributes: (List ailtlbutes and codes) )rchard Landscape —HP 33 P4,11tesoureesProsent: 011BUilding ElStruclure 30bject psfte ❑District oElement of District 9101hor (Isolates, etc.) Orchard Landscape Mll. Description of Photo: (view, date, secession r0 Viewo 7mhard November 2.011 '136, Date Constructed /Ago and Source: ®Hlstorlc 713rehislodc ODoth : 1013 (orchard) 1014 (residoncellper Iieumannand Wile 2007 2007 and Padon and Mn vin 2008) 'P7. Owner and Addross: !rivet 1116. Recorded by: (Notes, affiliation, and address) URSCc oration 4226 Executive Square, Suile 1600 San Diego, CA 92037 6P10. Survey Type: (naooribe) Desktopinvosllrlallan 11111. RoportCitalion: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none, ") Supplamenlal Technical Momorandunn — CulluYal Rosoorees Eilgihility Assessment of 1584E Santa Clara Ave Santa Ana. California, TAVA Development Company Project December 2011 "Attachments: 13NONE OLocal(on Map 0Continuatlon Sheet [@Building, Structure, slid Object Record UArehasological Record OOistrict Record ❑Lhtear Feature Record L]Millhng Station Record ORock Ad Record GArtlroct Record E1Photogmph Record 001her (Lisp: DPR 623A (1196) "Requlrod Information 75A -201 DPR 623A (1106) 75A -202 'Required Information Lq `h ml p, ROM r r U f vj - I� s lip s � � sit i. 3? .: OWN-, m o 1 � i r f oi; ! L 1. t vc 1 ` u ` A F1 �w xf.J •�. �'vx. a � o W 75A -203 c 0 W G w* N In n: 2 75A -204 r a ti rt �3 a zni •i June 11, 2012 Ms. Ifaren Uwe, AICP Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O, Box 1988 Santa Ann, CA 82702 SUBJECT: Application of Intent to Demolish Historic property RE: Sexlinger Property, 1504 Cast Santa Clara Avenue Dear Ms, Haluaa: The purpose of this letter Is to formally notify the City of Santa Ana that It is the Intent of the legal property owners to demolish the residential structure and to remove the existing traps, This application notice is provided In nrcordance with Section 90.7 (a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, Also Included with the letter are a completed Building hermit Worksheet and a chuck In the amount of $462,60, Payable to the City of Santa Ana. This amount was provided by principal Planner Vincent C. rregoso, Your attention to this letter Is appreciated. should you have any quastlons, please contact our consultant, Robert Odle, at 714.401.9291 or edieassociatestArant Sincerely; ~t Kevin Tilden Concordia University Executive Vice Presldent for Finance Chief Financial Officer Enclosures 1 irtoalglinn Wlx, I laenlahk nnrl c_nlnwd::d �'rti:qu tmmalee Noble Lutheran High School of orange county Chief Financial Officer 75A -205 Ird01 {muuuG�liSN rnl16d,6Ua'.. hivyl.6finrv. X-11 I'll" VI'rq:�3M, t� C9 U � u 0 oo m z �1 K( K( w # us 0 CL z K U C�J N m 3 r E E ¢ $�aC O pE Y.a �UdTE a in rte. ayn r�t�� trn�n. Od yammro�N `¢Q`$�d`dc �v 00��19 91914 , W �sO v v vWN�� NY) U)N N 4u ctO0000 0 0 0 0$ rn c.} 9' 9' 8' ,� m `w �O nE .. E8 E Eda a. N � m� [1.. U U o ig3 I= O 1� Np a. w M Y - .J, ,f .yya i� N W _� N �Np. p LLf° c C c N � a. a O�� c a � �' zCaen U12 in Ss U � m m �6 Fn o rn m� E (Ji a $a JrU,. r, 2a@j a, �%(a) :E V bO � 05C •NY U o a W N F � � u rn UQ NC�O1 Ct�i ppE tZ LANN cpcp G al b y �` QI p ,ubgZU 9 � t'cy aP ry o 75A -206 Notice of Availability of Historic Property Sexlinger orange Orchard and Farmhouse The Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse is a 5 -acre piece of property located at 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue In the City of Santa Ana. The orchard and farmhouse were recently placed on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties by the City Council. The owners of the property, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, were donated the property by Martha Sexlinger with her intent that it be sold for housing development and that the proceeds be distributed to these Christian schools to benefit their ministry. As such, these recipient owners disagreed with the historical listing of the property and have submitted a Notice of Intent to demolish the orchard and farmhouse In order to clear the property for future development. Pursuant to Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the City of Santa Ana must explore ways to preserve the property including publicizing the availability of the property, In whole or in part, for sale or, In the case of the house, for sale and relocation. The City of Santa Ana does not own this property and does not have any discretion or right to participate in negotiations pertaining to the sale of either the farmhouse or the orchard. Should the orchard or farmhouse be sold, the City would work with subsequent owners to ensure that the historic preservation of the property Is upheld. The deadline to submit offers t2 the property owner is January 15, 2013. For more Information about the property go to: http://www.santa- ana.oraltrba/ tanninoxlingerrarnrhouseanddrehard .asn. For more Information please contact: Owners Representative Mr. Robert 11, Odle Odle & Associates LI,C (7'14)401 -9231 odleassociates aoI.com City Representative Mr, Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana (714) 667 -2713 vfreRosa santa-ana.or, 75A -207 Date published: September S, 2012 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103 ROH — 01 /24/13 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SUGGESTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY PURCHASE THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE, SANTA ANA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Sexlinger Property is rectangular in shape, approximately five acres in size, and includes a 1,350 square foot Craftsman -style farmhouse and a Valencia orange grove of approximately 250 trees. The residence was constructed in 1914 by Perry V. Grout, but was sold shortly thereafter to George and Sophia Sexlinger. Members of the Sexlinger family resided in the home until 2006. B. The legal description for the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. C. On June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger property, located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, Santa Ana, on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. D. On June 11, 2012, the owners of the Sexlinger property, the Concordia University Foundation and the Lutheran High School of Orange County, applied for permits to demolish the residence and orchard on the property. E. Section 30 -7 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires that the Historical Resources Commission review all applications for demolition permits for historical properties, and investigate all feasible alternatives to demolition. F. SAMC Section 30- 7(a)(4) presents the alternative that the Historic Resource Commission suggests to the City Council that the city purchase the property when private preservation or relocation is not feasible. EXHIBIT 9 Resolution No. 2013 -01 75A -208 Page 1 of EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 Section 2: The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby urges the City Council that the city purchase the Sexlinger Property. After consideration by the Historic Resources Commission Ad Hoc Committee, it was determined that neither private preservation nor relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timeline available. Our urging is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to; the Staff report and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony and correspondences, particularly the letter from Steve Ray dated January 24, 2013, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney 21 BI 'O'Callaghan Vice Chairman AYES: Commission members: Bustamante, Christy Hitterdale Morfin O'Callaghan Yrarrazaval (6) NOES: Commission members: None (0) ABSTAIN: Commission members: None (0) NOT PRESENT: Commission members: Schaefer (1) Resolution No. 2013.01 75A -209 Page 2 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No, 2013 -01 to be the original resolution adopted by Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 24, 2013 Date: -,� 2— /�7— /''.,3 Y ?.. Com 'ssion Secretary — City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 20 13 -01 75A -21 0 Page 3 of EXEMPT FROM FEES PURUSANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN AOwner Names Legal Description 396- 052 -14 1584 East Santa Clara Concordia CHAPMAN TR LOT BLK A Avenue University E1/2 N 10 AC W 50 AC S Foundation and 210.27 Lutheran High School of Orange County Exhibit A Resolution No. 2013 -01 Page 4 of 4 75A -211 January 24, 2013 City of Santa Ana Historic Resources Commission Re: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana is tasked with the responsibility to identify, investigate and suggest alternatives to the proposed demolition of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. The property has been designated as historic by the Santa Ana City Council. The hearing before the Historic Resources Commission will be held on January 24, 2013, The Staff Report for the HRC hearing recommends that the commission suggest that the City buy the property to preserve it, The Old Orchard Conservancy supports this recommendation. In support of the recommendation the Conservancy offers five potential scenarios through which the City may engage in the purchase and preservation of the property. This list of scenarios is certainly not exhaustive but should provide formative discussion on the potential methodologies to acquire the property. 1) City Purchase and Preservation. The City could purchase the property and through appropriate city agencies /departments plan and execute a preservation plan for the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. The Old Orchard Conservancy and other community groups could support and assist in the preservation process. 2) City Purchase and Private Restoration and Management Under this public/private partnership, the City would purchase the property and contract with a private non- profit entity (flee primary candidate being The Old Orchard Conservancy) to restore and manage the property. The contract parmer would create a vision plan and a master plan to be approved by the City, perform restoration of the orchard and rehabilitation/renovation of the farmhouse, develop community and education programs, manage and maintain the site and acquire necessary funding for all these activities. A successful model for this scenario is the Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Seach, a public - private p=artnership between the City of Huntington Beach and the Friends of Shipley Nature Center. 3) City Purchase with Private Buyout This scenario would closely mirror the scenario in Scenario 2 above with the additional provision that the City would, after the purchase of the property, contract with the private non -profit entity to acquire funds and purchase the property from the City at some future time specified in the agreement between die parties. 75A -212 4) City Loan to Private Entity for Purchase Given the relative brevity of time to purchase and preserve the property, the City could make a loan to a private non - profit partner for purchase of the property by the private entity with a lien held by the City until the loan is repaid. Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. 5) Private Entity Purchase with City Loan Guarantee This scenario would enable the private non - profit partner to acquire the property through traditional mortgage financing with the City guaranteeing the loan to the lending institution. The private partner would acquire funds to repay the loan per the terns of the financing agreement, Restoration and management of the property will follow the same outlines discussed in Scenario 2 above. Other possible variations on any of the above scenarios and additional unenumerated scenarios may also be explored and discussed between the City and the private non -profit partner. As timing is of the essence, discussions should begin forthwith. The Old Orchard Conservancy is committed to preserving, restoring and managing the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse, and if possible, to acquire it. This last remaining intact family -owned orange orchard in Orange County needs to be preserved and used to benefit the public, This old orchard is not only a valuable historic asset for the City of Santa Ana, but it can also be a valuable economic and educational benefit to the community. The Old Orchard Conservancy requests that the Historic Resources Commission strongly suggests that the City purchase the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse and also propose that the City Council consider the above scenarios as the means to achieve the realization of this valuable historic asset. Thank you. Steve Ray Board Member The Old Orchard Conservancy 75A -213 The complete Environmental Impact Report is available at the Planning Division public counter and on the City's webpage at http://www.santa- ana.org /pba /planning /documents /sexlinger /Sexlinger Orchard Final EIR.pdf Also, the addition analysis that was prepared in December 2013, the response letters and the responses to the letters from January 2014 is also available at the Planning Division public counter and at http: / /santa- ana.org/pba/ planning /documents /SexlingerOrchard AAforRTConDEIR 0130 14. pdf EXHIBIT 10 75A -214 . glw T. PIE Lu i W jO iz 5 i 'N' glqn� ux livW T-TI t�!, I'T Id JJ D Him Irl F- I w -- F] glqn� ux livW Iw ZI Iw •dPt�w � � sv^,a iw '41 � the l �, , Conservancy Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bensley Vice - President Patrick Mitchell Moises Pliascencia Steve Ray Nick Spain "7o pressrve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educational resource for all." (714) 296 -4642 P. O. Box 10038 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0036 January 17, 2014 Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex PO Box 1988, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail: vfregoso@santa- ana.org RE: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project, Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008041172) Dear Mr. Fregoso, After reviewing the Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue dated December 19, 2013, The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) continues to oppose the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project (formerly known as the TAVA Development Company Project, SCH# 2008041172) as it continues to propose inadequate alternatives for preservation. The following outlines our concerns with regard to the Additional Analysis. The staff's latest alternative to be included in the EIR is referred to as the "Historic Preservation Alternative "(HPA). Let's first review what the historic designation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard is. The June 4, 2012 historic property designation by the City Council, which overturned an earlier decision by the Historic Resources Commission, defined the historic property as the intact family residence and five -acre oLLhard, The distinction between an orchard - residence designation and a residence -only determination has all along been a crucial element of the understanding among the Conservancy and city staff. Including the full landscape of the Sexlinger Orchard Complex as a "Key" historical vvvvvv.06d0rchardConservancy,or9 IOA-,& 6 T conservancy Page 2 property establishes a precedent for the city of Santa Ana. This understanding is reaffirmed in the Technical Memorandum describing the HPA when it states, "... the Sextinaer orchard [emphasis ours] is considered a historic resource under the SARHP for the purposes of CEQA. The consultant's understanding and use of various National Park Service publications and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards) is the basis for their arguments that reduce the designated historic property from five acres to 10,044 square feet. That their proposals of the restoration of the structures and the retention of a few orange trees can be considered adequate mitigation of recognized adverse impacts "to a level of less than significant impact on the historic resource" is without merit. The HPA lists a series of the rehabilitation standards put forth by the Secretary's Standards, some of which the Conservancy believes do nothing to address the impacts of the essential demolition and destruction of the orchard itself and others which, based on the description of how this alternative will be implemented, will not occur at all Example: "A property will be used as it was historically." Based on the detailed description of this alternative, the use of the property will be as a standard residential property without any reference to use in it's true historical context, that of a family farm complex. Remember, this property is an original five -acre, family owned, commercial orchard, not a remnant. The HPA invokes CEQA guidelines from the standpoint of defining substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. They sight "substantial adverse change" as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource." Examples of adverse impacts acknowledged in the HPA include "... a large portion of the [orchard] network would be lost" and that under the HPA the "natural systems and features" of the land would not be "recognizable as what exists currently." Additionally, the °overall setting and relationship with the landscape would be impaired by the construction of additional residences." It is acknowledged that the HPA would result in the loss of the spatial organization of the historic site and the "extant landscape would undergo significant change as the vast majority of the orange trees of the project site would be removed." Given these expected impacts of the proposed project we see no way that the HPA can retain the historical integrity, significance and overall character of the historic resource. The remaining 10,000 square feet will, in our view, not adequately convey the scope of the historical Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Furthermore, the Conservancy cannot, in anyway, consider this proposed alternative as being a mitigation plan which will reduce adverse impacts to a "level less than significant." We feel that our proposed 50/50 development /preservation alternative is much more in keeping with the true intent of the Secretary's Standards by allowing enough acreage to retain the historical integrity of the "property's location, feeling, and overall character," www.OldOrchardConservancy,org 75A -217 l d I Conservancy Page 3 An alternative, very similar to ours, is now recognized by the State of California as "standard mitigation" in issues involving development proposals where historical, cultural, agricultural or environmentally sensitive landscapes are involved. ( Masonite v County of Mendocino et al„ DJDAR 9784), You will also find letters attached that you have received in the past from, both, our attorney and the Conservancy, outlining the Masonite case and our proposal for a true preservation alternative. We appreciate the opportunity to have this letter and attachments included in the staff report for the February 4, 2014 City Council meeting. Sincerely, g Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 2014_0107_EIR_Response_pdf Enclosures cc: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Miguel Pulido, Mayor Sal Tinajero, Mayor Pro Tem Vince Sarmiento Michele Martinez Angelica Amezcua David Benavides Roman Reyna www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 75A -218 Sheppard ulll August 21; 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Vincent C. Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency P.O. Box 1988 M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Email: vfregoso @santa- ana.org Re: Sexlinger Orchard Project Dear Mr. Fregoso: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP B50 Town Center Drive, 41h Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1903 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main fax www,sheppa rd mul Iln.00m 714.424,2821 direct drosenthal @sheppardm ul lin.com File Number: 0010174413 In prior correspondence with the City Planning Commission, the Old Orchard Conservancy objected to the failure of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Project to consider any preservation alternatives, Since submitting comments, the Conservancy has identified two potential alternatives that would preserve the historic Farmhouse in situ, as well as a substantial portion of the Orchard. Both of these alternatives allow for economically feasible residential development of the property, although at a reduced number of units from that proposed by the landowner. The alternatives also call for single -story homes, which are more compatible with the character of the Orchard and address some of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, The Conservancy would also like to bring to your attention the recent decision in Masonite Corporation v, County of Mendocino, 2013 DJDAR 9784, Copy attached, This case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA: P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is Intended to effectuate. P. 9791. Section 815 of the Civic Code recognizes that "the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California." P. 9791. The Sexlinger EIR determined that no mitigation was required for impacts to agricultural resources because the Orchard is located in an urbanized area_ However, in areas where lands have not been surveyed, CEQA Section 21060.1(a) defines "agricultural land" as land meeting the requirements of "prime agricultural land" under Section 51201 of the Government Code. 75A -219 City of Santa Ana Planning Department August 21, 2013 Page 2 Section 51201 defines "prime agricultural land" to include land with prime soils and orchards that normally produce more than $200 per acre. Although the Sexlinger Orchard was removed from production by its current owners, it contains unusually high- quality soils and produced citrus at economic levels for more than a century, See Section 51201 (copy attached) and Slivers Report (previously submitted). Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for loss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be an agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2.5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed in 1 of the alternatives identified by the Conservancy. Evidence collected by the Conservancy demonstrates that continued use of the Sexlinger Orchard for citrus production is possible due to its high - quality soils, making agricultural use both legally and economically feasible, Masonite also clarifies the City's obligation to adopt conditions that avoid or reduce impacts to the Farmhouse and Orchard as mitigation for impacts to these historic resources. Preservation of the designated resources in their original configuration is legally feasible and must be required of the developer, unless It is shown to be economically infeasible. In this case, the property has significant economic value with retention of both the Farmhouse and the Orchard, requiring their preservation under CEQA. The Conservancy looks forward to meeting with you to outline the alternatives they have identified and to discuss any other questions you may have about their commitment to preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. Very truly yours, Vbo!rah M. Rosenthal AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP SMRH:40 9959805,1 Enclosures cc; Ms. Jeannie Gillett Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Ryan Hodge, Esq. Mr. Robert Odle Mr. Steve Ray Mr. Nick Spain 75A -220 9784 Daily Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Environmental impact report jor quarry project should not f qve been approved because it did not mite ate loss ofprime farmla ti on property. Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784 MASONITE CORPORATION, Petitioner and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et at., Defendants and Respondents; The County failed to adopt adequate measures to mitigate significant impacts from truck traffic along a private road associated with the Project And finally, that the EIR failed to adequately evaluate Project alternatives. We agree with Masonle's contentions involving: recirculation for comment on possible mitigation measures that can protect the Frog; the udeasibility of agricultural conservation easements and in-lieu fees; discussion of cumulative Impacts on farmland; end mitigation measures for truck traffic. Accordingly, wo, reverse the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate, with directions that the County set aside its certification of the EIR, and prepare and circulate a supplemental EIR that addresses I. BACKGROUND Tire Project is a sand and gravel quarry to GRANITE CONSTRUCTION be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one mile north of Ukiah, The site Is bordered on the y COMPANY, north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the Real Party in Interest and Russian. River, on the south by property owned by Ma s0 te, and on the wcat by Kunzlor Ranch Respondent Road. Mostat esiteiscultivatedasavineyard, No. A134896 with an open space portion io tha northeast and a y, (Mendocino County Super. Ct No. SCUK CVPT 1056863) truck maintenance shop at the northwest comer. For ty,five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified California Courts of Appeal F'nstAppellate District as' p rune farmland;' but the site has been zoned for industrial use able e 1982. It is surrounded by Division Three Filed July 25, 2013 a lumber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek, agriculhual 1and to the east of the Russian , River, Masonites hidua at . property to the { south {described as "vacant" an area maps), and industrial the West , CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION" . and commercialPropertiesto Granite plans to etttrnet3.37 million tons of .. aggregate from 30,3 acres of the site over a 25- ' Pursuant t6 California Rotes of Court, raise 8.11060) and 8.1116, Us opinion is certified tar publication with the year period. The ndr a is designed to operate yeru romld, six days . a week, 14 hours a day' '- 1. exception of parts 11B., If.D „R.E., and n.r Tito minmg will be done in phases to allow for ,. noncurrent site reclamation, and five yeas of reclamation are planned after the mining ;. Masonite Corporation (Masonite) appeals from a judgment denying its Petition for writ of operations are complete. Following reclamation; the northwestern portion of the property will be mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino availalileforfmture industrial uses, and therestof County (County) of the IGnrzter Terrace Mine the site will be "open space (ponds),” �- Project (Project) to be developed by Granite Granite .submitted an application to the Construction Company (Granite; Granite and the County for approval of a conditional use County are hereafter referred to collectively as permit and reclamation plan for the Project in respondents), and the final enviromnental impact February 2008. The County determined that re it (EIR) for its Project, for failure to comply an onvlronmenWl Impact report was rogviredI ; with the California Environmental Quality Act solicited comments from government agencies . (CEQN (Pub. Resources Cade, § 21000 at seq.). in.Aplit 2008, and noticed preparation of a draft impact report 3n October. { MasGulte argues the approval process and environmental (Pratt) the EIR were deficient in several. ways. The The Draft was released for public and agency , i County was required to recirculate the 'EIR review in September 2009. on those who -� _ because the Project as approved had significantly conunented critically on the Pratt and din R•oject t greater impacts than the one originally proposed, were SCS Engineers on bell of Masonite, -and �- Recirculation was also required because the Russian erkeeper, an organization dedicated -' ' EIR disclosed a new significant Impact on the . toproteationoftheRussianRlverenvieonment Foothill Yellow-Tailed Frog (Rog) that was not The rM was released for review on By - adequately mitigated, The County erroneously a, 2010, The EIR Identified two significant and - i determined that conservation easements and in- unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent , lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the loss of prime farmland, and it fle problems that I loss of prime farmlandxlue to the Project The would develop by the year 2030. The EIR came j` EIR did not adequately analyze the Proleces before the County Planing Commission on May cumulative impact's, on agricultural resources. 20, 2010. After considering public comments, 75A -221 Monday, puly 29, 2013 _..Dally Appel includuig Ilium on behalf of Masonite, the Planning Commission certified the EIR and npproved the .umse permit and reclamation plan, The Pl•mningComission adopted a a Cement of overriding considerations noting, among other things, that Hie Project would provide "a reliable 20-year supply of construed n aggregate in the Mendocino County area." Maspp ta, and Russian Riverkeeper appealed the plaftning,goomilssion decisions to the County Board ofSullerAsurs. The appeals were heard by the board donauly27, 2010. The dayof die hearing, Masonite filed a 49-page letter brief challenging die EIR on approxhmately 20 grounds, The board denied both gppeals. - .Masonite -and Russian Mverkeeper filed Petitions for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the CouinVs approval of the Project due to violations of CEQA The petitions were denied, and Magnolia and Russian Riverkeeper appealed from the judgments, Russian l iverkeeper's appeal was dismissed after settlement, 11. DISCUSSION A Scope of Review "Id reviewing no agencyrs compliance with CECjA -., , the courts' inquiry 'shall extend only, to. whether there was a prejudicial abuse Of discretion.' [Citation) Such an abuse is established dt Hie agency has not proceeded in a record rot legal error and substantial evidence In a CEQA case , , . is the same as the trial court's: The appellate court reviews the agency's action, not, the trial cour4s decision; In that sense appellate judicial review under CEQA is denovo, [Citations,] We therefore resolve the substantive CEQA issues ... by independently determining whether the administrative record demonstrates any legal error by die County and whether it contains substantial evidence to support the CotuaVs tactual determinations." (Vineyard Area Citizens for.Respousible Growth. L)1e. a City' In. emitted (Vineyard)) B, . R.eeirculadon of the E1R (1) Arguments and Standards Masonite contends that the BR ' hould have been recirculated for public review because the Project as approved was "different markedly" from the one analyzed in the Drat: and lied inure severe environmental impacts, and because the EIR Identified a new slgnificauC impacEon the Frog,- . . . ", (Cal. Code Rags., Ht 14, § 15088,5,. he. CEQA Guidelines in Cal. Code , 05000, at seq. are hereafter cited late Report 9785 as Guldelinesj; Pub, Resources Code, § 21092.1.) "I "Pjhe addition of new- information to an EIR after the close of the public comment period Is not'signiticane unless the EIR is changed in a way that, deprives the public of a.meaningful opportunity turn eatupon asu6standa /adverse environmental. effect of fha project or a feasible Wray to midgate or avoid such an effect" (Laurel Heights Improvement Asni, a Regenls of Universily of Califarnla (1993) 0 Ca1.41h 1112,1129 urel (la Heights T!)t see also Vineyard, supra, 40 .4th at p, 447, quodng Lautel Heights ll,). "Signifienot new Information" includes a disclosure showing that "[a] new significant environmental impact would result from the project . , , ," (Guidelines, § 15088,5, subd. (a) (1),) (2) ProjeetAlteratious The Projectwas changed in two respects from the one originally envisioned, (a) Pond-River Connection in Lieu of a Weir and Fuse Plug - Granite's applicadon for the use perhdtand reclamation plan recognized that, 'because of Its proximity to the Russian Diver lad Ke.knrman for these species relative to the proposed project is the potential for fish entrapment in, the pit during floods high enough to inundate the site." The application noted.with respect to 'hydrology and drainage doia "as an alluvial terrace adjacent to the Russian River and Ackerman Creek," Hie Project site "is subject to perigdicJ nundation• , , Extensive hydrologic modeling was conducted to design an overflow structure thetwould mialmLe the potential for fish to become entrapped in the pit, and prevent erosion of pit batiks and walls during a 100 -year flood event, - , - r•. 'Granite's application,proposed taf.addreas the potential for flooding and trapped:fish with construction of aflood control.weir.,and fuse plug. 'The armored:overflow weir gives.the creek and river a. controlled . access and dndnnve .v,inr 9n,• >m to the stream" would provide better oug'term protection for endangered salmonids than the proposed weir and fuse plug. Granite's study of the WITS proposal, attached as Appendix F to the Draft, eoncluded that itwould: be preferable to use connection channel between the mine pond and the Russhux River in lieu of the weir and fuse plug.. The Project as proposed in the Draft provided rteir Ilse hwe- lbr nd fuse.plug,,but:the pond. ver conorlhatmel design was :presented as "Alternative 3" - it.replaced•the.weir and fuse Plug with "a culvert (or culverts): suitable for the 75A -22 9786 , Daily Appellt project Die (rather than as a permanent structure, as under the proposed Project)," and eliminated the need for ongoingmarntenance of the weir and fusephig. The Draftdetermined that "stranding or entrapment of special- status salmonids" would be a potentially significant impact if the Project were constructed with theweir and fuse pin g, However, mitigation measures that included salmonid rosette and relocation programs Implemented In consultadon with NMFS and the Deparbr ent of Fish. and Game (Fish & Game), would make this would "reduce[] the potential significance of pit capture and salmonid entrapment" and "eliminate the need for the rescue plan:" In November 4, 2009, comments on the Draft, NM[S expressed concern that when pit veining operations resulted in ponds of standing .groundwater more than 35feet deep, anaerobic conditions would threaten the vitality of any salmonids trapped in the ponds, and the depths of the reciaimed ponds would need to be regulated to achieve suitable habitat. The County detenrimed in the EIR that Alternative 3 was "envlroureentally'supeeloel to the weir mud fuse plug, and the -NMFS supported Alternative 3 in comments 'submitted prior to Planning Commission approval of the EIR As approved, the Project included the pond - rveer connection hi lieu of the weir and fuse plug. reflected in the revised reclamadoaplan appended to the Ell Although die Draft stated that the pond- river connection would eliminate the need for a salmonid rescue program, the EIR retained a rescue program during the mining phase of the Project, The Draft set forda two options for the reclamation phase, Option A provided for construction of the pond -fiver connection unless NMFS mud Fish & Game staff determined that the "Potendal adverse - water quality within ale pit' would outweigh the connection's expected 'benefits to salmonid habitat. Option B requited Granite to continue the salmorld rescue program until NMBS and Fish &'Game said it was no longer needed." In the EIR Option B was unchanged, and Option A was amended to provide simply for construction of the pond -river connection, The deference to NMFS and risli & Game concerns over water quality In the pit was replaced in the EIR by more detailed mitigation requirements, set forth in new mitigation measure 3.4.4 -ALT 3, to address . concerns raised In NMF&s November 2009letter. SpeciftcallytbeEIRstatedthatGrmu to would limit the depth in the reclaimed ponds to 35 feet as NMFS stated would be'acceptable; or deeper if acceptable pursuant to a fiiture• water quality assessments - (b) Floodplabi Benching The term "floodplam benching" refers to a proposal by Granite in the Project application, to widen the Ackerman Creek' apt] 'Russian River channels to hnprave channel hydraulic capacity and winter rearing habitat for salmonids above what is cu red�lyavailable which, It ivrn, t to Report Monday,luly2' will increase annual winter juvonile; °orddr - survivability In the project yidittiry'. "• " ". s' "floodpiain benching" was hutorpo['Atpd :ftiO fie Daft, along with mitigation • measures' for its Impact on salmonids and riparian habitat. In its comments on the Draift; SCS Engineers for Masonite criticized the floodplain benching. i SCS wrote; "Artificial and ' unwarranted 'improvements' such as those prilptised %by` Granite serve to upset thej:eiil1iIAffi`tb ff@` fluvial system for the financial begefit'•of•bffe' r landowner, This proposed 'channel NWidenhtg' la not only unneeded under" irren0c6ridifiodst, such channel manipulations have't ,pctehflai to destabilize downstream banits and to'ah ft the position of the channel thalweg with tendalty'. negadvehnpactstodownstreamland4wners Such negative impacts may include ifidreased'pote bat t for flooding or other unanticipated; "lion- linlan! , responses that may occur : . asi a rresult'of''fhe', proposed unwarranted mechanical manlp ulation of the channel..., (1) ... [79here is little 'or no geomorpldc or other scientific justification- for such a proposal and many potential,' Itfalls," The Mendocino County Water Agency also• expressed concerns that erosion would dccur'id diefloodplam bench area. In response to these, , comments, Alternative 3 was revised lu'theiTIR' to eliminate floodplain benching from the 'Prfijeck • The EIR also observed that removal'offloe'dplab; benching "would not create any flooding Impacts relative to the baseline condition. ' .:' After close of the period for public continent' on the Draft, the California Department' of - Conservation Office of Mine Reclamaflon wrote - a lettcr' to - the County noting that floodit a rl' - was X„ and mvir rsta tie fot Aso the & Game It would adv, habitat of I discussing 75A -2 to ar - �aunea no nerenvrronmenrat was being removed "'to "avoid nrnnntnl imnactu. "" - the to' vIte, approve thel'rojecEwithoutthoflood Iain 9j S ,n¢hin %feilture. Deletion of that feature was weirandfuseplugt "curbdledmiOn insnongm aPPe isofethel?Iannin9Commi son's eci ion. the record reflectsthat die EIltPlan." However (c) Analysis rescue and .relonation programs specified connection with die weir and fuse plug dell An accurate projectdescrptionisnecessar Masonim also notes that adoption of ffie pot for an intgMgent „evaluation poi the Y river connection led to removal of a midgad euvironmehibij effect, of a potende! measure that mandated onnua] fns (S{laena a ,ya3, proposed San activity' jfnecessar re pections at (1B9 34 Cat; 4th 980, Palley Sanitary Dist. Butas omledontinti,te Count staff oporttefi Y Aairoftheweirandsetbackare; 11 -! torl cane"lahledd�%�)nandun. "unstable" P it Of fl I the no its.rola as an respect to tite • - °' ` ` :''M" PP• !h argues that Granjte's mt projecE doBe ban for to ' -''- h "`wuae n ewninated the need M onite lsonchstlengee andcommentoneach dchanges, However, q Statement in the ETR that removal of noodptain. benching "wotdd not create an flooding Y g impacts nection and floodplau in the Draft, relative to the baseliteconditi on , "Butthesfatementwascorrect because the elimination flood and the conumeatfary an their of henchog would s mPIY ]Dave Ackornin Creep and the Russian River in thofr ERtimproper '„ ly gave 1 about We Project presort state, Masonite'e arguments suggest dtatflnod lain beliehing was Proposed to P the PY11—, mitigate the environmental offrrtc „a the waa an ape :nation abou ly d'S A acrd ted here. and Y Inform the wever, there IvIasentte or ilsled about or whether the Project g from the fa mtelligendY we Tbere is `ao merit it the Project descripti thattheprojectchange se envitronntea tad effec at of the I .(Lour 4dt at o: 7tao ,a: as "an effortPto jmvrrroreu as notedhlfhebrat state oftheAckermanCreek.11 •current degrade was eliminated when it appeared thatiE might tit more environmental harm than good, Might d, Is in posjdan to now argue for the necessity Of county in c benchog because its expert told the bonchiing way menu on die Draft that floodplaln "unneeded undercurrrento�oniunwa unwarranted," and (3) ?he Frog.; (a) Record " uuugaaon measures deslgued�`to�reduceedtoso led Impacts to insignificance. 9di The table h special status Species Included ag. tiro Frog: 'The table stated that. tiie Frog Its Ibireeds.in shaded stream habitats dte cobble Substrate, asuall Uelow 3, With rock, gh elevation. AUsentor Y 000 feet in to. inrit,nAM predators are entOrt�equentwhenintroduced On :t h_:. •. -'Ihe tabla. eSdmahu;l F7,.. s provide, imuted habitat (slow /IoW flow ree!tio may. t and Russian leapresoutin.bothAc,kermanCeeek e! and Russian River Thus, the Draft specified Creek itmltIgadon measures for the Frog 75A -224 -- ayes Deily Appellate Report Monday, July 29x2013' that recent surveys had documented the presence wasrequiredbecausenewinformadonshowedthat of Frogs at s bridge crossing the Russian River an endangered species was present at the project bridgeapproximately three miles southeastofthe site. We acknowledge, as respondents argue, that ' Project site. Accordingly, Midi & Game believed Guidelines section 15088.5; subdivision (a)(2) that Frogs were "likely to exist along. riparian could possibly apply here. The Draft stated that areas of Ackerman Creek and the Russian River," the Frog's potential occurrence was "low" rather and recommended that the special status species than "unlikely,' and could thus be construed to able be amended to list the potential for Frog disclose a ppossible minor impact on the Frog, and occurrence at the site an "high," not "low." when the likellhood of the Frog's presence ]vas The table was a}nended m the. ERL A changed from "low" to "high," the EIl2 disclosed discussion of potEnflally significimf impacts to a "substantial increase in the severity of [[that] . the Frog was added; and imdgadon measures Impact" (Guidelines, § 15088,5, subd. -(a)(2)), were proposed that reduced the impacts to But regardless of Guidelines section 150 5, Insignificance. . The impacts would . arise from subdivision (a)(2), reclrculatlon was. required. fl oodplain benching, and'cogatrucUmi and mining under Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision operations that would impact potentially suitable (a) (1), We disagree with respondents'suggestion upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and that recirculation can be avoided simply because Ackerman Creels. Mitigation measures included the Draft disclosed some possible impact on the retention of current riparian vegetation to the Frog. The Draft did not suggest that the Project extent possible; biological monitoring of the would have any potentially significant impact oil effects of construction on the Frog, and halting that species, Such an Impact was disclosed for of construction if impacts to the Frog became reti rst time in the EBt, and was both "new" and evident "significant' within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1)„ -- v (b) Review A contrary conclusion would contravene? Irineyard, supra, 40 CalAth at page 447 and Masonite argues that the EIR should . have laurel Heights 1'1, supra;:6 CaUth at page 1129, been re'hculated for public comment because it by depriving the public of an )opportunity to _ contained significant new information regarding comment on mitigation measures for apotendaity the Frog. Masonite submits ,the' EIR' disclosed significant effect that were first Identified in the '(a] new significant environmental "impact' on EIR. (See also Silverado Modlaka Recreatiok & the Frog (Guld'elines;-:§ 15088.5, subd, (VIA park Dist. a County of Orange (2011),,197 ;Cal.. and that the situation here is the same as that in AppAth 282,808 [new information that mated ffiIty - Sierra Club u Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal. implicates,the public'srightto parflcipatejustifles App.3d 30 (Sierra Club), where "the presence prolonging the environmental review process];' on the prbject site of the potentially endangered Save OurPenlnsula Committee a MontereyCdunty' California tiger salamander was discovered after U ofSuperuisois (2001) 87 Cal,App.4th 99, 131 the closeofkthhe public commeukperlodforthedmtt (recirculation gives the public an opportuni E1R, , . , Tho new iiifotma�tlbn U'ic.p�r' sence of to evaluate the new information and the validity the tiger salanum&,,Aemons tad Cilia draft of conclusions drawn, from it],) 'The mitigation - EIR had not addressed a obtentially substantial measures to beamntovedtnminimimihPimm "&a. to Respondents maintain that Guidelines section 15088,5, subdivision (a) (2), not (a) (1), a plies because under subdivision (a) (2), recirculation is necessary when a disclosure shows that "Is] substantial increase in the severitv'of an a whereas the Draft m Si rra Club apparently did could have been mitigated by aequaltion7of -- notmention Urn liver's (amander (S(erra Club, agricultural conservation .easements om offsite supra, 222Ca1'(tpRd atpi8fi) "' '- properties, .or payment of "mlieul fee a_tofund �c ButMadis4 al t.bs(teYargirc5il.nts..This such acquisitions. case is indxsiwgui» gqtils from Sierra CduU as r' - described in laurelC�fghtsl7 where recirculation - - +- 75A-225-- ongay, July z9, 2013 Dally Appellate Report (1) ReFar¢ 9789 easements, The conversion of agricultural land e s l llr Plalne �i wLy Uus h"Pact could not should be deemed an Impact of at least regional M7 cos' m iB'i!ked: gationforagricultural land shouldbeconductelre nallyorstatewidet �' .. m take. the form of avoidance , mizahon� restoration, and notlimitedstrict lytolaadwilhinthe,projecPa compensation '(providing sub sdtutev esourcea surronding area ," oFfsite) These forms ofmidgadoncorrea correspond a 7'1eContydldnotrespondtrirhesecomme irta tONto G Pn xcept to note that no Williamson Acts contracts p- E(ie1 Cuide�lnes Section 15370.5 For the would be affected by the Project; and site. to the ON � P b thery'alaer a r e is not possible, as discussion of mlogat ey fot lost C oca o o lhemiireralresourcescorresponds Draft. farmland in the ' Ca tfie Cdrlre #urtnl I as identified in the FMMR ' of such nudgatimi was li}carpdra'ed loco `the E1R MiniI 'ad iOnisfncorpora led into the roecttaan ThcDra(ls ��cusslpl oi.th,Ipio. eEIR I as �'kkl16 project is phased, and sgrriculturn wdthoutchange. ' ' aPkivity yy111 conHnne' on a phase until k is mined, When Masirnite� aPBealed. ''the ' Planning t} msaRt66ndin1agdcullu11activityduringdieUfe ltasad$ there ewas nrioo"Iaglcal basisPefrvisthe 9L , I prct .1;: s However, this will not reduce conclusion that im acts to t(re im dct. o,iess than significant, Reakoration is not be mtkigated, At the hoarcig on tland could I�gasj e P agriedlt rat land could 4 r,p. ie, miningw11resultinafinshed a Conty reprosenldve responded,that "Ctjbe gra e'Uelaw:f�re.groundwaterlevel. Preservation Uasie purpose of an" m this instance, is similar fo•avoidance, and is easement is to avoid. the secondary impacts that tnfeast Is for e17e. same reason. Compensation casement is to with avoid the sia secondary impact land diet ggrfidany takes the form of off-site. acquisition of You know, sometimes considered the so coped fariland, typically an Agricultural Conservation domino effect As you extinguish D6setnent (ACE): Acquisition of an ACE is a ngukshoperndthe,ne t conreaq tvi dis usse below Proposed Project farmer and you're causing nuisance issues de You're putting development pressure an the next tlln roaQOns UFecussed below. An`, ACE ,.does p are going to Make lifedifflcultforhimandmakeit resources not replace Ug on-site more lkelythat thatcperaUon .ls'goingtowantta and ecine ects educe f addresses farmland conversion sou'renotjdmecin a11yV+hatyou'redojngbecause enc Ourd effects include the pressure created to easement eomewhertehelso.buk ltC7e.not o enc6riru TU1aeslales envesadums,esdevolopment recreate those few crea but]tf ,farmlaoing going PresS45o raises the apeculs6ve value of the land are resent on that acre!, m d t to and o6reases the ecoromie costs of farmin p So.tharohowwe due to land use incompatibilities (llrnitatione on Upsal approach that a 1 stltep project havenoareat pesticide van, nuisance canon by domestic due to dust active agricultural operation is across the Russian ncreaa r vandal, etc) BecHo: a (he pj air River, which acts as a naturai harder o r is terms increased ded by .eta), Because the project site of what I would call these nwsnce.ow domino uaQaj}yithat eception of and the wo vacant it is Co my SfaifCSlo V'VOO, th6t jlta ctbajlt�luslon of 391:16elturaluses. Thetwouldaffectnel neighboring was not the' aPproprlatot 'esponse,lntlilscase." agrlcultw•al uses. There are Agricultural uses to was rime je agr41 -11at •M easement th easj Uu# they are as by the natural UaThn' of the Russian Riven In addition, the (2) Review qnd rise of the property is open space. ('including ! hob ilt1,Father also nban development. open ( a) Agrmultur,lCotiservahopEasements. aPacg rs•camPadble with agriculture, and would , not'create` indirect development pressure on notaEQioverroeel' ail"' ' agricultural lands. P agencies should. rip P 1 astir p posed tfUiere are , "Therefore, feasible mitigation. measures substankinallglessenthes avazla'bleI tchwould are not available, and this Impact would be significant and unavoidable." effect of such projects, "cant so re mend Qllics and bold 21002; (Prrb. Resources Code, type deleted.) § see also fd at § 21002.1, subd.. (b) ' Tjre 17OC expressed concerns about the loss projJect etheYappsprovo o tSen�yQ A l at lbeets is of agrlcProject (ands as m imavoidable impact so" j,) CRQA tlepnes "feasible" to mean "ca of of the Project in its mm on the Draft,. of being accomppehed'an.'a e'm Mean "capable Accordmg'to the DOC; Ute .loss should have within a accomplished Manus n !. bean minlurized through the acquisition ofACEs account. economic en riod of, time, into on comparable land of at least equal size,. The wf tat jcgal, social,. {k DOC considered this means Of mitigatlomto be and technoiogleal factors." (Gutdepnes, § 153&1,)- - C a common'and appropriate means of mitigating, aUn Agony Tbidings regard ng vhetjtor m tgation Ure loss of 'prime farmland. According o Ute substnUal evidence te -?re eeneerally'revfewedfor ' DOC Mitigation via ement d bl conservation Pass Acres &Neigltbop tt Cityo}Beaulno�t Ville (201) eaeemon 6 -app be hnpiomenCod by at least two 5altefnahYe approaches;:: the outright purchase 190Cal�pPAth 316, 350351 ($eatt 1no"zi) But. reltlsemepta or the donation ofmidgadon fees scase ((�}._ to a local'; regional 'or statewide'organizallon or waslfeasrb e.foa the boas df' • d' agency whose puiposa includes q rtYnn� 4r] ttr� t3 0 mitigation and stewardshlP of agricultural' conservation easemogty ?AGy ffsite aglj �4'6asecvatlon ( §) cannoG'ztdhgatlfortholand , 75A -226 9790 Dally Appellate Deport Monday July 29 p� rya lost at the Project site bemuse they would "not habitat"j; Enuiroraasntal Conncl4o}`,$aer ttjeu }tp replace the on•site resources." Ilia County City of Sacrafnonfo (2006) 142 Ca] App �th 10Wj .. Presumed that ACEs were useful only to address 1038 [purchase of a aif acre for ba jf jxaservea,.�" the indirect and cumulative effects of farmland foreveryacreofdevelopment);see t yKostk'telii conversion," and were not needed here because at., Practice Under the CaWr d E wro�t tment}fl ,.� the Project would have no such effects, Thus, Quality Act (Cont:Ed.Bar 2d. to, the flag of infeasibility m the EIR rested on 692 (Kosdca) [acquisition and am an the the legal conclusion that while ACEs ma be used species habitat pir des substAtute ro §ource�. to mitigate a project's . indirect mid cumulative under Guidelines, § 15370, subd.,.(e)�) Onb4,c y` offecte on agricultural resource's, they do not the DOC'a comments on the mitigate its dire effect on those resources. that the rationale for ACEa in this cgpe p �.. the l apondents put it m the trial court "G van that of established mtdgahon forlgse otAw�l(lll the lack of ind'uect or cumulative agricultural habitat, Impacts, the Draft EIR properly conclude[d] that Our conclusion is also 86 pport'edt "6 '' r agricultural conservation easements are legally relatively sparse case law Vol 'mfeaslble." The legal feasibility of a mitigation case most closely on point is Cin¢ensQpeq: �' measure ubstendi Isevidence but rather Is an issue of lavr 96 Government which involved (a01rn hat we review fie move. - ] 95.)ild?Y;ai We disagree with respondents, We conclude inr,�tan�nY hn e.M1rseoYconvertedL46rmro"s;,pf, p rtrf�ry _:Es may appropriately nudgate for the )as of farmland when a. project converts arel land to a nonagricultural use, even an ACE does not replace the onsite ,a. Our conclusion is reinforced by the ACES preserve land for agricultural use In perpetuity. (See Cie Code, §§ 815.1, 815.2 [describing agricultural and other . conservation easements]; Pub, Resources. Code, §10211 [ defining "agrleulturalconservadon easements "],) As die California - Farm. Bureau Federation ON) observes in an amicus curiae brief advocating for die conclusion we reack "The permanent protection of existing resources uff- site is effective mitigation for [a projects direct, cumulative, orgrowth- inducing] impacts.becouse It prevents the consumption of a resource to the Point that it no longer exists. , , , if agricultural land is permanently protected off -site at. for or M on aeA. i 278 (S by or Of 75A -227 tmn AGES oil farmland of equal quality in the un ty at `a',1:1 ratio, or pay "an la -lieu mitigation ids mitigation requirements ntsrwere concluded easonably ated to die adverse public impact of such 4ects and thus an authorized use of the mq?s Pollee power. 'the court observed that esidandal . project would not be approved 1Smfil developer provides permanent protection of "sere bf farmland. for every acre. of farmland wetted 'to' residential use. Agricultural iservatiOn easements granted in perpetuity the prhn sty means of accomplishing this maMet protection requtre men t... [(H1.,. 11, AithOugh the developed farmland is replaced, an equivalent area of comparable gland is permanantlypprotected from a similar "(7d. atP. 592.) Staxfslaus teaches thatACEs a reasonable mans to mitigate die impact ofa act that replaces agricoltura! land. doreover, it appeas thatAC& are commonly Iforthat)) Be. TheDOCde scribed ACES i comments as "accept[edl net uae[dl by lead icies as appropriate mitigation measure •r CEQA,. and the admiulatratiV0 record. A evidence that ACES ate -so employed number of dries and countles. The EIR at h, r.44...a.._e .,_. _.. to "In addition to the City of Lodi, the agencies in the surrounding area aI I dgatian ratio: cities Of Stockton and Ells modes of San Joaquin and Stanislaus, w Conservancy (Evermore /Alameda Environmental Quality Act plays all importam role In die preservation of aggrricultural lands, "t) TO mitigate thea s conve excude faErniland means to be contrary to One of CEQA's Important purposes. We agree with the CFDF that ACES should not be removed from agencies' toolboxes as available mitigation" for this environmental Impact.. that ACEss arealegallyhinf asibleete cannotube AM to sustained, to the Prof ct's Impact offsite loss of 45 acres of prime farmland must be explored, (b) In•CdeuFees As an alternative to the outright purchase of ACEs, tine DOC continent letter recommended "the donation of mitigation fees to n, local, regional or statewide Organization ar agency whose - Purpose includes die acquisition and stewardship of [ACEaj.,, Masonite argues that the EIR was deficient because It did not address this soggesdon. The County responds, saying It was legaily Precluded from accepting in -lieu fees because it does not have a comprehensive farmland mitivadnn nr..— . %vwueunes, B louse; subda, (a) & (c) With reasoned analysis ate required ) legal: ersuaded The DOC was not not Payment offniieu fees to a county pk rather to thfM ...Neo h ....r.._.i ,_ V that ACES to the conversion WILY comprehensive farmland midggaeon p or gramgis Immaterial and does not Legislature has explain.'whylml ,,,program fees ere not feasible: midgadon.'17dsissug requires further analysis in theRM .. in of agricultural . W. (Gov. Code, D. Cumulative lmpaeta•onFainilanit• ni servation of a dted supply of The discussion of ^the Project's 'cumulative Is conservation impacts oil agricultural • andisnecessary resources, set forth forth in section 5.2.3' of Draft the agricultural and i,.set wldhoutchangeintheEfR irthe assurance ,readsinfull; ,Some of the land bi the vicinity Hun food for of the proposod project fe CanFtYtnrwri hinhh...... a.. _.:.._�_ .. 1191... to • to Ffecfa es, "l; _ in its 75A -228 n. I 9792 Daly Appellate Report _ _ Monday, July 29, 2013, insufficient to support the determination that the Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be hrsignificant For reasons we ahall discuss, we agree with Masonite on both points. Respondents asser tthat "[c]unulative Impacts in the agricultural context are more properly defined as the Project's potential to result in Indirect impacts to surrounding agricultural resources and as such, cause subsequent conversions in 6 future. " ,Based on this premise, respondents reason thatbecausethe Draft shows that the Project :'wilt not cause the conversion of other prime farmland,' it also shows that the Project, "will not result in a cumulative impact" But Indirect and cumulative impacts are not the same and they entail separate analysis.. (Compare Guidelines, g §15064, subd. (d)(2) & 15358, subd. (a)(2) [defining indirect effects] with Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd. (a) (3) & 15355 IdeacdUing cumullative effects]; see also Santee, supra, 210 CaLApp.4th at p, 278.['distinguiabing a long-term indirect impact from cumulative impact],) The Dints analysis of cumulative, as opposed to; indirect, impacts consists of a single sentence that states: "'Cumulative conversion of important farmland was determined to be less than significant in the General Plan BW "A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs maybe Incorporated by reference pursuant to the pprevisions for tiering and program EIRs," (Gulde Kyles,. § 15130, subd. (d).) However, an EB2 that uses incorporation by reference or daring must do so expressly, (Vineyard, supra, 40 CalAth at. p, 448.) It must indicate where the earlier document is available for inspection, briefly surmnarize or describe the pertinent parts of earlier document, and describe how they relate to the current; roject, (Guidelines, §151 Y5152,su5d,- (g);Xoatka,sapm; § 10.11 p 501,) This information is required to "give the reader a,.. road map to the iuforrnadon [the EIR] intends to convey," (Viiteyord,supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 443,), The EIR here was deficient because 3t provides no such road map. Respondents'.brief indicates that the EIR was relying on the following discussion of cumulative Impacts of the draft EIR-for. ,the 2009 update of the County's general plan, (2009'Update Draft)i "Although implementation of the General Plan would change land use designations, the result would be a minor loss of designated agricultural lands... thatwouldnotbe.considered asubstanhal loss of agricultural land In the county Additionally, policies in the proposed Genera Update support the preservation of agricultural lands and farming operations hi the county—Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would Dot resultin a cumulative loss of agricultural lands," Respondents argue that neither Gering nor incorporation by reference was required here because the County was mecelvv relying on the general plan EIR as evidence to support the determination in the FIR that the Project would not substantially contribute to the joss of farmland. Surely,, respondents cannot be saying that because the, general plan EIR determined that changing In nse de signations: would not causes substantial loss of agricultural landwitlun the county, no particular project consistent with the general plan could cause such a loss, There Is avast difference between land use designations that permit several alternative uses of property, hi a geographic area, and the approval of a specific project that changes the character, of a particular property. Nor do we understand the general plan EIR. to mean drat no substantial loss to the County's agricultural resources would occur if. all the agricultural land in the county, designated for other possible uses were to be 8o converted, , or that no such other conversion would be approved. The general. plan EIR acknowledges the Importance of preserving prime agiicultural land, and while there may be no projects in the pipeline that wlll aimilarly convert agrlcullurat Lind, the EIR does not attempt to quantity the fi tare of the County a agticultumd resources „in: any meaningful way.. . We recogilae at 'aNandards of practicali4y , and reasonableness” govern cumislalive impacts analysis, and at so impacts -need not be ' discussed ]n as much detail as the ,duect imparts„ ofaproject. (Guidelin es, §§15130, subd, (b).) But., we arenpIporsuadcdthe discassion'of cumulative , impacts in the EIR is. sufficient Under the Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts" requires either "[al list of past; present; and probable future,projects producing related br cumulatve impacts," or "La], smmnary of projections [in, among other things. a certified EIR for an adopted local plan] "that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect" ' (Guidelines, a 15130, subds. (b)(1)(A) & (b)(1)(B).) The discussion in the 2009 Jfpdate Draft includes neither of. these "necessary elements." (Rialto Citizetts fir Se*nsibfa Growih v..Cify q(Riatto (2012),208 Cal. APli 4 899, 928.), Because Lila general pl an. amandme ' ID were concerns d only w th wn[ng .changes, the amendments did not coast der.proj act s . like, the one under review that'comert fmmb d to another use out any such ,changes;_ Since the 2009 Update Draft does poE address`. such conversions, the 2009 Update cannot be relied upon as a com pre hendive , "summary-of ,, projections" of clunula ' e Unpagts do agricultur'al;; lands, Despite, the ;CDun ty policies that favor; preservation of agricultural land the 2009 Update Draft scknowIedgesi that "the proposed General Plan date would not explicitly' preclude -$is q converslonof farmlands of concern underEQA. ". [Prime Farmland of Statewide .Import- ce, mud Unique Farmland) tootherusesln the fut' a' -,and that "[a]ubsequent land use activities associated.; with implementation of the proposed'General Pfau Update, 'in. combbratidn; w<lr eaciating, approved, proposed, and reasonably fgreseeable deyclopment In the region, would contribute: (o, the additional conversion of important farmlands: tooflieruses and mayincrease agriculture lnrbai, interface conflicts, ". The County's more general, agricultural preservation policies do not salvage, - the cumulative Impacts analysis, Thus, the discussion of cumulative umpaets: on "agriculture(, resources "suffers front' both. procedural and factual flaws:' (Vineyard., sUfira{„ 40Cal.4thatp.:447.) 75A- 229 - - -- Mpnday; July 29, 2013 Daily Appall E. Roadway Mitigation (1) Record The plan is for aggregate mined in the Project to beremoVed from die site by trucks travelling on Kunzler Ranch Road to North State Street There appears to be no dispute that Kunzler Ranch Road is fire ,only point of ingress and egress to the Project site,' The Draft estimated that the mining could involve bp to 176 truck trips per day each hauling 25 ton loads. According to the Draft, "[11 ocal roadways, such as Kunzler dtanch Road and North State Street .. are generally not designed to accommodate heavy vehicles, and truck travel on these roads would have the potential to adversely affect the potholes that have file potentia conditions less safe. Roadu Impacted from project truck h to be upgraded to support ve to 25 tons. [9[] • • . [911 • .. [Tl have a significant impact on Ln. eed an was runaway commtions and a comprehensive plan to rehabilitate mid maintain the roadway over a 30 yearperiod. The report identified Kunzler Ranch Rond as being in serious condition and identifies various altemadves for addressing the condition of thercad. "" To mitigate this significant impact, the Draft' -"recommended that Kunzler "Ranch Road be improved as needed (e.g., overlays or reconstruction) per the April 28, 2009 Kunzler Ranch -Road study and die Calhuns Design Manual standards. The project applicant would Pay the full cost of road: improvements, including design and construction. [911 Prior to operations the responsibility to mahitehi the proposed haul roads," .(Italics emitted:) - When it commented on the Draft, the County Department of Transportafion (MDOT) clarified that "Kunzler Ranch Road is not 'a County maintained road and that MDOT has no involvement in its operation, maintenance, or upkeep.... [%] . • . [911 Therefore there is no need for the applicant to enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with the County for arrangement is the responsibility of the applicant, the mad's owner(s) and those property owners having rights to its use. [11 . • . [9I1 ideally, all the users of Kunzler Ranch Road would voluntarily form: a Road Maintenance Organization for the improvement and. maintenance -of the road. [However,) no party can unilaterally matte this ate Report - 9793 happen...;° The MDOT proposed an alternative means to mitigate the significant impact to Kunzler Ranch Road, and it was adopted nearly verbatim in the EIR The EIR states: 'Traffic,related repairs on Kunzler Ranch Road shall be initiated when the owners of the road and users of the easement reach a decision that such repairs are necessary. Granite's fair share shall be calculated based on the proportion of applicant's heavvyy truck trips to the total nuriber'of heavy truck tri ps on the road dadyear, Consistent with Civil Code Section 845, In the absence of a road maintenance agreement, applicant shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost and expense incurred for trafficrelated repairs of Kunzler Ranch Road,"' - (2} Rdvfew for the Project's impact on 'Programs for cumulative 'traffic Of' - Masoulte's' arguments are hg• "IMleasums to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment (runst aforceable through permit conditions, to ul truck traftc. There la'no reason to ae County's commitment to enforce the m measures, Masonite makes a valid point when it will be made or what improvement fimded. The EIR states that the pal to be made when'the interested priv, decide they are necessary or, in `:tl: of an agreement, "[clomistent with section 845;" These provisions leave 75A -230 i 9794 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013,'; mitigation will be effective. Here,. as In Madera, (Citizens of Goleta Valley a Board of Supervisors the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be I ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.566. italics omitted ) µveauera, supra,. tat tai,AppAm at. P. 1116' The Madera court "[g]enerally agreed] that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation.measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to specific performance standards," but the county there, like Mendocino here, had not made that commitment, and the mitigation measures were found to be inadequate tinder CEQA '(rd, at pp. 1119'. 1120; see also Santee, supra, 210 Ca1.App,4th at pp. 280.282 [without performance standards or guidelines mitigation was Improperly deferred].) The County emphasizes that the mitigation measures were changed only after it discovered . that it had no Jurisdiction over the road, But while drat discovery may have obviated the need for a roadway maintenance agreement between respondents, it did not justify deletion of criteria for the roadway improvements such as those specified In die. Draft If "' "practical considerations pprohlbit devising [mitigation] measures, early i die planning process ... the agency can commit Itself to eventually . devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria.,.,"'" (OaklandHeritareAllianea ft ON a for a 30 a cvaumce w support me LiKa unnmg that the impact. of the Project on Kunzler lunch Road will be mitigated to insignificance. (Ruoyard, supra, 40 Ca1,4th at p, 427 [scope of review of factual determ inational ) R Discussion of Alternatives Masairte contends that the EIR did not adequately evaluate offske or onsite alternatives to the Project. (1) OffsiteAlternatiyes The Dra'Ws analysis of offsite alternatives, incorporated without change in the EIR, considered nine alternative mining sites io the Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an affairs alternative, and rejected the ,other eight . as Infeasible. Masonits says there was no reason for Hunting consideration of alternative sites to those within the Russian Mver;coiridor in the immediate area of Ukiah, end suggests that a wunty-- de range of alternative sites should have been explored. "CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed inan EIR Each case mustbe. evaluated . on its facts," and an EIR must only consider "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project" the alternatives to be discussed other than the Is of reason," (Guidelines, §15126.6, solid. i.7 In February 2009 correspondence, Granite ,ndfied various factors to be considered in !eating and evaluating alternative Project sites, ch as 11Rjocation he site must be ln,the Udah vket area and close to Granite owned PCC' mcretej & HMA [asphalt] agggtCegateiacilities)," Jompadbility with surroundiugs (e,k. mining an industrial area, like Kunzler,'would likely compatible with its surroundings), and lesthetics .(e.g. not In the direct view shed the State Highway)." Proximity to Granite's as the to those in the Uk ah area was (2) OnsiteAlferna5ve Masanite argues that the lusted in , the EIR —Alt dequatebecause It did not I over reasons Xiay a Board P. 568 [EIR Of feasible vironmental iropowd,].) - no substantial environmental advantagge':6v6r the weir and fuse plug originally contemplated because its pond -river connection would have the same environmental effect-„reduction of the salmonid pit capture impact to insignificance. , But while both designs could broadly speaking. be - found to have comparable effects, NMFSbelieved. that the environmental advantage of Alternative 3 was sufficiently substantial to advocate foc 14 and Its enhanced protection for salmonids caul reasonably be considered a substantial advantage . given that such protection was a cenhal environmental issue for the Project Masonite asserts that "Alternative -3 did not offer any change in operations or the size of the Project, and therefore the .Elles -range of:onsite alternatives was impermissibly narrow." (( (Sea 83kCaltApp.4th OS9u 1O8G1 88h [EIRashould have discussed redured development alternative - even if the alternative would not accomplish all of the project's objectives].) However, in response to comments on the EIR from NMFS regarding anaerobic conditions that could - develop in the - ponds, Granite agreed to mine to a lesser depth than planned in the Project application and the Draft (See 'fn. 3, ante.) At the Planning Corrunission meeting, Granite estimated that this ` change would reduce the amount of aggregate, mined by 10 to 15 percent Thus, Alternative 3 75A -231 - - - Monday, JUly 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report , 9795 Us finally approved did in fact reduce file scale o the Project. Masonite's challenges to Afternativl 3 are,without merit, III. DISPOSITION Tile judgment denying the petition for wri of mandate is reversed, with directions to issue a writ requiring Ste County to set aside its certfdcadon of the,EIR, set aside its approvals of the conditional use permit and reclamatior plan for the Project, and prepare and ch-culate a supplemental FAR, which includes the EiR's provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses die deficiencies we have Identified in the EIR concerning:' the feasibility of ACES and )n -lieu fees as mitigation for the Project's conversion of farmland to nonagrfeultui'aluse; the discussion of Siggins,J, We conclin McGuiness, P.J. Pollak, J. Trial Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County Trial Judge: Hon, John A. Behalte Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant: Masoulte Corporation 'ChristlanLuc)erMarsh DOWNEY BRAND David Ivester BRISCO, IVESTER & BAZEL Counsel. for Defendant and Respondent: Mendocino County et al. Jeanine B. Nadel TerryNan Gross OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Respondent: Granite Construction Company - Mark David Harrison HARRISON TEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD &JOI3NSON Grmilte advised at the Cmmty board at supervisors hearing on the Project that, in response to comments from the Regional water Board, it agreed to suspend mining during the wet season between November and March, rYhe Draft stated: "Measure 3AA: Pld ... (IV ftedanmtiun Phase Pfd Option A. Prior to completion of recin Granite shall, in (3- dinaton with NMFS and i Gavial. evaluate the results of the biological feasibi: design and construct an alternative reclamation consi dentwith Ole extended hydrologicconnection discussed above during the tiycar reclama0on phe also Chopter4,ProjectAlternatives), Adudngcoorr with NMFS and (Fish & Game),: regulatory agen, daPffethic that the potential adverse Water quality within the pit would outweigh the expected bell salmonidhabitat, Granitnahal(noChnpiesnent ttilamii measure, (ui Optima, ;Gtanitgshalhmainlain a so rescue and retaliation program in.consuhadon with and Ifed, & Gnme) until It is determined by those s1 that such a uranium iann 'Mining to agreaterdopth of 65feet had been contemplated In the projectapplicatnn and the Drat. ' Sierra Chlh was disapproved m another ground in Wvstam SfufasPebalsunhAnn. a Superior Courf(1995) 9'CW.4tr 559, 676, fn. 6. , I.. . - s This Guideline provides: — Miagation' includes: flfl (a) Avoiding the Impact altogether by not oddog n cermin Action or parts of an action, - fill (It). Minhntzing impacts by Fmitng the degree ar magnitude of the aetan and its hnplemenw6an. IT] (c) Rectifyahg the Impact by repahing, rehabilitates, or restoring the impacted envjronmenb fill (d) Reducing or effethutng the Impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during tic life of theactimil9ll (e) Compensating for the byreulacina ° "A Williamson Act contract obligates (Ile .'lmdowner to maintain the land as agricultural for 10 or more years, with resulting tax ben ida, (!Govt Code,l 99 6124651244;) Absent contrary action; each year Ole contract renews for UP additional your, so that the use restrictions "a:aiways in piacefor the next nine to loyears. (1d, §51244.) " - (Friends Of East Willifs Falley a Comity of Mendocino (2002) Sol Cat, AppAt h.191, 195.) r The amendments 6isdtedtceq andt eirfnturg,to noeount forth e Pralemareatiawnbytbd disgjdan offmpacf4,2,1in Hie 2(109 Update Daft, which, as revised in the final Ellitor the 2O09 update, states: "Overall, as a reshdf of the aaoroved to another the county of land within the county. Out of the 8230 acres of vacant agricultural lands associated with Ole proposed land use changes, only 1,82 Peres are prime agricultural land, which equals only 0,02 percent of potential prime agricultural land lost with the proposed. land. Pon changes.... ('§1... fill . • . Out at the'736,40 vacant oeres.Protesed for land use changes in the proposed General Plan Update, there are approximately 0.944 acres ofFrimeFvrndand and 10,68 acres of UNqueFmiidand," „ a 1111a pavement reportls not included In the Drafter LIE 1 This statute requires Om owner "of any easement in the nature of a private tight or or of any land to which any such easement Is attached Rol maintain It In repair." '(Civ. Code, § 846, subd. (a),) d there a'ro multiple such owners, they will share the casts tiumuant to any agreement they 'each o5 in die absence of an agreement, In proportion to jmir use of Ore'egsalmmt, ((tst at Brad: (b)J Tne statute Provides for caurtepforcmiwnj of that proportonate Wigatim, 01 atxuirl (c).). . , 75A -232 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51200 -51207 51200. This chapter shall be known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or as the Williamson Act. 51201. As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Agricultural commodity" means any and all plant and animal products produced in this state for commercial purposes, including, but not limited to, plant products used for producing biofuels. (b) "Agricultural use" means use of land, including but not limited to greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, (c) "Prime agricultural land" means any of the following; (1) A11. land that qualifies for rating as class I or class 11 in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 60 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating.. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (.9) Land planted with fruit- or nut - bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. (d) "Agricultural preserve" means an area devoted. to either agricultural . use, as defined in subdivision (b), recreational use as defined in subdivision (n), or open -space use as defined in subdivision (o) , or any combination of those uses and which is established in accordance with the provisions of-this chapter. (e) "Compatible use" is any use determined by the county or city administering the preserve pursuant to Section 51231, 51238, or 51238,1 or by this act to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open -space use of land within the preserve and subject to contract. "Compatible use" includes agricultural use; recreational use or open -space use unless the hoard or council finds after notice and hearing that the use is not compatible with the agricultural, recreational or open -space use to which the land is restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. (f) "Board" means the board of supervisors of a county which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. (g) "Council" means the city council of a city which establishes or proposes to establish an agricultural preserve or which enters or proposes to enter into a contract on land within an agricultural Page 1 of 6 ih ttn: / /ww4v.IeLiiifo.ca.gov /cpi- bin /disi)lavIi $ ti�7�al &prow))= 51001- 52000&fiic =5... 8(19/2013 CA Codes(gov;51200- 51207) preserve pursuant to this chapter. (h) Except where it is otherwise apparent from the context, "county" or "city" means the county or city having jurisdiction over the land. (i) A "scenic highway corridor" is an area adjacent to, and within view of, the right -of -way of: (1) An existing or proposed state scenic highway in the state scenic highway system established by the Legislature pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code and which has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official state scenic highway; or (2) A county scenic highway established pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, if each of the following conditions have been met: (A) The scenic highway is included in an adopted general plan of the county or city;: and (B) The scenic highway corridor is included in an adopted specific plan of the county or city; and (C) Specific proposals for implementing the plan, including regulation of land use, have been approved by the Advisory Committee on a Master Plan for Scenic Highways, and the county or city highway has been officially designated by the Department of Transportation as an official county scenic highway. (j) A "wildlife habitat area" is a land or water area designated by a board or council, after consulting with and considering the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game, as an area of importance for the protection or enhancement of the wildlife resources of the state. (k) A "saltpond" is an area which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, has been used for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of .salt production for commercial purposes. (1) A "managed wetland area" is an area, which may be an area diked off from the ocean or any bay, river or stream to which water is occasionally admitted, and which, for at least three consecutive years immediately prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter, was used and maintained as a waterfowl hunting preserve or game refuge or for agricultural purposes. (m) A "submerged area" is any land determined by the board or council to be submerged or subject to tidal action and found by the hoard or council to be of great value to the state as open space. (r.) "Recreational use" is the use of land in its agricultural or natural state by the public, with or without charge, for any of the following: walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor games or sports for which facilities are provided for public participation. Any fee charged for the recreational use of land as defined in this subdivision shall be in a reasonable amount and shall not have the effect of unduly limiting its use by the public. Any ancillary structures necessary for a recreational use shall comply with the provisions of Section 51238.1. (c) "Open -space use" is the use or maintenance of land in a mariner that preserves its natural characteristics, beauty, or openness for the benefit and enjoyment of the public; to provide habitat for wildlife, or for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of salt production for commercial purposes, if the lane is within: Page 2 of 6 littp: / /www,leginfo.c.a.gov /cgi- bin /clisplaycode ?section — rov &group= 51001- 52000 &fllc =5... 8/19/2013 75A -2344 CA Codes (gov:51200-5 1207) (1) A scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i). (2) A wildlife habitat area, as defined in subdivision (j). (3) A saltpond, as defined in subdivision (Io , (4) A managed wetland area, as defined in subdivision (1). (5) A submerged area, as defined in subdivision (m). (6.) An area enrolled in the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. (p) "Development" means, as used in Section 51223, the construction of buildings or the use of the restricted property if the buildings or use are unrelated to the agricultural use, the open -space use, or uses compatible with either agricultural or open - :space uses of the property, or substantially impair the agricultural, open - space, or a combination of the agricultural and open -space uses of the property. Agricultural use, open -space use, uses compatible with either agricultural or open -space uses, or the acquisition of land or an interest in land are not development. 51203. (a) The assessor shall determine the current fair market value of the land as if it were free of the contractual restriction pursuant to Section 51.283. The Department of Conservation or the landowner, also referred to in this section as "parties," may provide information to assist the assessor to determine the value. Any information provided to the assessor shall be served on the other party, unless the information was provided at the request of the assessor, and would be confidential under law if required of an assessee. (b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessor's notice pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 51283 or Section 51283.4, if the Department of Conservation or the landowner believes that the current fair market valuation certified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51283 or Section 51283.4 is not accurate, the department or the landowner may request formal review from the county assessor in the county considering the petition to cancel the contract. The department or the landowner shall submit to the assessor and the other party the reasons for believing the valuation is not accurate and the additional information the requesting party believes may substantiate a recalculation of the property valuation. The assessor may recover his or her reasonable costs of the formal review from the party requesting the review, and may provide an estimate of those costs to the requesting party. The recovery of these costs from the department may be deducted by the city or county from cancellation fees received pursuant to this chapter prior to transmittal to the Controller for deposit in the Soil Conservation Fund. The assessor may require a deposit from the landowner to cover the contingency that payment of a cancellation fee will not necessarily result from the completion of a formal review. This subdivision shall not be construed as a limitation on the authority provided in Section 5126, for cities or counties to recover their costs in the cancellation process, except that the assessor's costs of conducting a formal review shall not be borne by the nonrequesting party. (1) '_f no request is made within 45 days of receiving notice by certified mail of the valuation, the assessor's valuation shall be used to calculate the fee. (2) Upon receiving a request for formal review., the assessor shall formally review his or her valuation if, based on the determination of the assessor, the information may have a material effect on valuation of the property. The assessor shall notify the parties that Page 3 of 6 htln 1 /�wvw.leeinfo.oa: ov /cei- bin /disn[aur ti{�{1��&' yroltp= 51001- 52000&file =5... 8(1.9/2013 CA Codes (gov:5 1200- 5 1 207) the formal review is being undertaken and that information to aid the assessor's review shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of the notice to the parties. Any information submitted to the assessor shall be served on the other party who shall have 30 days to respond to that information to the assessor, If the response to the assessor contains new information, the party receiving that response shall have 20 days to respond to the assessor as to the new information.. All submittals and responses to the assessor shall be served on the other party by personal service or an affidavit of mailing. The assessor shall avoid ex parts contacts during the formal review and shall report any such contacts to the department and the landowner at the same time the review is complete. The assessor shall complete the review no later than 120 days of receiving the request, (3) At the conclusion of the formal review, the assessor shall either revise the cancellation valuation or determine that the original cancellation valuation is accurate. The assessor shall send the revised valuation or notice of the determination that the valuation is accurate to the department, the landowner, and the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. The assessor shall include a brief narrative of what consideration was given to the items of information and responses directly relating to the cancellation value submitted by the parties. The assessor shall give no consideration to a party's information or response that was not served on the other party. If the assessor denies a formal review, a brief narrative shall be provided to the parties indicating the basis for the denial, if requested. (c) For purposes of this section, the valuation date of any revised valuation pursuant to formal review or following judicial challenge shall remain the date of the assessor's initial valuation, or his or her initial recomputation pursuant to Section 51283.4. For purposes of cancella pion fee calculation in a tentative cancellation as provided in Section 51283, or in a recomputation for final cancellation as provided in Section 51283.4, a cancellation value shall be considered current for one year after its determination and certification by the assessor, (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department and the landowner may agree on a cancellation valuation of the land. The agreed valuation shall serve as the cancellation valuation pursuant to Section 51283 or Section 51283,4. The agreement shall be transmitted to the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. (e) This section represents the exclusive administrative procedure for appealing a cancellation valuation calculated pursuant to this section. The Department of conservation shall represent: Lhe interests of the state in the administrative and judicial remedies for challenging the determination of a cancellation valuation or cancellation fee. 51205. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, land devoted to recreational use or land within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife habitat area, a saltpond, a managed wetland area, or a submerged area may be included within an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. When such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city cr county within which it is situated may contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to recreational or open space use and uses compatible therewith in the same manner as provided in this chapter for land devoted to agricultural. use. For purposes of this section, Page 4 of 6 littp : / /www.legiiifo,ca.gov /cgi- bin /disptay o ti�l= g�v&group= 51001 - 52,000& {ile -5,.. 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:5I200- 51207) where the term "agricultural land" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include land devoted to recreational use and land within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife habitat area, a sa.l:tpond, a. managed wetland area, or a submerged area, and where the term "agricultural use" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include recreational and open space use. 51205, 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the contrary, land within a scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 5120:1, shall, upon the .request of the owner, be included in an agricultural preserve pursuant to this chapter. When such land is included within an agricultural preserve, the city or county within which it is situated shall contract with the owner for the purpose of restricting the land to agricultural use as defined in subdivision (b), recreational. use as defined in subdivision (n), open -space use as defined in subdivision (o), compatible use as defined in subdivision (e), or any combination of such uses. 51206. The Department of Conservation may meet with and assist local, regional, state, and federal agencies, organizations, landowners, or any other person or entity in the interpretation of this chapter. The department may research, publish, and disseminate information regarding the policies, purposes, procedures, administration, and implementation of this chapter. This section shall be liberally construed to permit the department to advise any interested person or entity regarding this chapter. 51207. (a) On or before May 1 of every other year, the Department of Conservation shall report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of this chapter by cities and counties. (b) The report shall. contain, but not be limited to, the number of acres of land under contract in each category and the number of acres of land which were removed from contract through cancellation, eminent domain, annexation, or nonrenewal. (c; The report shall also contain the following specific information relating to not less than one -third of all cities and counties participating in the Williamson Act program: (1) The number of contract cancellation requests for which notices of hearings were mailed to the Director of Conservation pursuant to section 51284 which were approved by boards or councils during the prior two years or for which approval is still pending by boards or councils. (2; The amount of cancellation fees payable to the county treasurer as deferred taxes and which are required to be transmitted . to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 51283 which have not been collected or which remain unpaid. (3) The total number of acres covered by certificates of cancellation of contracts during the previous two years. (.4) The number of nonrenewal and withdrawal of renewal notices received pursuant. to Section 51245 and the number of expiration notices received pursuant to Section 51246 during the previous two years. (5) The number of acres covered by nonrenewal notices that were Page 5 of 6 6rrn•u „nx,r„ feo-infn psi onv/rui -hi 11/di Rill avc�l p t�c�{ &aroun= 51001- 5200Ufile =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) not withdrawn and expiration notices during the previous two years. (d) The department may .recommend changes to this chapter which would further promote its purposes.. (e) The Legislature may, upon request of the department, appropriate funds from the deferred taxes deposited in the General. Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section :51283 in an amount sufficient to prepare the report required by this section. Page 6 of 6 littp: / /www.log info. ca. gov /egi- bin/displaycode ?SeCCiou° ov& group = -51001 - 52000 &tile =5... 8/19/2013 75A -2 ,{ tl 4ffiners: Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bensley Vice - President Treasurer Rnard A=bM: Patrick Mitchell Moises Plas-cence Steve Ray Nick Spain S7 laal "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educadonal resource for ail '(93tc1il: (714) 296 -4642 P. 0. Box 10038 Santa Ana, Caffornia 92711 -0038 November 6, 2013 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Members of the Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Ana City Council: As you know, members of The Old Orchard Conservancy have been working tirelessly for more than two years toward the preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. It is the official position of The Conservancy to preserve the entire five- acre property; however, we are now open to considering a preservation alternative acceptable under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would allow up to half of the property to be developed and the remainder preserved.. One of our principal objections to the environmental review process has been, and continues to be, that the Environmental Impact Report (El R) prepared for the proposed development project has never included a feasible preservation alternative. The EIR currently Includes an alternative that would provide for the development of 21 single family houses on the Sexlinger property, which would result In the destruction of more than 90 percent of the orchard and the Irreparable loss of the integrity of the historic resource. Lack of a preservation alternative was one of the reasons the Planning Commission voted not to recommend approval of the project. Earlier this year, we met several times with representatives of Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University of Irvine in an effort to reach an agreement for the purchase of the property by The Conservancy. When it became clear that our discussions were not going 40 lead to a successful resolution, The Conservancy began to think more broadly about other preservation options which could include a limited amount of residential development. We have come to the position that the development of up to 50 percent of the orchard could take place while still maintaining a significant portion of the original historic integrity of the resource. Acceptable development would include single -story architecture consistent with the historic character, period and style of the property with transitional landscaping that would seamlessly blend Into the orchard. This approach would respect the City's decision to add this last example of our agricultural past to the historic register and preserve this irreplaceable landscape creating a community resource with a huge potential for educational and health and wellness programming, www.01clOi-chardConsei-vancy.org 75A -239 Page 2 while also allowing the current owners to realize a substantial economic benefit from this generous gift bequeathed to them by Martha Sexlinger. The recent California appellate case, Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 DJDAR 9784, as summarized in the attached letter from our legal counsel, Deborah Rosenthal, to Vincent Fregoso, dated August 21, 2013, would seem especially relevant to the above proposed alternative. In her letter, Ms. Rosenthal outlines that "[tjhis case holds that a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. R 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due to a project is `standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an Important public policy" that CEQA is intended to effectuate. P. 9791," "Under Masonite, "standard" mitigation for foss of the highly productive Sexlinger Orchard would be agricultural conservation easement over 2.5 acres on -site or 5 acres off -site. The remaining 2.5 acres of the Orchard would be available for compatible residential development, as proposed in" the option outlined above. Depending on design, The Conservancy believes that such an alternative for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard could comply with CEQA. We respectfully request that you consider directing staff to revise the EIR prepared for the project to include a preservation option such as the one presented above that could truly assure long -term preservation of the historic Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard in accordance with CEQA. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett President The Old Orchard Conservancy Enclosure cc: Ryan Bensley, TOOC Vice President Patrick Mitchell, TOOC Director Moises Plascencia, TOOL Director Steve Ray, TOOC Director Nick Spain: TOOC Director Deborah Rosenthal, AICP, Esq. Matthew Holbrook, Esq, Sonia Carvalho, Esq. www.0idOrchai-dConservancy.org 75A -240 RUTAN RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP January 24, 2014 VIA E -MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Vince C. Pregoso Principal Planner City of Santa Ante Planning and .Building Agency 20 Civic Center Drive, M -20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jeffrey T. Melching Direct Dial: (714) 641 -3422 Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Mr. Fregoso; This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, the "Schools "), in connection with their development applications for the property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. The City recently distributed for public comment a document entitled "ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE" (the "Additional. Analysis"). Among other things, the Additional Analysis analyzed it "Historic Preservation Alternative" to the development originally proposed by the Schools, which would call for the permanent preserva€ion in situ of the Sexlinger Farmhouse, the restoration of the farmhouse to Secretary of the Interior standards, the partial preservation of the associated orchard trees, and the planting of additional like -'Kind orange trees. To accomplish these improvements, the total number of for -sale homes on the property would be reduced from 24 to 23 (22 plus the farmhouse). After careftd study, the Additional Analysis conchtdes that the Historic Preservation Alternative would not have a significant impact on cultural resources. The Schools appreciate the City's hard work and creativity in suggesting and causing the study of the Historic Preservation Alternative. And, after carefully considering the results of the Additional Analysis, the Schools have submitted revised applications to the City so that the proposed development will be consistent with that alternative. It is our understanding that those revised applications will he presented to the City's Planning Commission on February 1.0, 2014. Rutan 8, Tucker, LLP I Oil Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1950 1 714- 641.5100 1 fax 714 -546 -9095 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.coni EXHIBIT 13 75A -241 680/048170 -6910 6602764) 0I11W4 RUTAN karat c nmm�, ien Mince C. Pregoso January 24, 2014 Page 2 The Schools have prepared the Response Memorandum attached to this letter as Exhibit A, which surveys community member comments on the originally- proposed project, and explains in how the historic Preservation Alternative addresses those concerns. The Response Memorandum also suggests modifications to the Draft EIR, so that the record of the City's exhaustive efforts at historic preservation on the project site are more fully documented. In addition to the Response Memorandum, we attach the following supplemental materials to this letter to assist the City in evaluating the project: Shade and Shadow Renderings: At the January 2013 Planning Commission meeting on this matter, questions were raised concerning the shade and shadow effects of the proposed development. In response to those inquires, the School's commissioned a shade and shadow analysis, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit E. As the renderings show, the shade and shadow effects on adjoining development are nunimal, with no shadows cast on structures and only minor shadows cast on back yards during the late fat] and winter morning hours. Arborist Study: Throughout the entitlement process, the Schools and the City have heard various claims concerning the health of the trees on the property. The Schools retained an expert arborist to study this issue, The arborist's report is attached as Exhibit C. In short, the arborist concluded that only 24 of the trees are healthy, that the property is not currently a viable orchard, and that restoration and operation of the entire property as an orchard is economically infeasible. Traffic Analysis. Through the public review and outreach process, community members inquired as to whether the installation of a "crash gate" at the south end of Lyon Avenue on the project site would cause any additional traffic impacts beyond those analyzed in the EIR for the project. The additional traffic analysis is attached as Exhibit D. That analysis concludes that, with or without a crash gate, the impacts of the project will be identical. All of the materials attached to this letter have been provided in an effort to ensure that the City has the information it needs to make a fully informed decision. To that end, please do not 6801043179 -0940 660236-1.1 011241W 75A -242 RUTAN �IrzFI1 ci4UN. LLP Vince C. Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 3 hesitate to contact nie, or any of the ,School's project representatives, if there is any additional information or explanation that we may provide. JTM 6901043170-0940 660:9(;4.1 ,01/24/14 Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Melching RUTAN & TUCKLR, LLP 75A -243 esu- an W010aoo a-L I% 1 75A -244 PROJECT AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE 1. Introduction. During the public comment and hearing process on this project, the Planning Commission and City staff have received comments from the public that addressed the sufficiency of (1) the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the proposed variance findings for Lots 7 and 13 of the proposed project, and (3) the General Plan consistency findings for the proposed tentative tract map. City staff has responded to these issues by commissioning an additional environmental analysis ( "Additional Analysis ") that, among other things, examines the viability of a new Historical Preservation Alternative. Based on the Additional Analysis' conclusions, Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University (collectively, the " applicant") have proposed significant revisions to its development proposal that effectively seek to implement the Historic Preservation Alternative, This memorandum explains how those revisions respond to acrd meaningfully address the most frequently recurring issues and concerns raised during the public review process. 2. The City Has Complied With Its General Plan Policy To "Encourage the Retention and Reuse of Historical Buildings." In comment letters the City received on December 17, 2012 and on February 11, 2013, The Old Orchard Conservancy asserted that the EIR found a "clear conflict" with the General. Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.2, which states that the City should "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites." This asserted conflict was raised as a challenge to both the sufficiency of the land use analysis in the EIR and the General Plan consistency findings for the tentative tract map. As discussed below, the project does not conflict with the General Plan because (1) the City has actively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of the historic resources on the project site, (2) the proposed project has been revised to include Preservation of the 'farmhouse building, together with orchard trees, on -site, and (3) bused on the foregoing, the City's draft EIR concludes that development in the manner now proposed by the applicant will not result in significant impacts to historic resources. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the following hand use goal: "Protect and enhance developnent sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life." To advance that goal, the City established Land Use Element Policy 4.2 as follows: "Encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites." Consistent with both Land Use. Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 4.2, the City created a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ordinance that defines the processes and means by which the City encourages the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites. (Santa Ana Mon. Code ( "SAMC ") Ch. 30 [ "Historic Preservation Ordinance"].) Those regulations have been applied to the Sexlinger Property. 75A -245 Specifically, on June 4, 2012, the City Council placed the Sexlinger Property on the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties. The property owners thereafter applied for permits to demolish the residence and Orchard on the property. Under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, that application triggered the Historic Resources Commission's obligation to evaluate "all feasible alternatives to demolition," and to hold a public hearing on the demolition proposal within two hundred and forty (240) days. To meet the requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Resources Commission appointed an ad hoc committee to study potential alternatives to demolition. The committee consisted of two Historic .Resources Commission members, two members Of City staff, five representatives from The Old Orchard Conservancy, and two representatives of the property owners. The committee met in August of 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. It also met with concerned members Of the community in September of 2012 to discuss private preservation options, and to obtain community input. In addition to those meetings and community outreach activities, City staff investigated whether a number of organizations would be willing to purchase, restore, and /or relocate the historic resources on site. Those organizations included: (1) Certified Local Government; (2) National Trust for Historic Preservation; (3) Save America's Treasures; (4) Preserve America; (5) California Cultural & Historic Endowment; (6) National Center for Preservation Technology; (7) California Humanities; (8) the Getty Foundation; (9) California Preservation Foundation; (10) California Grant Watch; (11) California State Parks Foundation; (12) California State Land & Water Conservation; (13) Southern California Edison — Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan Grant; (14) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; (15) Department of Energy; Sunshot Initiative; (16) South Coast Air Quality Management District; (17) Orange County Transportation Authority; (1.8) United States Department of Transportation; (19) State of California, Bicycle Transportation Account; (20) Federal 'Highway Administration; (21) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Agriculture; (22) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Transportation; (23) California Department of Transportation, Transportation Enhancement Program; (24) State of California Rivers and Parkways; (25) State of California Recreational Trails Program; (26) State of California Habitat Conservation Fund; (27) Southern California Association of Governments Compass Blueprint Planning Program; and (28) Solid Waste Grants. None of these organizations were in a position to provide funding for the relocation or restoration of the Sexlinger Property. City staff also oversaw the creation of a notice that publicized the availability of the Sexlinger Property for purchase for restoration or relocation purposes. The notice was distributed in September of 2012, and was sent and/or posted to the following entities and individuals: ('1) Santa Ana Historic Preservation Society (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (2) Orange County Historical Society; (3) City of Santa Ana website; (4) City of Santa Ana Facebook page; (5) City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook page; (6) OC Histoy Roundup Dlog (which subsequently posted the notice on its website); (7) The Orange County Community Foundation; (8) The Nature Conservancy; (9) The Wildlands Conservancy; (10) The Conservation Fund; (11) The Old Orchard Conservancy; (12) "Inside The Outdoors," Orange County Department of Education; (13) Rancho Santiago College; (14) Irvine Valley College; (15) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; (16) California State University, Fullerton; (17) Discovery Science Center; (18) Historic French Pads (Debbie M 75A -246 McEwen, President); and (19) all Historic Resources Commission ad hoc committee meeting attendees. Whenever possible, each of these organizations was also contacted by phone. Despite these extensive pubic outreach efforts, the City received no calls and /or emails expressing interest in purchasing the Sexlinger Property for restoration or relocation purposes. In a third attempt at preservation, City staff explored possible sites for the relocation of the historic building to an off-site location. No private individuals or organizations contacted the City or the property owners with sites that could be used for relocation purposes. Nor did the City's independent examination of potentially available sites yield any solutions. Iii October 2012, the Historic Resources Commission received an update from the ad hoe committee on the status of the investigation, and the public was provided another opportunity to bring forward new information and resources for restoration or relocation of the Sexlinger Property. No significant new information or resources were presented. The foregoing comprehensive efforts to encourage preservation of the historic resources on the Sexlinger Property were reported to the Historic Resources Commission, and were the subject of a duly noticed public hearing before that body on January 24, 2013. The Historic Resources Commission, after hearing all of the evidence, and considering all of the correspondence and public testimony, expressly "determined that neither private preservation not, relocation is a feasible alternative to demolition given the limited timefra me available,"[ The Historic Resources Commission's determination was appealable to the City Council, but no appeal was filed. Therefore, the Historic Resources Commission's determination regarding the feasibility of preservation became final and conclusive. The applicant responded to the City's efforts to encourage preservation of the property through the sale to an entity seeldrrg to re- establish an orchard there. To that end, in August of 2012, representatives of the property owners sent Tire Old Orchard Conservancy a letter outlining the terms under- which the religious institutions would consider a sale of the Sexlinger Property on or before December 31, 2012. The property owners and The Old Orchard Conservancy participated in a series of subsequent conversations and correspondence in late 2012, tbronglr which the deadline to enter into a letter of intent to purchase the property was extended to February 15, 201:3, and the deadline to enter into a purchase agreement for the property was extended to March 15, 2013. Both of those dates were beyond the 240 -day time period for investigating the feasibility of preservation as set forth in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The February 15, 2013 and March 15, 2013 dates passed without any significant progress by the Old Orchard Conservancy towards, a purchase of the Sexlinger Property for preservation purposes. In fact, in a January 7, 2013 letter to the Historic Resources Commission, The Old Orchard Conservancy confirmed that it hail, to that point, not raised sufficient funds to enter into a purchase agreement with the owners. The "limited tintieframe" is a reference to the 240 days (i.e., eight months) within which the Historic Resources Commission must complete its feasibility evaluation for demolition permits. '' As of the date of this submittal — fully 17 months after the August 2012 letter —The Old Orchard Conservancy still has not made any meaningful progress toward a purchase agreement -3- 75A -247 Ill an attempt to further encourage these discussions, the City convened a meeting among City staff (including the Interim City Manager, Planning Director, and City Attorney), The Old Orchard Conservancy, and the property owners on May 13, 2013. At the meeting, the City offered to facilitate a mediation between the property owners and The Old Orchard Conservancy. After carefully considering that offer, The Old Orchard Conservancy and the property owners jointly declined the offer to mediate, but indicated they would continue discussing among themselves the potential sale of the property. Those discussions have continued, but no tangible progress toward a mutually satisfactory resolution has been achieved. On August 29, 2013, the City received an email from a representative of The Old Orchard Conservancy, requesting that all additional preservation alternative be considered. The City had previously considered a "Hybrid Development Alternative" that involved the relocation of the existing residential structure and the rectangular outbuilding to the northeast comer of the property,, and the retention of approximately 20 to 30 trees in the northeast portion of the property as in orchard area. To accomplish this design configuration, the number of homes under the Hybrid Development Alternative would be reduced from 24 to 21. The EIR concluded that the Hybrid Development Alternative would not reduce impacts to historic resources to below a level of significance because the relationship of the residence to the orchard would be substantially altered. An important factor in that determination was the fact that the relocation of the farmhouse, and changing its orientation, could create a false sense of historic development. In an attempt to address the August 29, 2013 request, and to devise a better preservation alternative, in November, 2013, the City commissioned the "Additional Analysis for Response to Cormments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report." That analysis includes a description and discussion of a "Historic Preservation Alternative" that would (I) keep in place the existing farmhouse and garage,, (2) require that those buildings be rehabilitated to Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, (3) maintain the home as a single family residential use that would be available for sale, (4) retain those orange trees that are currently located on the 1.0,044 square foot lot, and (5) provide for the planting of additional orange trees. To achieve this design, the number of homes would be reduced from 24 to 23 (the restored farmhouse plus 22 new homes). The Supplemental Analysis applied The National Park Service (NPS)National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelirxes for Ei,alit(itirrg twirl Docitmerrting Rural T3zsstoric Landscapes (MeLelland et al. 1999:15 -17) rubric for purposes of analyzing impacts to cultural resources associated with the Historic Preservation Alternative. That analysis considered thirteen different landscape characteristics that can apply to orchards, including: (1) Natural Systems and Features; (2) Spatial Organization; (3) Land Use; (4) Cultural Traditions; (5) Circulation; (6) Topography; (7) Vegetation; (8) Buildings and Structures; (9) Cluster Arrangements; (10) Small Scale Features; (11) Constructed Water Features; (12) Views and Vistas; and (13) Archaeology Sites. In the context of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard; small scale features (criterion 10), constructed water features (criterion 11), and archeology sites (criterion 1.3), are either not applicable or minimally applicable, and are therefore not discussed in the Additional Analysis, As to the remaining ten factors, the Additional Analysis acknowledges that natural systems and for the property. -4- 75A -248 features (criterion '.l), land use(ciiterion 3), cultural traditions (criterion 4), topography (criterion. 6), and buildings and structures (criterion &) are all characteristics that are retained in the Historic Preservation Alternative. Of the remaining five factors, the Additional Analysis concludes that circulation (criterion 5), cluster arrangements (criterion 9), would be partially retained, As to the remaining three ;factors — spatial organization, vegetation, and views and vistas — the Additional Analysis concludes as follows: Spatial Organization: "The spatial relationship between the residence and garage, orientation of the property, and the property's visual narrative of a small scale orchard would also be retained." • Vegetation; "There would be substantially fewer trees than what historically existed; however, new trees would be planted in -kind to fill out the parcel and to replace any dead or decaying trees. The new tees would match the existing type (Valencia, grafted to lemon rootstock) ...." • Views and Vistas: "Lastly, the views and vistas would transition from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that of new residential buildings and roadways," In sum, the Additional Analysis concludes that 9 of the 10 applicable criteria are at least partially satisfied. We respectfully submit that the tenth factor— views and vistas — is also at least partially satisfied, inasmuch as the farmhouse will not be relocated, will be rehabilitated per Secretary of Interior standards, and will remain visible from the street. Orange trees near the house will also remain visible. In this regard, the property "would retain many of its major elements and still convey the significance of a property type that was once eommon and .is now a rare surviving example in the City." (Additional Analysis, p. 7.) Based on the above, the Additional Analysis both (a) concludes that the Historic Preservation Alternative will. mitigate impacts to cultural resources to a less -than- significant level, and (b) finds that the alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for CEQA analysis purposes. Importantly, as compared to the Hybrid Development Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative better mcets the City's objectives — particularly the goal of adding to the City's stock of move -up housing — because it would allow for the development of 23 of the originally proposed 24 homes on the site. The foregoing illustrates the extraordinary steps the City has taken in an effort to minimize impacts to historic resources. These steps show, in compelling fashion, that the City has proactively and thoroughly encouraged the retention and reuse of historic buildings and sites, and therefore complied with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 4.2; To highlight this conclusion, we respectfully request that the language in the Final EIR that could be construed to suggest a conflict with Land Use Element Goal 4 and /or Land Use Element Policy 4.2 be revised as follows. • The text of Final EIR Section 4.3 (Page 56, first fall paragraph) should be modified as follows: -5- 75A -249 The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Rey" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c, F Mowing that designation the t�t�ty owners proposed demolition of the on -site structures. triggered an ones ouhlic Jt I comprehensive process tluough which all feasible preservation alternatives wcrQ lhozoushly evaluated An funding sources and actively sol.dytg interest in nurchtsins the t WlQrt from no less than 19 prig earn s rind_ 7�3tjgps. At the conclusion of this pr'oeeSS the City's Historic Resources emission held t ntli wring at which it conclutsively Preservation Alternative would pr serve the existing farmhouse an -rase ir�tlace and call for the areservttion of sortie gf the Alternative would avoid impacts to cultural resourges, and would moclifv its develoimertt proposal tg reflect the Historic Preservation Alternative. By these actions. it is clear that the C has proactively encotrl'ased the retention and reuse of historical ,uildines and sites aR l.�auired tv the As plrEho-ptepeseEl gro}etE weulcl- eenfliet- va;rt -h -City of Santa Ann General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4 ancl- Policy 4.2_�n =htelnceur des thetenF -it and- Ee#Y.3e- - i- ti:- mr' xic2rcr�v' cn•' n' �i^y^ �r- i- m"'iEtriiie'„�1- h}9- 4?Or1fliet to - the -city el'- ar tta A a t E en t t1 P1ati -ba3rd Us€ 1cnv n Goal n-� would- resulE— s— tkte— prejeet —�o ' a #e ex�sti b resi ctit al stt=uettur ouEhu ding- and-- erango-- t'ree<.- -1=10 c as st rtte- cl- in- th.= ��f- nr�nrrrEa- Atsa --Ce tie ral� {a�-L� rt£l�>✓�rn�nt; { ni{�let nentatien- I?hita- i- h'r;;- ttrt�l -eth et- prr�3eets- ar'e- str{ij �G � ie ;v�-- thr�tug{t- t1 }e-- C+ty -s-re, yew_- prtroesses- a +ad- {rt��r:cts- tiettEf -it�t tivi} 1- alst3- lie- ovn{....•.. �'�,�;t }hf- rtke- ✓viky- s- r�r:ew- prod- e"ssee,- �yit }t re- speEt- it>- thc- gc�ztls- arrri -P ^{the -�'�- rte'- tsnetst{- €l�rr�tnd 1 %- Elentent, The text of Section 7.3.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planting" (Pages 7 -4 to 7 -5) is modified as follows: -6- 75A -250 'This alternative would not be consistent with the existing single family land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR -7) or zoning designation of Single Fanuly Residential (R -1). This alternative would require a zone change and land use designation change to Open Space (0). Four ierorore-,tlic Q -t lepted a -rca: ;',,T=at- li�tt�4- flag- Se' �1H�er- F�tr- >}� #ouse- t;tttrl- (7rehnrsl -on 41 e- SAAR44-P -0 n- Verne -4 9,P--- Thc- aetton -&-si d h as �4e�4- Eletie+i -bed ' c n nrtn e t�30- ?- 2(?}er.— '1- l�ttat'rVi ��- atElti- re;se+l�iri- E(te- ren�Ewal -ef- the- t€niEloutial- s�r��ture; ad�ar -ent ourl�trilydi:;g= �atr�trrge -H• emend- relne; ,;�;E- tviEh- :r- prerlc- seEt+irg: t3= hil- a3t€ tntfive-- a= o-uld- ec�nflicHvitk�- tks.�- �,��t�stt�4r�C- ,enne}ad ilfl;s— z'e$}Ent— �riliti� n,-- .� -vic7` n "7— v�crnv$fh�i-H�T -thky reset tw'n a'nel -re a:se of k'i forcal- burldiTle, and s"eg. Hie ;-as stfttc�l--- rn-- t(jo— Oit3�- s--- �) @nete�' °, —�aa;— Land— TQTSe— ;✓',..intent; }ifE3f;@,v5'- &nC�- 1)ei'}Lf-Yt C'v'zri .aztti"ci- thi6Li�l -ti}C C'"�a€'," " view-- l,3'r-dec5"r. The City of Santa .Ana Land Use Element Goals and policies also includes promoting land uses which enhance the City's econonuc and financial viability (Goal 2 _I?nd Use Element), Element supporting development of single - fancily residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet (Policy 1.4, Land Use Element) -, and encouraging new development and /or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood (Policy 3.5, Land Use Element). As such, this alternative would conflict with portions of the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies and existing land use and zoning designations. The text of Section 7.5.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planning" (Page 7 -1'1) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlingcr Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARFlP on June 4, 2012, The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)e. Following that designation the pro erty�a�er ppen, mib ie. and com -c ensive process through which all City's Historic Re grces Commission ity staff. members of the public interested in preserving the site, and representatives of the funding sources and actbLdy. soliciting interest i i puryltasin� the 12LQ,12erty from no less than jjt-n5rivato erot At -7- 75A -251 the conclusion of this process. the City's historic Resources the site Despite that conclusion. City staff nevertheless response to .t comtneiit on (lie EIR - commissioned an additional trees on site.....(togeiher with the planting tf additional like -kind traGas The additional analysis found that the Historic Preservation Altamat ve would avoid n ullact.s () culral resources. and would buildings and sites, as required by the s h th rire d ee4 �votrltl eonflic� with City of SanCn Ana General. Plan Land Use Flement Goal 4 end - Policy 4 2 - A-,SLIdh t€tis altosnadve;- st141HF to flue proposed r� r jeet -e euld cEnRiei w Eh may Qanta -Aua L i a3 -Flan Lanfl Use -- Elcnse3st -( sal -4-pe iey -4.?, .." ieh ener�trhtgefi- tka- ratetttien -a»ct- cease -of lkietoriEal- huikl',z,� -a;;Fl -Situ Flowe r as fated as tle Q v A na General -Pli n, -Land f}; �-}✓ lertzeut- ltssetrt�ttit- rn- €'hztt- tk+�aic(-- etl7es� -peed �;=aw s il3jeeE tarp oft re -y cut N atigl: 'h e r - nreee-ss -uud a iffot :+ bene€ its -wits- alse- be- evaltn-e-, iste�ev�tith- Fa.4n<��ct -to- then- pflals- �ttttet -Pr�l ieie�; -et` Ilse -Ei ty�- �ittic�t:al LFaxi- L- aisct- Pke- lvlentertt� The text of Section 7.6.1, under the heading "Land Use and Planning" (Page 7 -14) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARi•IP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section 30- 12(2)e. Following that designation, the property owners proposed demolition of the oil-site structures. which trig =rcSl_. v end_ ul lie and comprehensive process through which atl feasible preservation alternatives were thoroughly evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed, which included members of the City's Historic Resources CommissiQnn, City staff. members of the 2 l2lic interested in preservin th_e. Site uid representatives of the 1=&rtv owners. The committee and City staff explrned preservation opt .uL 1. eY nn liming 28 different potial ten ubllc funding sources and actively soliciting interest in purchasing the property from no less than 19 private groups At the conclusion of this process, the City's'-1{istoric Resources -8- 75A -252 Commission held a public hearing at which it conclusrvcly - resmonse to a comment on Cho ETR - itjonal fUa llysis to study a Historic PresewItion Alternative. The Historic modify its develoM e ut proposal to reflect the Historic Element Goal 4 and- Policv 4.2. 15 -suehr this aker atiy Fni:ilaa to tle propewed Hopei, wcadd Coallic� v +th C�Gy of 5 ukta Ana €tre eut�a ;rzs- the-- r- e- teufier�rtrl- reu;�tr�hi:; tot -i c-a l -laeei l cli n�+;s- �N�d -s i te: 13?- -t i�- v' rrrmrra %�ila- t- iiiiercmrizmzai2d Usc Elc�rne }a- t-- Tr�rpl��rertGatiort- Plan - this- and- otEter-- ptejeeti --are laroc .:ih tesl t t�rtFiu g als a+d Pal Pkta -rand- Use- Eleine nt. • The text of Section 7.6.2 (page 7 -1.5) should be modified as follows: The Lower Density .Alternatives would result in decreased impacts to air quality, noise, population and housing=; _Tlus alternative would result in significant impacts to cultural resources---a 4 eeattfF etu tkrEbe C of £tae l lzla�tnd TJse Filerrtertt Coal 4 P- of -ici, '' -,-rye, ` d�htE,".- 2ncocnzsg�,- ttil'- r8ttntian- at2Et- rettf3e- o�li�stal -ieal lair flinger ^gin — Furthermore, because of the significant reduction in residential units and larger estate -type lots, the Low Density Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected. 3. Commercial Orchards and Museum Uses are Not Permitted or Conditionally Permitted on the Project Site. Some of the written and oral comments on the Draft and Final ETR focused on proposals that would reinstate orchard operations on the project site. For example, in comments on the proposed Final EIR, The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed a "Citrus Orchard Alternative" that would involve the "operation of a commercial citrus operation on the site." (See also December -9- 75A -253 t7, 2012 . letter from The Old Orchard Conservancy, p, 5 [ "The 2012 RDEIR does not consider the feasibility of utilizing the Orchard for commercial citrus production; either in its entirety or as a part of a broader mitigation .effort.... Further study may demonstrate citrus growing operation on the Property to be feasible, revenue - neutral, or even profitable, endeavor that could support aprivate, a non- profit Urban Garden or similar education project, The profits of a citrus - growing operation could be used to fluid ongoing maintenance and repair of the Farmhouse or the construction of a small -scale museum'J; January 7, 2013 letter from the Old Orchard Conservancy [ "The Conservancy is prepared to argue an economically viable and self - sustaining commercial citrus operation is possible at the Sexlinger Site which could be cost - neutral to the land owners. "],) A fundamental problem with those proposals is that a commercial orchard use is currently illegal on the site, as is a museum use. The property is in a Single - Family Residence (R -1) district. R -1 districts do not permit or conditionally permit commercial agricultural uses andfor museums (other than museums owned and operated by a university), (See SAMC 41 -232 [permitted uses], 41 -232.5 [conditionally permitted uses].) The former agricultural use on the property was a grandfathered "legal non - conforming use. However, the commercial orchard operations (indeed, all operations on the site) have been discontinued for several years, and the City Code deems a non- coufernung use to be abandoned if the use is suspended for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months; any subsequent use must conform in every respect to the provisions of the Santa Ana Zoning Code. (SAMC 41 -683.) This, while the proposed project requires no zone change and is consistent with existing City laws, the proposed commercial operation of the Sexlinger Property would violate City zoning laws under the zoning designation that governs the site. 4. The Selection and Application of Project Objectives. The project objectives selected by the City have been criticized in the public comment process as having been (1) drawn too narrowly, and (2) misstated and misapplied to the project's alternatives. Those claims are addressed in turn below. The following four project objectives were carefully chosen by City staff to: (1) provide for the current and future "move up" housing needs for the City; (2) provide land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan Land. Use Element designation and zoning designation of LR -7 and R -1, respectively; (3) provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character and visually cohesive with the area; and (4) prevent further dilapidation of the site, discourage vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized use of the site. These objectives all flow from either critical City-wide or super- regional policy documents and directives, or from common sense land use planning and management concepts. For example, the "move up" housing objective is grounded in an analysis completed by the Southern California Association of Governments. That analysis indicates that the City deeds to aced 3,393 residential units for the period between 2006 and 2014 to meet the regional need assigned to the City for new housing construction, The need for additional housing is driven, in part, by a projected 10,500 job increase in Santa Ana during that same time period. The -10.. 75A -254 development of a five -acre vacant parcel with new housing will simultaneously increase the City's housing stock and provide "move up" opportunities for existing Santa Ana residents as additional, higher paying, jobs come to the City over titne, In this respect, the provision of a significant number of new homes on the project site will help the City fulfill its regionally recognized housing goals, On a more local level, the City's General Plan acts as the "constitution for all future development" within the City, and the City's Zoning Code acts to implement the General Plan on a district -by- district basis. Because the General Plan and Zoning Code are an expression of the City's land use policies, it was entirely appropriate for the City to include, as one of the project objectives, the pursuit of development that is consistent with those policies. Tire third objective — achieving 'land use compatibility — is important, but not unique. With all development proposals, the City respects the interests of neighboring landowners and communities by ensuring that proposed new development is consistent with its surroundings. In this instance, the proposed project meets that objective by providing a single family residential development with approximately 6,000 square foot lots in an area that it bounded to the east and the south by developments with similar sized residential lots. It is appropriate, but not exceptional, to expect equivalent compatibility from any alternative to the proposed project. Fourth, the City recognized that the current condition of the property must be remedied. In its current dilapidated condition, the property is a potential target of vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized uses. To protect the public health and safety, and to improve the character of the overalll community, it is important to remedy those conditions, The Old Orchard Conservancy conceded that "the Project Objectives were properly drawn" but claims that they were "misstated and misapplied in selecting alternatives for the EIR." Specifically, The Old Orchard Conservancy claimed that the EIR unlawfully constrained its evaluation of alternatives in the EIR by defining the Project Objective as the construction of exactly 24 single- family housing units, rather than the provision of some level of "move -up' housing. That statement is not accurate. While 24 single family units would achieve the "move - up" housing objective to the greatest extent possible, the EIR recognized that the Alternative Design /Cul de Sac Alternative (providing 23 houses) and the Hybrid Development Alternative (providing 21 houses) would also achieve the "move -up" housing objective. At a point where a significant reduction in housing was proposed — for example in the Lower Density Alternative — the EIR acknowledges that the objective of providing "move -up" housing is no longer filly achieved. This determination is reasonable. While providing I or 3 fewer homes than the proposed project can fairly be construed as meeting the project's "move -up" housing objective, a significant reduction in the number of houses does not meet that objective. Thus, the EIR's analysis was not tied to the construction of "exactly 24 single - family housing units," and the project objectives were fairly applied to the project. This conclusion is reinforced and bolstered by the City's election to study, and the applicant's decision to pursue, a Historic Preservation Alternative that traduces the number of proposed homes from 24 to 23. Thus, the assertion that the City (or the applicant) were intransigent in their pursuit of the move - up housing objective is simply wrong. 75A -255 5. The Preservation Alternative. The Old Orchard Conservancy proposed ill its cormnents on the Draft P,IR that the City evaluate a "preservation alternative" that would "preserve the Orchard and Farmhouse ire. situ, require maintenance and security as a condition of project approval, and design a smaller residential subdivision compatible with the existing historic resources." This alternative, according to The Old Orchard Conservancy "would allow the minimum of new construction . determined to be feasible, and would require a street pattern that respects the existing farmhouse and the surrounding neighborhood." The Historic Preservation Alternative effectively addresses The Old Orchard Conservancy's assertions. It preserves the farmhouse its situ and also calls for the preservation of some of the orchard trees ill silts. As specified in the Additional Analysis, these preservation efforts avoid impacts to cultural rmour'ees while still maximizing achievement of the project's objectives. In contrast, the "preservation alternative" alternative posited by The Old Orchard Conservancy would not meet most of the project's basic objectives. Given that the existing orchard and farmhouse currently cover the vast majority of the Sexlinger Property, the amount of residential development in The Old Orchard Conservancy's proposal would be reduced to less than 10 homes. Indeed, even that number of homes would require the removal of significant portions of the orchard. That level of development would provide significantly less housing, as compared to the project, and therefore cannot be fairly characterized as satisfying the project objective of providing for the City's current and future stove -up housing needs. A preservation alternative also would not meet the City's objective of providing for uses that are consistent with the R -1 zoning designation insofar as the conversion of the residential structure to a community center (as suggested by The Old Orchard Conservancy) would require a zone change. Nor would . a preservation alternative be similar in character to surrounding uses. Over the years, the surrounding neighborhood has become predominantly residential. The proposed project continues that trend, while a preservation alternative would result in a use that is not consistent with the surrounding properties. The City studied a reasonable range of alternatives, and, through that process, has identified an alternative that will avoid environmental impacts while also achieving most of the project's objectives. In contrast, because the Old Orchard Conservancy's "preservation alternative" would not meet the project's basic objectives, there was no need for a more detailed analysis of that alternative in the EIR. G. The City Council May Make the Findings Necessary to Grant a Variance. In this case, the applicant is proposing that Lot No. 1.2 have a street frontage that is less than what is otherwise currently required by City code. The Old Orchard Conservancy previously objected to this request (and another similar request which is now unnecessary, dire to project revisions to accommodate the Historic Preservation Alterantive). As explained below, The Old Orchard Conservancy's objections are misplaced. -12- 75A -256 The reduced street 'frontage for Lot 12 is a product of requests made by community members, and endorsed by City staff, to create a curve to discourage cut - through traffic in the proposed extension of Lyon Street through the project site, After the applicant agreed to this modification, City staff further determined that a "knuckle" needed to be included in the newly - created curve in Lyon Street in order to accommodate the turning movement for trash trucks and similarly sized vehicles. The applicant agreed to that modification as well. As a result of these two modifications, Lot 12 will have an irregular shape. It will be particularly narrow in tlae front, and substantially wider toward the rear of the lot. Under SAMC section 41 -638, variance requests may be granted when (1) there are special circumstances related to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, (2) the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial ,property rights, (3) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property, and (G) the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. In this case, all four of the required criteria are satisfied. First, the modifications to Lyon Street caused an irregular shape and configuration to Lot No. 12. While 50 feet of street frontage is a standard that makes sense in the context of typical rectangular lots, the insertion of roadway curves tends to encourage generally "pie shaped' parcels, i.e., ,parcels that are narrow in the front and wider in the back. This is a special circumstance relating to the size, shape, location, and surroundings of the two parcels. Second, granting the variance will allow for the development of Lot 12, whereas denying the variance would deny that lot from being developed to its planned, and highest acid best, use. In this regard, the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property owners' substantial property rights. Third, the variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Lot 12 is part of an overall planned development, and will be compliant with all other applicable development standards. Fourth, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the property, will support move -up housing, and will advance each of the following General Plan policies: Policy 1.4 — support development of single- family residential lots; Policy "1.9 — result in a coordinated street and parkway design that is attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on-site development; Policy 3.5 -- encourage new development that is compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style of the neighborhood; and Policy 5.10 — support a circulation system that is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Comments the City received an February 11, 2013 assert that there are no circumstances ,justifying the grant of a variance here because the overall Sexinger property is a 5 acre rectangular parcel, and because there is nothing unique about its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. The focus oil the overall five acre property is misplaced. The variance is sought for the irregular shaped Lot 12 that will result from a subdivision of the property in the manner necessary to accommodate staff and community concerns. In addition, -1.3- 75A -257 even if one were to focus on the overall five acre parcel, the expressed interest to avoid "cut through " traffic on Lyon Street is a unique circumstance that necessitated subdividing the parcel in a manner that made compliance with the street frontage standards impossible for Lot 12. -14- 75A -258 6801` a o aMooroo 1 a TA M IN 8 11 75A -259 E : \ / 4L « 75A -261 jug a 3 „ag a 3a�x U z G v s J �y 3 O N ti O a r` ^V Vl 'L N 0 0 o r� p o cy o -cr �o �U �9 a� 2 DAD 36�d 75A -262 -F- A � 1 f ro f � v 1 E" 8 c M ti 0 0 o N i o -r i Ajar p i . �. NO E Mall i WN 9 U, Ph"Ra, 0 O ff 1[ ? U ' �* { t `� 9- ,: t,. 680!- 0.0 acoroaoo 1 a % a t 75A -266 May 22, 2013 Mr. Robert Odle Odle & Associates 6007 F. Mabury Ave Orange, CA 92867 Re: Sexlinger Orange Grove INC. Dear Mr. Odle: Thank you for asking me to provide an arboricultural evaluation of the orange trees' health and condition, professional opinions regarding its viability as an orchard, requirements to maintain an orchard, and report as appropriate. Observations On May 8, 2013 we met on site and walked the orchard. I tools photographs from ground level and ordered an aerial infrared photo to be flown by Focal Plight.com. See attached the aerial infrared photograph. Healthy plants show up the reddest. There are about 24 healthy trees at this time. Of about 480 spaces 256 are empty, i.e. they died and were removed, 226 are alive, and 24 of those are healthy. Color infrared technology is most useful when comparing trees of the same species in the same setting at the same time, as in this case. You will notice what was evident when we walked the site, Le, that other than the trees closest to the front and several along the very edge, nearly all the other trees are in severe decline. It is easy to drive by the site oil Santa Clara and get the impression that the trees are healthy. The trees along the road get runoff from the street and may be getting hose water frown off the house. People that can take the time to walle it, as we did, get quite a different impression of how healthy they are. The aerial Infrared photograph is included for those who for one reason or another cannot or will not see it firsthand. Several of the larger trees in the aerial photograph are actually weed trees. There are a couple holly oaks and a large pecan in the middle. Most of the citrus trees have lost most of their leaves and many are wilted, The weed trees need less water. The foliage color ofthe orange trees is not healthy green. A large amount of the line branches are dead or dying. The disking of the soil to control weeds has damaged roots. There is almost no part of the trees south of the third row down that is healthy or capable of producing edible fruit. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Hordculture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, C'..4 92780, . Ph. 71433 t.0240, Cell: 714.292:71154, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -267 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 2 Photographs health of the trees along the top edge compared to the others, especially at the two north corners.. ARBORGAT]E CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Wa7, Tustin, CA 92780, Pb. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.73'1.6138 75A -268 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 3 graphically the decline in tree health. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I- locdcultnre & Arboriculture '1'131 Lucinda Wsip,'I'iisHn, CA 92780, Pb. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184; Pas 714.731.6138 75A -269 FEr ,t ;i Sf° 'jam R 1 y , y � y if�''i 111111 ` r �- "'X. •4 w.. b ; , t 13 � „�tt a,F �i,ts t�l t ¢ Ax.., i}}A f S � 't '�� 3 �{ _.,.{t J`It.rT ,i•,y;3 //iz ,� � \ -� ' l f :- •4.. LS? _•�. i'.- l-, �l:�}rf""i.L'., ., a. :. \ _ �!, ♦. �,_'.l i�`. {t..��;sl ... wr„i�..d h 1" f �1 ty. Sn W-A � ��lfN ry �`� ��•hi4 h� }t �r � T h �p ki i'r Y x 1 I L_ _ _ x- Sn W-A � ��lfN ry �`� ��•hi4 h� }t �r � T h �p ki i'r Y Sn <t � _. Ir 7 " i.` "" '. � -• �l l Si "i � -'�4 -+ � dig L � s� -•.mss i � a - � 1 dt �S# ty t ap>��•. UZ ^`� 1F... `rte �'- sa�� ,,_ t.•�a tlt ,. .> 5 4 Y a+ a. a =< �`•1l tae � 1 dt �S# ty t ap>��•. 4tr "e `F 5 4 Y a+ a. 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 9 AR]BORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Hor[iculawe R Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tun a, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714,731.6138 75A -275 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grave Page 10 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture &Arboricultrc 1131 Lucinda Way, Tusda, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731:6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -276 ©.< R ^ NIX 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 12 Analysis Considering the plaice of water in Orange County, the value of land, the tax rate, and the ever - increasing number of citrus pests and diseases, there is no way to maize a Valencia orange grove even pay for itself. The only similar size grove in this area is, according to one family member; "an expensive hobby ", and they have a road -side stand so they are making more money per pound,. Consider that packing houses are paying about $0,.05 per pound and one healthy average Valencia orange produces about 200 pounds, Ten dollars per year per tree aught cover the cost of water 3n a wet year. If healthy trees filled all the available spaces (480) on this site, (only 226 now are filled and 24 of which are healthy), the crop might be worth $4,800, assuming you picked them yourself and shipping was free. However, there are many other expenses, In speaking to Nick "Nisson at the Agriculture C'ommissioner's offiee, whose family has the last, or one of the last, "commercial" orchards in Orange County, I learned that there is no way to make a go of it at any size unless you have your own well and a larger property under the Williamson Act. At five cents a pound, maybe not even then would it pay for itself. At the Sexlinger orchard 456 new trees would be needed to refill the property with healthy trees that would have a chance of growing into a orchard capable of producing $4,800 worth of fruit per year. Another expense would be the cost or buying and planting those trees, and theft taking care of them for the next five to seven years until they can produce a worthwhile crop of fruit. Replanting should he with 5 gallon container size trees. Each tree will cost approximately $15 wholesale. Planting will also cost about $1 The total cost to install them for installation and materials will then be $13,680. Removal of the 202 old unhealthy trees will cost about $100 per tree, or $20,200. Fruit trees in general tend to have more posts because they produce more sugar that insects like to feed on. Citrus are often infested by scale, psyltids, fruit flies, and mites. Typical commercial and cost effective spraying methods would not be acceptable to the neighbors and local community. Now we have the Asian psyllid, which brings the threat of Huanglongbing, a deadly bacterial disease. Huangloligbing is one of the most devastating citrus diseases in the world and incurable. Infected trees must be removed and destroyed quickly to avoid infecting other citrus. As privately held property by Concordia and Lutheran High; expecting them to make money growing citrus is unreasonable. Now that this property is almost surrounded by residential properties and parks, and zoned Rl; the highest and best use of the property is Rl residential use, The Guy Stivers report is in error expecting any significant root growth to five feet deep. If there are any roots at five feet it will be less than I percent of the toot system. The amount of roots growing to four feet deep is also extremely small. Over 90 percent of the roots will be in the top 30 inches of soil. Considering the current decline and death of the trees, the report is a extreme . exaggeration of the amount of roots and their depth, Growing an orchard as a carbon bank does not make sense in this area. Conclusions This property is not some sort of carbon bank, Orange museum or a one species botanic garden. At one time it may have been a viable orchard, or part of one. That time has long pasted. There is a nice public pack next door and two cemeteries that - can serve as "carbon banks ". Few if any people would spend time to visit an orange museum, ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Florticu tore & �ld�o iculturc 1131 Lucu da way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6244, Cell: 714292.7184, Fax 714.731:6158 75A -278 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 13 Theneighbors would not want to breathe the fumes of the pesticides used to control the pest's and keep an orange orchard healthy. This property would require replanting, an experienced caretaker, water, fertilizer, pest control, harvesting, and shipping, at considerable cost, but for no significant benefit. Please call the if you have any questions. ly submitted, k� Consulting, Inc. egate, ASCA, ASLA Consulting Arborist #365 Enclosures ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. 13oruculttue & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.0240, Cell: 714,292.7184, FIX 714.731.6138 75A -279 MY- U.00f00f00 75A -280 t KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 18, 2013 To: Mr. Robert Odle Odle Associates From: Min Zhou, P.E:; Vice President — KOA 'Corporation Subject: Traffic Engineering Services for the TAVA Homes Project in the City of Santa Ana Introduction KOA Corporation (KOA) is pleased to submit this traffic analysis of a proposed site plan change for the TAVA Homes project in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the expected effect of closing the south entrance of the project to public access. The south entrance would have a "crash gate" slily, allowing only emergency vehicle access. The analysis will consider the effect this change may have on Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street, and reconsider recommendatlons for improvements to the Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street Intersection. Background A traffic impact study was completed for the TAVA Homes project by KOA in 2011. This study analyzed the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed 24 -unit residential project as well as their expected impacts to the surrounding roadway network. Access to the development was provided on Santa Clara Avenue on the north side of the project site and at Avalon Avenue on the south side of the project site. Eighty -five percent of project traffic was presumed to access the site via the north entrance, and fifteen ,percent was presumed to access the site via the south entrance, The 2011 study determined that the project would generate 230 net daily trips, including 18 AM pear hour trips and 24 PM peak hour trips. The study also determined that added traffic from the proposed project would result In a significant' impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street, Mitigation measures designed to mitigate this impact were recommended. The recommended measures were a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide 2 -way left-turn lane. Additional background information can be found in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes project at 1$84 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. Project Description The proposed project description based on the revised site plan includes 24 single - family dwelling units on an approximately 5-acre site. The project site 'Is located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue, east of Wright Street, and 75A -281 KOA CORPORATION • PLANNING a ENGINEERING currently is occupied by one dwelling unit and an orange grove. The project would be accessed via a single entrance on the north side of the project site, an extension of Lyon Street, There would be a "crash gate" on the south side of the development for emergency vehicle access only. There would be no public access to the development from Avalon Avenue an the south side. The project is expected to generate a total of 230 net daily trips, including 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 24 trips during the PM peak hour, Figure I shows the revised project site plan. Analysis The following presents an analysis of traffic volumes and intersection operating conditions with the change in project site plan (closure of the south entrance to public access). This change affects the project trip distribution, resulting In more project trips enteringlexiting the site via the north entrance on Santa Clara Avenue. The change in trip distribution affects the following intersections for the "With Project " 'scenarios only (Year 2013 and Year 2035): • East Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street • East Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access (Lyon Street) • Avalon Avenue at Wright Street Average daily traffic on the following street segments is also affected by the change in project trip distribution: • East Santa Clara Avenue between Wright Street and Project Access (Lyon Street) • Wright Street south of Santa Clara Avenue • Avalon Avenue east of Wright Street Trip Distribution The anticipated trip distribution for the revised project is presented in Figures 2 and 3 for the Intersections affected by the change in project access. These figures indicate the proportion (percent) of project traffic that will use the street segments and turning movements indicated. Forecast Intersection Traffic Volumes Near -Term Future and Long -Range Buildout (2035) AM and PM peak hour project- related traffic volumes Increases, and peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project for intersections affected by the change in trip distribution are shown in Figure 4. Future traffic levels In the project vicinity are expected to be changed by the amounts shown on this figure. AVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -282 N LEGEND F --- i POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION ldauouM�. Not to Scale arts4o,oar[Sarnva iiomw sn. n.�w,oirilsln�m.govon_ng� ,m KOA CORPORATION City of SantaAna Figure l < ' rtANNING x ENCmteeatru= TAVA'HomesTraffic Impact Study - South Entrance Closure Site Plan —�7 88' 60'. x 524 423^ p22g1 z0° M1 2 100' 4v , a �E7YU cr�uv' �r 3 � ei I � la0 F a. 12" e. a, 2s s I 17 70' " 18 se's led -A. ' �16 '05' 15 71 'b 99 5 r sJ 20 A 29' 8 ] Ll 14 as 1 m ! OAS r rn LY 57REE7 P. 761' r� b I .nrl a m t. w N LEGEND F --- i POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION ldauouM�. Not to Scale arts4o,oar[Sarnva iiomw sn. n.�w,oirilsln�m.govon_ng� ,m KOA CORPORATION City of SantaAna Figure l < ' rtANNING x ENCmteeatru= TAVA'HomesTraffic Impact Study - South Entrance Closure Site Plan PLANNING KOA CORPORATION & ENGINEERING FIGURE 2- INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION aJ in a 60% Santa Clara Ave 25% h0/ 15% Avalon Ave v1 4J �L FIGURE 3 — OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -284 4 3/2 1/4 --� r „= ti v1I 216 5/3 ] Fs 16 9/ I -"1 1 P'I JantaU3raAyt _ IProject Only —j f Peak HourTrafficVolumes 24 „1!' I ]11 19 /r9> Loa S as I �2 2 /316 7911001 f-40137 45/1,3 l x4139 / 011 279 {1 I 135 21`!25 _22 113 0/3 1 21/4 IM 182 Buildout With Project Peak HourTrafficVolumes U,9a 296 1505 —n — 351 /327 z,6 39 5/3] rat. 0 Sang 0sra Ave Future With Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes b. /0 291 1023 , ,. 0,� Lo0 Ui�fL2 1781514 —1• 13181371 3331554 —> �i 3651416 F9 911121 (4'9/44 2{fi 531977 WTAVAIlomas Site PlnnVUnlysisViNmsN0ll6 >I_ %pp'e'.�I 55/14.1 F4145 I 5 /i� r915 all s In.AMMINU x eNGlNtea IPIC >> OI I � LEGEND Project Site 0 Study Intersection XX /XX AM1PM Peak Hour Volumes Ui�fL2 NOT 1'0 SCALE Mflai6lumX,11 531977 WTAVAIlomas Site PlnnVUnlysisViNmsN0ll6 >I_ %pp'e'.�I 14,-OA :.'yORPOR ..Tip City of Santa Ana Figure k' TAVA Homes Traffic Impact Study - South Entrance Closure AM /PM Peak HourTraffcYclumes s In.AMMINU x eNGlNtea IPIC >> KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Forecast Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service The future "WITH Project" intersection level of service in the AM and PM peak hours for Intersections affected by the change in trip distribution is summarized In Table I below. The bulldout "WITH Project" intersection level of service for the "WITH Project" conditions is summarized in Table 2. Table 1 AMIPM Peak Hour Intersection Performance I Future WITH Project Conditions Intersection I AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS z Delayz LOS? Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 14.5 B 34.3 D Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.3 B 13.9 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 9.9 A 9.6 A Note It For intersections affected by change In project trip distribution Note 2: LOS= Level of Service; Delay' in Seeonds/Vehfcle Average Table 2 AMIPM Peale Hour Intersection Performance I Buildout WITH Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay2 LOS Delayz LOS Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street 18.0 C 84.9 F Santa Clara Avenue at Project Access 11.7 B 14.8 B Wright Street at Avalon Avenue 10.3 B 9.8 A Note I: For Intersections effected by change in project trip distribution Note 2r LOS = Level of Service; Delay In Seconds /Vehicle Average Forecast Street Segment Conditions Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the future With Project and Buildout With Project average daily traffic (ADT) voltunes, respectively, for the roadways affected by the change in project trip distribution. Tables 3 and 4 present the daily traffic volume segment analysis for these street segments. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -286 KOA CORPORATION M PLANNING & ENGINEERING FIGURES — FUTURE WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FIGURE 6 — $UILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -287 KOA CO"ORATION aPLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 3 Roadway Segment Future With Project Level of Service Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Future LOS "D" Future Street Between And ADT Capacity Level of Volume Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 9,370 11,300 C Wright Street Santa Clara Ave 17t' Street 2,962 511)00 A Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 423 2;000. A Table 4 Roadway Segment Buildout With Project Level of Service Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution. Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these Intersections. Traffic Impacts created by the project can be Calculated by comparing the "Future With Project" conditions to the "Future Without Project' conditions, or the "Buildout With Project" conditions to the "Buildout Without Project!' conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Sonta Ana ", March 14, 2011, by ISOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -288 Future LOS "D" Future Street Between And AD7 Capacity Level of Volume Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street. Lyon Street 12,493 1 1,300 E Wright Street Santa Clara Ave 17' Street 3,335 5,000 B Avalon Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 415 2,000 A Significant Impacts Table 5 presents a comparison of existing and future study scenarios for intersections affected by the change in project trip distribution. Table 6 presents a comparison of existing and buildout study scenarios for these Intersections. Traffic Impacts created by the project can be Calculated by comparing the "Future With Project" conditions to the "Future Without Project' conditions, or the "Buildout With Project" conditions to the "Buildout Without Project!' conditions. Significant traffic impacts are determined using the criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Sonta Ana ", March 14, 2011, by ISOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -288 I {CAA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 5 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Near Term Future Project Conditions Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -289 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant Intersection Without Project With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS r Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 14.4 B 14.5 B 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A NA N/A 11.3 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street/ 9.$ A 9.8 A 9.9 A 0.1 No Avalon Avenue PM Peak Hour Delay LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 33.5 D 343 D 0.8 No Wright Street Santa Clara Project Access ss NA N/A NA N/A 13.9 B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note I: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =Level of Service TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -289 KOA CO"ORATION PLANNING & ENGINE @I ING Table 6 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Builclout Project Conditions Note 1: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project' and "Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study Intersections as a result of the project. The Intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted In the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (2011) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant Impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -290 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant intersection Without Project With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peale Hour Delay I LOS ? Delay I LOS a Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 17.9 C 18.0 C 0.1 No Wright Street Santa s NA N/A NIA N/A 11.7 B N/A No Project t Access Access Wright Street/ 9.8 A 10.3 B 10.3 B 0.0 No Avalon Avenue PM Peale Hour Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 81:3 F 84.9 F 3.6 Yes Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ Project Access NA NIA N/A N/A 14.8 B N/A No Wright Street / 9.5 A 9.8 A 9.8 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note 1: Delay in seconds per vehicle average; Note 2: LOS =level of Service Based on the intersection levels of service shown in Tables 5 and 6, for the "With Project' and "Without Project" conditions, and using the significant impact criteria presented in the report "Traffic Impact Study for the TAVA Homes Project at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the City of Santa Ana ", there is expected to be a significant impact to one of the study Intersections as a result of the project. The Intersection of Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street is expected to be impacted In the PM peak hour for the buildout condition as a result of the proposed project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (2011) traffic study. Project Recommendations Based on the results of the intersection and street segment analysis, the proposed project has a significant Impact and is subject to mitigation measures at the following location: Santa Clara Ave at Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -290 14COA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Stop delay on Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street is expected to Increase by 3.6 seconds in the PM peak hour under buildout conditions due to the proposed project. Level of Service is at LOS F under these conditions. The proposed project contributes 9 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour. The poor level of service reported for Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street Is flue to the northbound left movement of vehicles turning from the minor leg (Wright Street) onto the major street (Santa Clara Avenue). Mitigation measures are recommended at this location to maintain an adequate Intersection level of service. Possible measures include Installation of a traffic signal or by construction of a roundabout or wide (14 -foot) 2 -way left -turn lane. These measures are the same as recommended in the, previous (2011) traffic study. Traffic signal warrants were tested for the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street. Under near -term traffic conditions, the 8 -hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant was met. Under buildout with project traffic conditions, the Peak Hour Warrant and the 8 -hour Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant were both met. Conclusions The intersection level of service analysis conducted for the proposed site plan change and revised project trip distribution, determined that there is a significant impact to one intersection, Santa Clara Avenue at Wright Street, as a result of the project. This is the same conclusion as reached in the previous (201 1) traffic study: Mitigation measures will be required at this intersection. Recommended measures include a traffic signal, roundabout, or wide (14 -foot) 2 -way left -turn lane. Again, the recommended mitigation measures are the same as recommended in the previous (201 1) traffic study. Expected street segment level of service on Santa Clara Avenue 'between Grand Avenue and Tustin Avenue conducted for the revised project trip distribution under Bui clout With Project conditions is poor (Level E). The expected LOS L- conditions are due to a combination of existing traffic volumes and ambient traffic growth, not as a result of added traffic volumes from the project. KOA Corporation hopes that the review and recommendations conducted for the revised site plan and trip distribution for the TAVA Homes project will .assist the City in evaluating the potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed' project. KOA is available to assist the City In any further traffic analysis of the project area as needed. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -291 �r ro 2 � C 'N O ma N ^ .N C G L N w A" •r L V •r 55O Gr •i ar EXHIBIT 14 75A -292 0 4 C N O �u N W w u e m C v ° C E e s C O E NNNro ' W O p .G bA i+ lL ova c 9 1/1 fi O c b -OC xV N H C4 as $a O r m W .0 7 G m m to C N y lei L CL m . c a IL a o w., �a o c C a� N 5 CL m m m m F N > o > 0 Q O Q O d Tl a + O e L iN' to C 4 m C 91 N Cc '3 e a y o m m n m ° v a CL ',DL ° E p i u U O O tbn ro U N C '� N bO. N :a Z q L 'O m 'd c c '-6° .�'" 'O m N p C.. W ro '� -'3 w e a.. c m .gywp v 1n W, m > o v mu O O :° G •C , +" +. 'C u. O m C 7 ro N vVi M O' a+ O C v N c m�° w C C C ++ m a c O c e `N V N Qa 4 w p .0 U m In .N U O `- 'C C, wro, A m m `� E a ro N u. a m° m an o N C ft} '� ?i !� CJ E O 'yCry C N O O a w G yb0 V Y 4= O O °�i T1 Z7 qNq 10 h'0 j •c C C p�O M1l O) u�'°i is ryC� 75A -293 a N C O C W 4`. a G O C v E t a O W w o, c c R L `a w �apl Q G O A� Ci Z T yy N y^ C W Q m Q Q W7 ° � m a ° a c WU W a U m CL a c 0 Sao w ma c ° � '° `� .00 v v m x:'c a c °° i m a a a s MR - 0 u '. E E � @2 ...N Wuo al O. � a C t/ iN% w ..0 a ova 0 p a N ° o u E ^ � V E ' s N a m E o c 0 'u'm a o c c % a . { ° °- Eo m - m Ac 6-0 220��amw4° c •m c � vE m a v .@ °3 c° S m i as n c y m a a m = m vt�� vL° v E c v orry ¢ •� d o c o 7071. c •}r N �+ C iJ N a y 'n N '% 6 Cw p °- " *, °-; ;3 • s w L a °- m 3 -. ✓�i. C •. `o. `° ,O a N c c. n 43 ° °% ff o a O U O o a w a o ro ' n O '9E§O lz ° m -on a 7 •- C 'G aa ° a u ro � ° -E . G is o � E r o rL .y n 5 w o : a E 4,) .9 U U4, � F -or r ° E � o - n e a Eu a c= a v u o J3 �a' �'. v m v `a =w E u ,4 � c� ° m v ° a° u v tici m a ii � a E c..v °° ¢ � Yn -C a. o a p sg. a 5, E a ai iu. o `a E a E n .a '3 a w��NLwraaN�sro�sx Ervcaoo°P n mF' F a °'✓- 'S w ° a c r v c� c a a 3'o a ._ , m 3 3 +Q Z. yr ,. a ll hh °. m a v� C3 me h Y 1L .9 E 75A -294 2 r 8 a a Q 75A -295 L ao 0 ro v C 5 m ';n a l p m m m m m c 4- co v v a v v �° am c a o n c a o oa e Q o ° a o¢ a o w a z 3 a m ~ a Q 0 CL as m C w a a ° v o v v a •� ro c c m A o a °m v o v d a n ..� m m e O E. a oc ME w a ,ro Li m .c '.p ` ru O ° h c..•N 's.. c O ro CL "q�? u8 °. ,w .E q,,v. ° 'a o. q Q •� C aEi > �. cT'uo W m o 2 o a d c aTj C°•. b W 0 !]u m Ul °m. N U T .G 5 m. 'un.mc ur °- n`gE�o..v u �,m.� v " -'.'.n a N '•m a v, 'h c m e .0 ti q_ as N a'�° —° .`� 3 m a 'm•' 1'n E m u m bd H 4 .c vi ate c C Y b aU a � C �. a E E O 5 N +m_ c a C o by G 5 'O Q O E c m V m m C Q E J �. C �p ° v ea-� Q v ,_ a m m, ac• m— o_ m as ,ac o an yu al O. 4 4 4° O p•'O' �a.. m m G N V Ic 0 K O N O C w N C tat,,�� C uo fl. G G o C m R N G O ma m O d O Vl ° 3mm �+ '° _L^ ch C m ao c �° °u ° v E m u ° 0 E ° °0~wuv��NO E mcti��`oaC� °Ev`� °•o. E 6 4 m °u Ya ou u ti v m v °u Q° 4 a ro` q m Q v 4 75A -295 A U �O b 4 o v m $ a s �L 'p ar cn y �a s 75A -296 r Q U �a 0 M NO v L a 'b —° p w a to CL 0+� 4 � d o e s0 d u o b w bb a a a CL a CL O m 4 ¢ O Q O < O ¢ O U 3a a p. �+ ,C O 47 a r W... -.. Y ..� V u . a� o v '!o N Ew E . v b p + E E c v E m H curo'o{�I Et z E mn o c o c° ro16 v n o`C a °�° ¢we N U' E ul ro +a+ W y : } N 1i e s U c m E A p ¢ s ro u °c o m y �°,� k ro v M !-. a a a "C O. ro C i s !!1 E S. =J L� .Y bA {L� a Ytl N O E *� 4- p a U ±+ 7 Y ro p G O 'n9' 'r a Q. '^ bA E d '.e a s ?. w N d0 G a V 'O M Q e u c. c. a m a y ti m is rG YO '� ro' O 'i M `m c� m a m a p i a p ,j o Y ro c . V Q. 'i7 -e a m .� fv ,,tiS Lp pM 4l C L a Q pQ 0 +� O c Y C Qr i y w v a s a c o ro Q v. ° o o ±° E Cc a m e G v c Q 3 c Q c c Y a C E C yr a d m e0 E e? o v c O Q E a m a m E ob u a c 0 m :a a m E a gi m 75A -296 r Q U 2 u`. �3 a .c• ti V 4 H O E N cn e 75A -297 a a �r c' m me XL E "7 0 aCO o coy z 3 0 u A � a °A 8 CL U G m o a m a c 0. ° a a a o a o $ 'm m 3 aao c ro: ;° E b u N o C. a+ O a E ?�' a u a 'O A a x -p a q m a O b G O N K a 5..�..r'' 1] G ._ m .0 N a m es W L 1� - a E p, a M a a N N "' °' C O a v v a. 's uu, an c c G - .g . a a y E Yr i L +ri a a a 3¢ a E .t a N , a N~ u> ro o G ..r a. a �° C Q b m �„ E L m ,j°- 4 0 'o. a '- m d O Ti p E G 5 W c C ^m a ;;�//�� (ryq %1 W ,N N m V ?� m u t a s N .g v Q COL E G m, «� — ... E� ;i" !E C =a ES L .a0 G .aC ' p y 'n9 0 .w tlml "' o -a p a 73 p' C cJ G �t H. N' iJ in a .i.. i t'> " yu„ G a > N a C O a a O E D 41 a R. G GGo qqEii C O C iii q" O a iJ vi G ro p N °'i a ,ro vi �? vmi > C m a O u lC+ E a �5n. a.—o- L 'u y� oj y7 C N Q u E d$ c U bA o o a m G a u rd E u' W o w m Lo ? a �L r+N b 4A ' . v w o Rn] m .- L � � a m a M, - a ta N n a a v E G- E E a ac c a ao z °� L° a a° m E u " Q a m�—°•'nnroa�c"m'E^�n 1 p:c..2�on.ro+«.,D? ��p•t�7.8'� -° ourE�u w u C p o CL a L u z U L a �- L a a a v� "- � G m a "o u +�. a L a M 'Na n._�u m. G�vu u 3�mm�wu mA a 'a 75A -297 2 u. b O U Q 'a E y O b u. N Ot vi 75A -298 as R C O U CL a 0 0 •a @ C Q 10 C aA v m u° CL ¢ O •¢ d. c o c 4 m E Z a a .ip • ci bA C Gd m m A W w a o d � d L O KC 4 KS O C O q gL° u m a ro w� m e e v aro ti 0 Da Y. �a W 6 C m N . O A .p ` m N Val o ro o *' _y �..v o .� a �' 3 � � v .°�� `. •cu � � a-.m a m.,m t�/1 N m fi'.S w 0 w oo £ CE o a d) w E . o c t Y�d' ' Q _ u a a° E au, �E a 0 d C. m O y...'c _ .d 'N. t9 +2+ ro a +co . u c U t0 p U C N W IQ 0 - +L.. t� C b N E �� n di po �q 4 O a% w' ro yi v a ., u S .VdLni U vl �C c Q '0 r ++ m � Y -v. O ,N 'o a s a+ a m bb o O +a.� a "E. c Lc° :o m .c E v m,� Oa d c F Y c C .^'i o p ,c avm� 3ym�' W°© 0r cqi� Q c9 c m Y O Y a ° a`i.Eo �@ E Q'" c L °.'. a m. ° L w E C :O O E o'—�' c ... U .v C O C m m C 4- a adz W ,VCS E d d a0i N c W —• .� W 'G .r .0 •0L m a p O� N O. m m ,m ay.>, aroj — .0 Y 5 c p VOLT C b�A •Q '.�. ro C� w N> u C' G 6.. bb b�U N G r a M d O mC 0 O p UC3 [J C 4 ro a O CL on, 1 O E e m £�. o E..E lVl7 a 3 Q vl c, d v 'a �i 0 a• .�. 5 v ro ._ m .c o_ 3 a 3 N m uo d Z a 'a Z y.. E u 4 V C¢ G m a 75A -298 as R C O U \ j \ \ )) 0 ./ 4 a � }k . ka t IT \kJ \f f ^ §!$ a}/ � ) � , \5 ® \ . \ \/. \ \0 o . % \{{. k i o \\< } � 7 $45 \; {« ®2\ / \)\ 75A-299 75A -300 ROH — 03/04/14 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01 AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; APPROVING VARIANCE NOS. 2012 -04(A) AND 2012 -04(B) AS CONDITIONED; AND, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17231) AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Mr. Bob Odle, representing the property owners, Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University, is requesting approval of a final environmental impact report (FEIR), two variances, and a vesting tentative tract map in order to allow a 23 -unit single - family development at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue. B. In June 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger site. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2014, and voted to recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) for the Sexlinger Farmhouse as conditioned. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -301 Page 1 of 15 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012- 02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned. D. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. E. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, the recommended actions have been reviewed through an environmental impact report, EIR No. 2011 -01. Sections 15080 through 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 7) guide the process for the preparation of an environmental impact report. 1. The EIR, as required by CEQA, contains 1) an initial study; 2) a project description; 3) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 4) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this EIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. The scope of the EIR evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. 2. The City prepared a draft EIR and published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Orange County Register as well as posted the NOA at the Orange County Clerk's office on October 30, 2012. The City circulated the draft EIR for a 45 -day public review between November 1, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The draft EIR was available for public review at the Santa Ana City Hall, the City of Santa Ana Main Library, and on the City's website. 3. Comments were received during the public review period. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency for the project, has reviewed all comments received on the document. 4. As a result of the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been provided to address potential environmental impacts. A list of these mitigation measures are found within the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Summary. Mitigation measures Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -302 Page 2 of 15 have been outlined to address potential impacts on geology, hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and circulation, cultural resources, air quality and biological resources. 5. At its regular meeting of February 10, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, following a duly noticed public hearing, voted to recommend to the City Council that it adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011- 01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. 6. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana has fully considered this matter, and all public testimony, at a duly noticed public hearing held at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 4, 2014. F. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(a) to allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41 -234 requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet. SAMC section 41- 239(g) requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence. SAMC section 41- 1320(b) requires the residence to provide a two -car garage. The applicant requires reductions in each of these standards to keep the historic Farmhouse in its current location. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638 in order to grant a variance, have been established: i. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -303 Page 3 of 15 variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A-304 Page 4 of 15 Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. G. Applicant has also requested approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow one new lot in the development with less than 50 feet of street frontage in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. 1. Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback, while the applicant is proposing to reduce the street frontage to 41 feet for Lot No. 12. 2. The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41- 638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: i. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five - acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, a County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum street standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -305 Page 5 of 15 The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owners. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owners right to develop their property. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of a vacant parcel from the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -306 Page 6 of 15 H. Applicant has further requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) to allow the subdivision of the five (5) acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. 1. To adopt a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, California Government Code Section 66474 requires the following findings: The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the District Center designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the low density residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. Although two lots will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012 -04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five - acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single - family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -307 Page 7 of 15 iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact to fish or wildlife that may be associated with this project. V. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious impacts resulting from this project. vi. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site as the streets will be public streets. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any CEQA review or approval, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -308 Page 8 of 15 Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 prepared with respect to this project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration of the record as a whole and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 meets all requirements of CEQA, including, but not limited to: finding that Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 adequately addresses the impacts of the project; that it identifies and through the mitigation monitoring program imposes all feasible mitigation measures which will reduce all of the significant environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance; discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; identifies the environmentally superior alternative; and based upon all of which and the record as a whole the City Council chooses to approve the project. The City Council hereby certifies and approves Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and the mitigation monitoring program attached herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, and directs that a Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby: A. Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approves the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. B. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(a) as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(b) as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. D. Approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned in Exhibit "C attached hereto and incorporated herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated March 4, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -309 Page 9 of 15 Section 5. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this day of 2014 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney m Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -310 Page 10 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2014 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -311 Page 11 of 15 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(a) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(a), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 5A6842 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(b) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(b), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 73A-6313 Conditions for Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) Should the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this vesting tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the vesting tentative tract map. A. Planning Division 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. Any amendment to the vesting tentative tract map must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the map must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. This requirement shall also be incorporated into the CC &R's for the project. 4. The CC &R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. 5. A solid block wall not less than six feet in height must be provided around the project perimeter. In the event the applicant is unable to secure approval from the adjacent property owners, a revised fence plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 6. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. March 4, 2014 PAGE 2OF2 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 9. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 2010 -47). 10. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC &R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Authority, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 12. The interior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse shall be rehabilitated to building code standards in order to return the structure to a habitable condition. 13. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, a covenant shall be recorded that requires the existing and replacement oranges trees be maintained on the Sexlinger Farmhouse site. 14. Landscaped parkways, designed to conform to the City's residential street standards shall be provided on the project's streets. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 15. The exterior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage shall be rehabilitated in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 16. A minimum of 16 orange trees shall be maintained and /or planted on the Sexlinger Farmhouse parcel at all times. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014) 76M' 5 75A -316 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Response to Comments on Additional Alternatives and Green House Gas Analysis (January 2014 Additional Alternatives and Green House Gas Analysis (December 2013) Sexlinger Orchard Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Appendix A - Initial Study Appendix B - Technical Reports Air Quality Memo with References Biological Resources Technical Memorandum o612011 Cultural Technical Memo /Hybrid Development Alternative FINAL Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Stormwater Hydrology Study Noise Analysis Memo with Table Phase I Update Memo Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation TAVA Supplemental Cultural Technical Memo (December, 2011) Traffic Technical Memorandum Sexlinger Orchard Hybrid Alternative Traffic Appendix C Sexlinger Revised Cultural Report: Comments and Responses - JanuarV2012 Sexlinger Draft EIR: Comments and Responses - October 2011 EXHIBIT B 75A -317 75A -318 CORRESPONDENCE Exhibit C 75A -319 C A L I F® R N I A P R E S E R V A T 1 0 N F O U N D A T I O N February 19, 2014 Mr. Vince C. Fregoso, AICP Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, M -20 Post Office Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 E -Mail: vfregoso @santa- ana.org Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008041172) Additional Analysis Dated December 19, 2013 Dear Mr. Fregoso: On behalf of California Preservation Foundation (CPF), I am writing to express our continued concern over the proposed Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project. CPF is the only statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of California's diverse cultural and architectural heritage. Established in 1977, CPF works with its extensive network to provide statewide leadership, advocacy and education to ensure the protection of California's diverse cultural heritage and historic places. We are pleased that the original home and garage will be retained and restored as described in the Additional Analysis of the Historic Preservation Alternative. However, we do not agree with the conclusion that this Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The original 5 acre orchard was the major character defining feature of the property, yet only ten trees are proposed for retention in the Alternative. Ten trees are insufficient to convey the significance of this historic family citrus ranch, that was "once common and is now a rare surviving example in the City ". A small parcel does not convey the "historic context and historical information" of the importance of citrus farming to Santa Ana's history. The parcel size must be larger. Precedent set by Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 suggests that 50 %, or 2.5 acres, is an acceptable size of land to convey the historic significance of this property. 5 310 STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 -3205 415.495.0349 PHONE 415.495.0265 FAX C P F@CA LI FORNIAP RES ER V ATION.O RG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATION ORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES Chades Chase, AIA, Son Francisco PRESIDENT VICE - PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Diane Kane, PhD, La Jolla VICE - PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Thomas Peary, Santa Monica TREASURER David Wilkinson, Woodland SECRETARY Kelly Sutherlln- McLeod, FAIA, Long Beach Ray Adamyo Pomona Andrea Galvin, El Segundo Robert Imber, Palm Springs David Marshall, AIA, San Diego Amy Mlnteer, Esq., Los Angeles Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley Carolyn Beads, PE, San Francisco Jullanne Polanco, Son Francisco Richard Sucre, Son Francisco Sally Zarnowltz, AIA, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Heramon Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at cheitzman @californiapreservation.org or by phone at 415- 495 -0349. Sincerely, Cindy Heitzman Executive Director cc: Save Our Orchard Coalition State Historic Preservation Office 75A -320 75A -321 Dwight and Lowell Schroeder 2332 Old Grand Street Santa Ana, CA 9275 -6963. 714 -547 -3104 February 26, 2013 City Council of the City of Santa Ana. City Hall Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard EIR No. 2011 -01; Variance No. 2012 -04; Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02. Dear Councilmembers. 71,vi rl" 9.6 RI 2: `.ifs Our family has had a long term association with the City of Santa Ana beginning in 1880 when our grandfather first bought farmland in and adjacent to the city. Ultimately, the family farm of 25 acres has been incorporated into the city. We have lived all of our 87 and 88 years on portions of this farm and still maintain a small acreage of orange and avocado trees at our homes along Old Grand Street. We feel that we have a perspective on development within the city that may be of some value in evaluating the subject development. Our family has known and been friends of the Sexlinger family since their arrival to their site in 1914. In her later years, we helped Martha Sexlinger with some of the work of maintaining her grove. Based upon this background, we would like to make various observations that are intended to assist you in evaluating the issues that you are to decide. 1. Martha Sexlinger's intent. During the various previous discussions, some have questioned what Martha's intent was in donating her property to the two Lutheran schools. Her intent can best be described in a generational perspective. It was a common practice among her generation to be very loyal to and supportive of their church. Starting in the 1950's and later, she witnessed her neighbors selling the orange groves for replacement with housing. She knew that many of her friends gave generously to their church and she would be of the same mind. That is, she felt that by donating the land to two of her church's schools, she could avoid the complication of selling to a developer and then donating funds to her church. There is no doubt that she envisioned that her property would be developed as had her neighbor's property, but that the schools would be the beneficiary of the sale. It seems only proper that her wished be respected. 2. Effect of designating the property as "Historic ". When the City Council adopted the designation of "historic" to this property, several consequences resulted. The most significant effect was that the land owner would be required to maintain and preserve the property, without modification, in its prior use as a commercial enterprise for the production and sale of oranges. The historic production of oranges involved many adjuncts to the individual groves. These include the SAVI system for delivering irrigation water and farm cooperatives such as Santiago Orange Growers Association to harvest, process and sell the fruit. There are no such agencies still available in the Santa Ana area. In fact the property today does not have a means of irrigation. It is amazing that the trees have survived so far. To be truly historic, the property would need a flood irrigation system, a means to cultivate the soil for weed control and to provide access for harvest processes and also to provide irrigation furrows. It has been noted that the property today has only about half of the trees that once filled the property. The fact that the trees have been identified as being grafted onto sour or lemon rootstock 75A -322 may explain why so many of the trees were removed in the period of 1950 to 1970. The deadly citrus virus, known as quick decline, spread though orchards in that time frame and devastated some groves with total removal of orange trees with sour rootstock. This means that the trees remaining in this grove are still susceptible to this disease. The historic use of the property was as a commercial endeavor to produce a crop that could be harvested and processed for the market. This can be viable only if the income exceeds the costs of operation. If it were possible to earn a profit, there undoubtedly would be other such operations remaining in this area. It should be obvious that you do not have the power to require a property owner to continue an unsustainable enterprise. 3. Alternative uses that have been proposed. The adoption of the "Historic" status for this property precludes other uses, no matter how desirable they may be. You have an option to rescind the historic designation and then to consider other uses for the property. These other uses could be undertaken by the city or some private company or association. One possible desirable use for the property would be as an agricultural or farming exhibition and learning center. Proponents of this plan have developed proposals for the reconfiguration of the house and trees for various learning activities. They have made major attempts to find an organization that would be willing to finance the purchase of the property and support for the proposed learning activity. It appears that after several months they have not found any group or organization willing to provide the required funds. This leaves the city of Santa Ana as a possible purchaser of the property. 4. If you councilmembers decide that the city should provide funds to purchase, develop and operate the site as an exhibit and learning center, you must have available to you, reliable and in -depth studies of the initial and annual operating costs. You should have a plan of operation for which the possible benefits can be evaluated as to their appeal to the citizens of Santa Ana. Have such studies been made? Sincerely, Dwight and Lowell Schroeder. 75A -323 75A -324 July 16, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: EIR 2011 -01 and VTTM No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 1723 1) Sexlin eg r Properly Ladies & Gentlemen: I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and familiar with the above referenced property. The property is located adjacent to existing housing and a park as well as the Fairhaven Cemetery, which provides plenty of open space to support the 24 lots. The highest and best use for the property is to be developed into residential lots, which is what the property owner, well within their rights, has chosen to do. At this time, I am in support of the City's approval of this project as long as CEQA and corresponding mitigation measures have been addressed accordingly. Sincerely, A � iane Fr cin � 2402 N. Oakmont Ave Santa Ana, CA 92706 75A -325 75A -326 t ;,77317; February 27, 2014 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana Post Office Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Project EIR Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714,513.5100 main 714,513.5130 main fax www. sheppard mu I I i n. oom 714.424.2821 direct drosenthal @sheppardmullin.com File Number: 0010 - 174415 This letter is submitted on behalf of the Old Orchard Conservancy ( "Conservancy') in opposition to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Sexlinger Orchard Project ( "Project "). The Conservancy has participated actively in hearings on the Project since demolition of the historic Orchard was originally proposed. In accordance with the last City Council hearing on this matter, the Conservancy made a multi - million dollar offer ( "Conservancy Offer") to purchase the property in 2013. The Project proponents summarily rejected the Conservancy Offer. The Project currently proposes to retain the historic Farmhouse on site, but to demolish more than 95 percent of the equally historic Orchard. Except for approximately 10 trees, the Orchard will be replaced by 22 new homes with new landscaping. This letter summarizes and explains the continued defects in the proposed Project and the EIR, which require them to be returned to staff for analysis of a true preservation alternative like the 50 -50 Alternative proposed by the Conservancy. 1. The Project Has A Significant Unmitigated Impact On The Historic Orchard. The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse are designated together as a "Key" historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Demolition of more than 95% of the Orchard clearly has a significant and unmitigated impact under CEQA. The Project does not address whether the handful of trees in the yard of an under quarter -acre lot will be enough to self - pollinate (they will not), or whether it will function as an Orchard. A single row of trees does not preserve either the Orchard or the agricultural setting of the Farmhouse. The conclusion that retention of 10 trees maintains the "charact&' of the Orchard is patently unreasonable historically, biologically and visually, as well as being contradicted by the EIR itself. Put another way, a single row of trees on a 10,000 acre lot would never be eligible for designation as an historic resource under the City Code or CEQA. 2. The EIR Must Evaluate An Orchard Preservation Alternative. The EIR tries to avoid the need for a true Orchard Preservation Alternative by inaccurately concluding the 10 -tree 75A -327 . 17 17 o 2 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 2 alternative will avoid significant impacts. This conclusion is clearly inconsistent with the conclusion elsewhere in the same EIR that preserving 20 -30 trees on larger acreage would have significant adverse impacts on the Orchard. In fact, before the Project proponents agreed to retain any portion of the Orchard, the EIR concluded that preserving double the number of trees would fail to preserve the historic character of the Orchard, based on the identical list of characteristics. To date, the EIR has never considered an alternative that preserves more than 5 to 10 percent of the Orchard (2 to 6 percent of the trees) in an otherwise totally developed urban landscape. The Conservancy has proposed an alternative that provides ample return to the Project proponent, and preserves 50 percent of the Orchard as a biologically and visually intact historic landscape. 3. The 50 -50 Alternative Is Environmentally Superior Under CEQA, The 50 -50 Preservation Alternative proposed by the Conservancy would preserve the Farmhouse and 50 percent of the Orchard, with the remaining 2.5 acres devoted to residential use. This Alternative would avoid or mitigate impacts to the historic Orchard by preserving a large enough portion of the Orchard to be biologically sustainable, and to convey visually the important history of small - scale citrus orchards in the City of Santa Ana. It would avoid impacts to the Farmhouse and would preserve an adequate setting under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. It will also avoid or mitigate the loss of prime agricultural soils on the site, a significant impact which has not been acknowledged or studied in the EIR. The Project meets the requirements for prime agricultural soils under CEQA, with a Storie Rating of 90 and Class I capability, and it is not classified under the State Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. The loss of prime agricultural soil is a significant impact, which must be mitigated, if feasible — not simply ignored or disregarded because the property is not appropriate for a Williamson Act contract. The 50 -50 Alternative also complies with the current R -1 Zoning of the property, which allows "fruit trees and any agricultural crop." Additional information about the importance of this prime agricultural soil and its soil sequestration value has been provided in a previously submitted letter by soils expert, Guy Stivers, dated May 10, 2013. 4. The 50 -50 Alternative Provides The Owner With Substantial Returns And Is Not A Taking. The 50 -50 Alternative does not require the property owners to operate a citrus orchard. It allows the owners to sell the property to a single developer or multiple purchasers, for its full market value. The only difference between the proposed project and the 50 -50 Alternative is that the owner will sell half of the property for small -lot residential development and the remaining half will be sold as an historic Farmhouse and Orchard. The owners have already received a multi - million dollar offer from the Conservancy for a Preservation Alternative. The fact that the owners might be able to make a larger return from demolishing a "Key" city landmark does not make the 50 -50 Alternative a taking. In fact, under all U.S. and California precedent, a property owner must have no beneficial economic use of the property for a taking to occur. The Project proponent has submitted no economic information at all, much less data supporting a claim for taking. Where a property owner can receive more than two million dollars in compensation for property received as a gift, while also respecting the community's heritage, it is a win -win situation, not a taking. 75A -328 • • Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 3 5. The Current Condition Of The Orchard Is Not Relevant Under CEQA. The Project proponents have argued that the Orchard is not in good condition, and therefore does not qualify for preservation. Under CEQA, the relevant baseline for the Orchard is the date of the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") in 2011. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid exactly what has occurred here — destruction of valuable environmental resources by neglect or deliberate indifference. The letter from Arborgate Consulting ( "Letter ") was based on a 2013 site visit that, apparently, confirmed the age of the Orchard and the lack of watering and care for a number of years. It provided no useful information about the health of the Orchard in 2011 when the NOP was issued. The Letter is full of opinions which the author was not qualified to give, including opinions on the highest and best use of the property, public interest in citrus history and future objections to potential pesticide use. The letter also suggested the property could not "make a go" as an orchard unless it was enlisted in the Williamson Act, without acknowledging the property is likely eligible for participation in the parallel Urban Agriculture Incentives Zone Act for smaller urban properties. Although the Letter offered Arborgate's opinion that it was "unreasonable" to expect the property owners to make money growing citrus, the Letter gave no opinion on the value of the property for sale as part of the 50 -50 Alternative, or any other preservation alternative. It is therefore irrelevant to any of the issues under CEQA. 6. The Project Is Not Needed To Meet RHNA Housing Goals. The City's RHNA housing goals have recently been revised to reduce the total number of required units in all categories to 204 between 2014 and 2021. The number of "above moderate" or "move up" homes required over the next seven years is only 90. The City Planning Department advised the Planning Commission that the goal of 90 new "above moderate" units could easily be met without this Project. Reducing the number of units to 10 or 12, while preserving the Orchard, would have no effect on the City's ability to meet RHNA housing goals, and would also achieve the Project Objective of providing "move up" housing. 7. The Project Does Not Qualify For A Variance. The Project has applied for a variance in street frontage of almost 20 percent for one of the interior Lots, The need for a variance could be avoided by redesigning the lot layout or reducing the number of lots. The City attempts to justify the variance by arguing that the City's street standards are "a special circumstance applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings." There is absolutely no evidence of any "special circumstance' involved in applying the City's street standards to a flat rectangular five -acre lot. The findings for the variance do not identify any privileges or property rights that would be affected by strict compliance with the City's standards, except the potential loss of residential units. There is no evidence in the record that constructing the number of residential units proposed by the Project proponents is a property right or privilege, or that the City's standards cannot be accommodated by redesign. 8. The City's Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Plan And Conditions Must Reflect The Actual Approvals. The documents presented to the City Planning Commission did not require preservation of the Farmhouse, did not identify timing or responsibility for restoration of the Farmhouse, and incorrectly described a number of factual items. These defects were described at the hearing, and should be corrected before any final approvals. 75A -329 ` NT;;4 U 417.fl ik Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 4 9. The Conservancy Has Been Frustrated By The City's Delay In Processing The Project. The Conservancy has asked the City to consider a true preservation alternative since the first hearings on the Project. The DER issued in 2011 failed to acknowledge that the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse was an historic resource, although documentation was submitted in support of this finding. After the City Council designated the Orchard and Farmhouse as a "Key" historic resource in 2012, the DER was revised to consider and reject preservation of one -half acre of the Orchard and relocation of the Farmhouse. The DER was continued to allow discussion of purchase, culminating in the owners' rejection of the Conservancy's multi- million dollar offer in mid -2013. Between July and December 2013, the DER was revised again at the owners' request to reduce the proposed preservation area to less than one - quarter acre with no Farmhouse relocation. At no point during this entire multi -year process was any alternative considered that preserved any significant part of the Orchard, even though the 50 -50 Alternative was proposed by the Conservancy, to both the owners and City staff, well in advance of the 2013 DER revisions. The Project has been delayed because the property owners refused to acknowledge the significance of the historic resource, refused to consider preservation once it was designated, and then refused to consider preservation of more than 5 percent of the Orchard. For more than three years, the Conservancy has had one simple request: for the City to add an alternative to the EIR that preserves a substantial portion of the Orchard (with its prime soils) and the Farmhouse in place. If this alternative is economically feasible and environmentally superior, then it must be approved. If this alternative is not economically or environmentally feasible, then it can be rejected. It is a question of evidence to support the City's findings — has the City considered an alternative that minimizes impacts to the historic resource, serves the interests of the community and provides adequate returns to the property owners. Despite having circulated the EIR three times, the City has refused to conduct this basic analysis, which is at the heart of CEQA. cc: Ms. Jeannie Gillett SMRH:418131688.1 75A -330 W ` The r, ,W Conservancy Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bensley Vice - President Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Nick Spain "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural and educational resource for all." (714) 296 -4642 P. O. Box 10038 Santa Ana, California 92711 -0038 February 27, 2014 Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana Post Office Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Project EIR Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) remains committed to its preservation efforts of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orange Orchard in Santa Ana. The time has finally come when you, the Santa Ana City Council, will hold the public hearing that will decide the fate of our city's last intact example of our citrus and agricultural history and heritage. Your decision can ensure that the designation you granted this important community resource in June of 2012 will remain intact, so that this unique listing on our Historic Register can be enjoyed for generations to come. There are several points to remember as you hear arguments on both sides of the proposed development project. These include property rights, the process, fairness, and most importantly, the definition of the historic resource and how significance and integrity are related to historic resources. Property Rights- I want to remind you that the only rightthat a property owner can count on, with a development proposal such as this, is the right to the process, not the right to any guaranteed or expected outcome. Fairness- It is also inappropriate to even consider the concept of fairness for the property owner. Any development proposal must be approved based on: its merits; whether it is a positive development for the city or not; does it follow the constraints of City Code and any number of laws that apply to that particular development project? Process- Comments about `how long this has gone on "or "this has gone on long enough and we need to move it forward" have no place in the process of proposed project approval or denial. The process does not have any time constraints or a specific deadline; unless, and until, council approves said project. No one can predict what information or detail will come to light that must be addressed or considered, or how that information may change the course of events. The process takes as long as the process takes. f • rom TWO WE t 75A -331 �ro Page 2 Definition of the Historic Resource- Having a clear understanding of what the historic resource includes is essential to understanding the documents related to this project. I have, repeatedly, heard staff and city officials mistakenly characterize the historic resource as the Sexlinger family home. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The newly proposed 5% Alternative seems to have been developed with just this definition in mind. The resource is the five -acre orchard which includes the Sexlinger family home. Both the orchard and home have historic value and that value is all the more important because they coexist, together as one. Take away one or the other, the orchard or the house, and the resource loses its significance and integrity. In order for a property to be worthy of listing on a local, state or federal historic register as an historic resource, it must have both "significance" and "integrity." Significance has been established as the Sexlinger property meets the requirement of being "fifty (50) or more years old and it is" a site that was "connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare." (Santa Ana Municipal Code: Sec 30 -2) The consultants used the National Park System (NIPS) publications when discussing both the Hybrid Development Alternative (10% Alternative) and the Historic Preservation Alternative (5% Alternative), so I will refer to NIPS definitions here. "The historic integrity of an orchard ... is a measure of physical authenticity, conveyed by extant characteristics or features that were present during the period of significance." (Dolan: 178) In other words, if things still exist at the property that were in existence when the property was a significant part of our history, then the property has integrity. Integrity includes seven aspects as defined by the NIPS. Collectively, these seven aspects provide a measure of authenticity and include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. In addition, there are "13 possible landscape characteristics that can be found in any cultural landscape, including orchards. Not all 13 landscape characteristics are found in every cultural landscape, and the characteristics are not mutually exclusive." (Dolan: 181) 1 do not want to appear to be belaboring the point, but the concepts of significance and integrity are extremely important to understand as you consider the information you have been provided for this project and it's relevance for the approval or denial of the proposed Alternatives. Next I would like to bring your attention to the EIR itself, specifically the requirement for a "range of alternatives "as specified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). "Range of alternatives" refers to different types of alternatives: i.e. a no -build option, the proposed project, and another alternative that falls somewhere in between. Including additional alternatives that accomplish the same outcome, no matter how many you have, does not provide a range of alternatives. That could be defined as a listof alternatives. Currently, the EIR includes two types of alternatives, in other words, two lists. I will call them the "do- not - build- anything" list and the " destroy- the - historic - resource - beyond- recognition" list. On the one hand, four of the Alternatives call for no housing development, whatsoever, at the site; and, on the other hand, the five remaining Alternatives call for most, if not all, of the destruction of this listed historic resource. For example, the newest addition to the EIR, the 5% Alternative, can be added to the " destroy- the - historic - resource - beyond- recognition" Alternatives list. Neither the "do- not- build- anything" Alternatives nor the " destroy- the - historic - resource - beyond- recognition" Alternatives satisfy the project objectives and retain the historic resource. It is a requirement of CEQA that the EIR contain a "range of alternatives." Adding an Alternative that would retain enough of the resource so that its significance and integrity remain intact, would satisfy the CEQA requirement for a "range of alternatives." That is not to say that an Alternative that allows for development www.OldOrchardConservancy.org 75A -332 Page 3 and retains an adequate amount of the historic resource must be the approved Alternative; it simply must be in the EIR document. Lastly, there have been two Technical Memoranda prepared by URS, Inc. for this EIR. One was prepared on October 10, 2012 for the Hybrid Development Alternative (10% Alternative) and the other on November 22, 2013 for the Historic Preservation Alternative (5% Alternative). If you read the findings of these two memos side -by -side you will see the apparent logical inconsistencies in the "analysis" of the 5% Alternative. These inconsistencies lead me to believe that there is a lack of understanding, or knowledge, regarding the importance of significance and integrity as they relate to historic resources and an equal lack of understanding, or knowledge, as to how to follow CEQA guidelines where preservation and mitigation are concerned. As you read through the opening paragraphs of each of these documents and the Background, Description of the Historical Resource, and Significance of the Historical Resource sections, you will find that most of the wording is exactly the same. The Impacts sections for each Alternative are somewhat different. Using NPS publications, including Fruitful Legacy, the consultants refer to the 13 landscape characteristics that specifically apply to orchards as historical resources. Of the thirteen characteristics: one is not applicable to this resource; one is not currently retained at this resource; in the 10% Alternative, three of the landscape characteristics will be "retained" and six will be "lost "; in the 5% Alternative, seven will be "retained" and three will be "impaired." It is easy to see the contradictory issues when the Alternatives are compared in the table below: Lfindscape ; X10 %Alternative 3 ' ' `5 %� %Itern ti !ve' , Char ctens #iC': , �' (Hy rid) `aF w ra P � His onctPreser"ation) ; 4ry °roi /2.acre.with' 30rtrees ,� i, w, °1 ..ti xN', 174 T,a �r7 24 _, £, „ ,�� , acre'with , lmtrees Natural Systems & Retained: Retained: Features `... the Natural Systems and Features of "... the Natural Systems and Features of the the land itself would not be lost, ..." it land itself would not be lost, ... it would not would not "likely be recognizable as what "likely be recognizable as what exists exists currently." currently." Spatial Lost: Impaired: Organization "As most of the trees would be `... Spatial Organization would be lost." demolished, and the house moved..,, the Spatial Organization would be lost." Land Use Lost: Retained: "The Land Use would transition from a "The property would retain its Land Use as historic single- family residence with a small -scale orchard and residence, agricultural improvements to a suburban although the orchard space would be much development .... with very few of the smaller." extant orange trees to remain." Cultural Traditions Lost: Retained: "The Cultural Traditions of the orchard "The Cultural Tradition of growing ... would be completely lost." orange trees ... will be retained; ..., fewer trees would be in the orchard." Circulation Lost: Retained: "... Also changed would be the "Some of the Circulation network located Circulation of the lot." between the existing trees would be retained; however, a large portion of the network would be lost by the new develo ment ..." mvmwror*, � s r 75A -333 Page 4 Laraisaape r14 % Alterrtattve Ali � aracteristIC .1i� acre witl?�rp4 3O, trees Topography Retained: Retained: "Topography" itself would not be lost, it "Topography" itself would not be lost, it would not "likely be recognizable as what would not "likely be recognizable as what exists currently." exists currently." Vegetation Lost: Impaired: "The Vegetation the currently exists "The Vegetation that currently exists would would be lost..." be lost." Buildings & Retained: Retained: Structures "The Buildings and Structures -- "The Buildings and Structures - specifically, specifically, the residence - will remain the residence and garage would remain on- on- site; however, its location and site." orientation will be significantly different." Cluster Not addressed Retained: Arrangement "... the residence and garage would remain on -site preserving their Cluster Arrangement; however, their overall setting and relationship with the landscape would be impaired by the construction of additional residences." Views & Vistas Lost: Impaired: "... the Views and Vistas would transition "... the Views and Vistas would transition from that of a pastoral and historic small from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that of new residential orange grove to that of new residential buildings and roadways." buildings and roadways." URS consultant, Jeremy Hollins, concluded that the "... the Hybrid Development Alternative will not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby causing a significant adverse change to the SARHP- listed resource, which is considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA." Then, thirteen months later, the same consultant concluded "that the Historic Preservation Alternative will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby causing impacts to the SARHP- listed resource as being mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact to the historical resource." Given the comparisons listed above how is that possible? Neither of these Alternatives meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties. The EIR is correct in its findings that the 10% Alternative would result in significant impacts to the historic resource and is appropriately rejected. However, the finding that the 5% Alternative is somehow superior, with half of the land and a third of the trees remaining, which leaves the historic resource even more compromised, is, in a word, bizarre. This misnomer, called the "historic preservation alternative" does nothing to retain the overall character and integrity of the historic property. In addition, even though the 5% Alternative intimates that the family home will be restored, there are no guidelines, a timeline, or any analysis specifically detailing how this "restoration project" will be accomplished. There is simply e o r 75A -334 Page 5 a restating of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The regurgitation of a list can not be considered an adequate plan for the actual preservation of an historic property. The Conservancy urges the City Council to add another alternative to this EIR that will meet the Secretary of Interior Standards and meet the objectives of the project -- An alternative that respects the resource and retains enough of it to be recognized as what it once was; a small - scale family citrus orchard. The Conservancy has proposed a fifty percent development/ preservation plan to both the property owners and to City staff. We have a development firm that is willing to work with us on this proposal. In light of these facts, we would like to be included in the development of a meaningful and feasible preservation plan for the EIR. Small family farms were not only quite common in our region, they were an integral part of our social & economic fabric and our agricultural heritage & history. It would be a shame if the Santa Ana City Council reduced this valuable community resource to a house with some trees in the yard; and, the fact of the matter is, you don't have to. Sincerely, Fan, -w Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 714 - 296 -4642 cc: Vince Fregoso, AICP Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., AICP Matthew Holbrook, Esq. Patrick Mitchell, Board Member Moises Plascencia, Board Member Steve Ray, Board Member Nick Spain, Board Member 75A -335 75A -336 City Council Meeting, March 4, 2014 Attached is additional correspondence for item 75A. Tab Date Received Correspondence Received From: 1 03/04/2014 Tim Rush, Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California Properties 2 03/04/2014 Jeannie Gillett, The Old Orchard Conservancy 3 03/04/2014 Patrick Mitchell 4 03/01/2014 Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 5 03/01/2014 Jeannie Gillett, The Old Orchard Conservancy 6 03/03/2014 Jeffrey T. Melching, Rutan & Tucker, LLP 7 03/03/2014 Cathy Richardson, SheppardMullin 8 03/03/2014 Joshua Z. McIntosh 9 3..9-2aia CJiane. G. Kw) e, �'h -D. 75A -337 75A -338 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:07 PM To: Cavazos, David, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Haluza, Karen Cc: Fregoso, Vince, Mitre - Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard Matter 3/4/14 Categories: DONE, Important Letter from Mr. Rush for your review and consideration. From: Tim Rush Imailtoaimrush abhhscaproos.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:05 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Sexlinger Orchard Matter 3/4/14 3/4/14 The Honorable Miguel Pulido, Mayor City of Santa Ana RE; Sexlinger Orchard Hearing for 3/4/14 Dear Mayor & Council Members; While I had long ago hoped that the City would have purchased this parcel for parkland which we are sorely in need of, and I advocated for that to then City Manager Dave Ream years ago. At this point I think the resolution you have before you this evening is a reasonable compromise and should be approved by the City. A great deal of work and effort has gone into getting the agreement to this stage. We cannot reasonably withhold further approval to the purchaser of the property as they have made a good faith effort to honor the Sexlinger family legacy. This would be a good time for the Council to focus some energy on identifying the few remaining parcels in the City that would make good parkland and begin a dialogue with property owners for some long term acquisition. Too many times we find out at the last minute and have no time or resources to take any action. The citizenry is ultimate loser in having so little park space. The quality of life suffers for us all. As an Associate Board Member for the Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society it is my understanding that they support this settlement as well. Thank you all for your consideration. 1 3/5/2014 12:21 PM 75A -339 12:21 PM 75A -340 Sincerely, Tim Rush M !As BERKSHIRE IINI'liAWAY florneServices California Properties Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California Properties Timothy D. Rush Senior Vice President i8000 Studebaker Road., Suite 600 Cerritos, CA 90703-268o firar -pinpa2com Direct Line (562)207.2733 Fax(,r562)860-2895 2 3/5/2014 12:21 PM 75A-341 12:21 PM 75A -342 ■ Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:30 PM To: Cavazos, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Haluza, Karen Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Mitre - Ramirez, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma Subject: FW: Additional Documents related to 3/4/14 Council meeting, item 75A Attachments: 2014_ 02_UrbanAgCtr_Proposal.pdf; Overhead Orchard Vision-1 150dpi.jpg, 3 -View orchard vision.jpg Additional correspondence for your consideration. From: jeanniepoldorchardconservanc".or J rnailta. eannie@oldorchardconseryancy.�i Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:42 AM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Additional Documents related to 3/4/14 Council meeting, item 75A Maria, Please ensure that these doccments are available to Council for tonight's meeting. I appreciate your acknowledgement of this email and its attachments. Thank you, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Ora ha rd. C'onse v,aacy 714-,296 -4642 jcunnieLy?OWOr :chtrr'dC._onserv_aitch , ...lo preser -ve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, Cbliformcr, as an historie, cultural, uyHcultural, and educational resourre,lbr all." 343 3/4/2014 3:02 PM 75A 3:02 PM The Historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse Property: Surrounded by an orchard of 250 Valencia orange trees, the farmhouse on Santa Clara was built in 1914 and was the home of the Sexlinger Family for nearly a full century. George (1870- 1929), and Anna Sophia (1871 -1952) Sexlinger came to Santa Ana from Michigan in 1913 with their two daughters Esther (1904 -1995) and Martha (1908 - 2006), keeping the five - acre site within the family and continuously fully planted as a Valencia orange orchard. Today the Sexlinger property remains as one of Santa Ana's largest "undeveloped" parcels. While we suspect that the Sexlinger family would have bristled at the "undeveloped" label - -- indeed, we suspect they would have more appropriately identified their home and orchard as a small family farm, as it has been in continuous agricultural use for a single sustained agricultural product - -- The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) recognizes this property is a rare existing example of a Santa Ana multi - generational family farm (and very nearly what is designated as the increasingly rare "Century Farm" in agricultural communities across the nation.) The City of Santa Ana designated the Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse as a historic property in June 2012. With this important designation, we believe the best use for this Historic Site would be its preservation and utilization for civic agricultural use. Current Conditions: The Sexlinger home and garage are in need of some restoration. The buildings are structurally sound, but are in need of upgrades to the electrical and plumbing, as well as foundation and cosmetic improvements. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Buildings will be our guide for all restoration projects related to the home and garage. The orchard, at first glance, appears decadent and dying. Upon closer inspection, however, most of the trees are in reasonably good condition and of commercial quality. The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes will be our guide for all restoration projects related to the orchard. Goal: The Conservancy proposes the establishment of the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture at the historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse property at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in Santa Ana. The Conservancy will preserve and restore the home, garage and orchard to reflect life on a small -scale family farm, while providing educational opportunities for the community and local students. We will create a thriving and sustainable landscape and habitat that respects Santa Ana's and southern California's agricultural heritage. In addition, the preservation and restoration of the historic orchard and home meets components of the City's General Plan by expanding designated open space and increasing recreational opportunities for the residents of Santa Ana. The rehabilitation of the orchard also supports the goals of improving local access to healthy food, improved nutrition and takes steps towards ending childhood obesity in Santa Anna. The project supports the "Building Healthy Communities" initiative sponsored by the California Endowment. The Proposal: The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture (Urban Ag Center) The Urban Ag Center will be developed in three phases. Each phase is described below. The extent of activities in, and duration of, each phase will be determined by available funding. 75A -344 The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Proposal Page 2 PHASE 1 - Restoration The following tasks are of the highest priority for operation for the Urban Ag Center and will serve as the foundation for its development. • Restoration of buildings • rewire, plumb, foundation and exterior repair, paint and finish • Orchard Restoration Trim and prune, feed, repair and /or establish irrigation Replace trees when and where appropriate Establish commercial and demonstration gardens PHASE II - Educational Program Development The Urban Ag Center will host both formal and informal education programs for students and the community at large. • School Field Trips • Organic and sustainable agriculture and gardens • Natural resources and current ecology practices • Community Workshops • Composting, low flow /drip irrigation, citrus care, etc. • Events and Presentations PHASE III - Community Gardens • Develop individual plots available to the community for personal and family gardening activities Funding: The Urban Ag Centerwould qualify for grants and similar funding opportunities under several different categories. For example, obvious categories relate to urban agriculture and access to healthy food, but others include, carbon sequestration, historic preservation and promotion, improving air and water quality, etc. While there are several funding sources and opportunities outlined below, make no mistake, funders need to know that they are supporting an organization that has enough land to actually carry out the proposed activity requiring funds. For example, many of the educational programs and special events would simply not be possible on a large urban lot of 10,000 square feet. In addition, selling fruit from 10 -30 orange trees would not produce enough return -on- investment to be economically feasible, as the most money that could be realized is approximately $5,000 per year. 1. aS les: The sale of produce, and value added agricultural products and other merchandise will provide a minimum operations budget. A farm stand or farm store could be established in one of the existing structures or built on -site for minimum cost. The Conservancy staff and interns will operate the "store." The Conservancy has also connected with produce growers and packers who have offered to buy, at wholesale rates, the fruit grown at the Sexlinger Orchard. Currently, this quality of produce is selling for anywhere from $0.49 per pound wholesale, to $110 per pound at retail locations. An individual tree can produce as much as 400 pounds of fruit annually. Averaging the wholesale and retail prices listed above, the revenue equivalent would be $32,000 per acre per year. 2. Grants: Funding programs for urban agriculture, local food and health and nutrition have increased in recent years. The recent establishment of the Urban Agriculture Initiative by Gov. Brown is just one such program available to small urban farms. The passage of the 2014 Farm Bill will also bolster these funding sources. The Conservancy estimates that as much as $100,000 could be raised annually through grant funding. 75A -345 The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Proposal Page 3 3. Special Events Programs Tours The Conservancy envisions The UrbanAg Centeras a working education, demonstration and research facility. After analyzing other similar facilities, including the Center For Land Based Learning near Sacramento and The Ecology Center in San Juan Capistrano, The Conservancy believes that the following Events and Programs will generate sufficient operational funding. The UrbanAg Centerwill host weekend workshops that could raise as much as $10,000 annually. School field trips are estimated to bring in an additional $10,000 annually and special events such as dinners and galas could raise more than $30,000 annually. The Urban Ag Center is also a potential site for a Santa Ana Farmer's Market. 4. Miscellaneous Opportunities• California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law the Urban Agriculture Initiative, which encourages urban communities to preserve and utilize, for agricultural operations, sites just like the Sexlinger Century Farm. This new initiative gives tax breaks and incentives to communities for just these types of activities. In addition, Cap and Trade funds for carbon sequestration capability are available. Conclusion: Preserving the Historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse site, located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in northeast Santa Ana, for the establishment of the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, is an opportunity for the City of Santa Ana to simultaneously address three major issues of community life: 1) Resident access to healthy, affordable food; 2) Availability of open space for outdoor recreation and activity; and, 3) Promotion of neighborhood safety; all of these will also positively influence property values. An added advantage for the City of Santa Ana, both regionally and nationally, will be the recognition received as a leader among urban communities. Attachment: The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Overhead & Ground Level Views by Stivers & Associates, Tustin, California 75A -346 CONCORD 5TREET X6 ly..)Ku, (�) k.') 'U"If .. .. ....... .. 'F rvop xw 0 0 rl "ff 1 � M I 2) 21 r"; x c-) JIM. C> ig c > 0 Q (D 0 (D 0 DI D �OV 0 r tr )i CID 11"lo" rl 0 0 01 OT> i -r28 0 (D L—.) (D > T SR >>o z &�D ��z n a to ry�?x :...._ I !O Z;o 1> 75A-347 as am a A �' y � d`q 1, .G, -r r ^ ✓ P � jf 4 M w _ _ 75A -348 - -- - - - - - -- r pp �p �u V 'a RrryWjk WY p raw m � y J9 µ1' MW i Jf jr V 9dp Oj / l �Y r� lYf y � G1 f•7 ti 1j aa� t r w ..� It n {ppi �yJ L� / i r7 V,A I 1r $ a A �' y � d`q 1, .G, -r r ^ ✓ P � jf 4 M w _ _ 75A -348 - -- - - - - - -- Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar,YNaho Sent: Tuesday, March O4.20148:51AW1 To: Cavazos, David; Ha|oza. Karen, Con/a|hu` Sonia R. Cc: Freguao. Vince; PNkre-Ranniraz` Norma; Orozon. Norma, Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FVV:Sox|inger Orchard and Farmhouse Attachments: Sax|ingerLe8erdncx Another letter received for the record. ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Mitchell Sent: Tuesday/ March 04/ 2014 0:58 AM To: Council; Pulido. Miguel; Reyoa, Roman; � Martinez/ Michele; Sarmiento/ Vince; [c: Huizar/ Maria Subject: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Please see the attached letter and add it to the official record. Please [eel free to call me if you have any questions. Patrick Mitchell { �� 3/4/2014 3:01 K��-�m�� 3:01 PM Patrick Mitchell 4117`h Street, Norco CA 92860 ( 951) 707 - 7127 }_rtirc]ie1:1.67C�alzoo.cc�m Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center, POB 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 March 03, 2014 Re: Historic Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Honorable Mayor and City Council, As many of you know I have a long history with the City of Santa Ana and care deeply for its people and landscapes. As the city's Naturalist for almost 10 years I built strong relationships with many neighborhoods, community groups and individuals including some of you. I was successful at securing funding to build the Santiago Park Nature Reserve and the Santiago Creek Wildlife and Watershed Center as well as habitat restoration and landscape improvements throughout the city. I personally conducted hundreds of educational programs for thousands of Santa Ana residents. Currently I manage one of the few remaining commercial agricultural operations within the City of Santa Ana's boundaries —the Gospel Swamp Farm at the Heritage Museum of Orange County located at 3101 West Harvard Street. As the manager of this educational farm, I work with dozens of High School Students from Godinez Fundamental, Valley and Santa Ana High Schools, providing free hands - on programs in everything from composting and soils to planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Some students even learn marketing and sales as we seek buyers for the produce grown at the farm. Programs like these show a marked improvement in students' core academic studies as well as build character, self- confidence and self - reliance. I have also personally witnessed cross - generational connections as students find that they have something important to share with their parents and grandparents many of whom worked in agriculture themselves. Each of you has an important decision to make on Tuesday evening. Before you is the opportunity to expand the quality, quantity and content of education programs like those described above and make them available for thousands of students and residents of Santa Ana. Or you can approve a development that will provide significant funding for hundreds of students in Orange and Irvine only a few of whom may live within the city of Santa Ana. I am writing to ask you to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse by directing staff to include a true preservation alternative in the EIR. I believe that a mixture of development and preservation can be accomplished to best serve the residents of Santa Ana, the property owners and this one -of -a -kind 75A -350 property. It can provide a financial reward in the millions of dollars to Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University while preserving a historic resource like no other in the city of Santa Ana. You will hear lots of things at the public hearing. Some will say the orchard is not financially viable. Others will say there is no plan for utilizing the orchard if it were protected. Still others will say that more homes is what Santa Ana needs. I can tell you that the model used by the property owner to develop a cost /profit analysis on the orchard is an outdated industrial model that is not based on sustainable agriculture principals. I currently harvest from 62 citrus trees for sales at local farmers markets where I can sell them for as much as $2.00 a pound. A single tree can produce hundreds of pounds of produce every year. 1 can also tell you that the Old Orchard Conservancy has a plan to develop the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture that is designed in phases based on available funding. It is also designed to become financially sustainable almost immediately. The Center would provide numerous services to the City and its residents including becoming a clearing house for sustainable agriculture information and education programs. It would provide the community with a source of local, healthy and organic food. The Center would also be a source of community inspiration and civic leadership. The Property could also be partially developed to provide "move up" housing for the residents of Santa Ana while protecting the historic resource of orchard and farm house to an extent that maintains financial viability and historic integrity. Finally, the concepts of private property rights and fairness have been raised. If Martha Sexlinger had chosen to write Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University a $2000000 check would they have sent it back with a note saying it isn't enough? Well in all fairness I know the owners have received offers of well over the $2 million mark. I ask that you, the City Council also consider the private property rights of the thousands of other property owners in Santa Ana who deserve the highest quality community resources possible. Twenty -four new houses costing the loss of irreplaceable open space, historic resources and sustainable healthy living options hardly achieve the quality community standards you and I believe in. I hope these comments help you make a difficult decision that is not typical of elected officials. One that goes against the grain but that is equally the right decision. I urge you to direct staff to include a true preservation alternative in the EIR. In closing, you will hear the comments that this project should be approved because it has taken too long already. When considering this comment, I also ask that you consider the consequences of approving the project today. The time it takes to properly plan for the future of this site, is far less than the eternity it could take to ever regain what is lost if it is poorly planned and developed. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Patrick Mitchell 75A -351 75A -352 Mitre- Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:51 AM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Orchard Letter to City Council Attachments: SA City Council Final_MWD 01MAR2014.pdf Categories: RFCA, Important Please add to Agenda packet. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: mwdonaldsonl3(@vahoo.com ( mailto :mwdonaldsonl3(dvahoo.com1 Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:04 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Orchard Letter to City Council Thank you for your feedback. Please confirm receiving attached letter. Thank you! Milford Wayne Donaldson FAIA 7754 Greenridge Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628 916 532 8004 mwdonaldsonl3 @yahoo.com 75A 1 2:49 PM 353 3/4/2014 2:49 PM ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA March 1. 2014 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Preservation Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse is a rare, intact example of an historic citrus farm in an area that is struggling to protect the last vestiges of its rich, nationally important agricultural history. In my capacity as the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I encouraged the Council to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse because of its eligibility to both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. I commend the Council for recognizing the importance of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse complex as a "Key" historic resource under the Santa Ana Municipal Code in 2012. First, let me explain my interest in the Sexlinger property as an historic resource. I served as the California SHPO from 2004 until 2012, during which time I was responsible for the full range of state -wide historic resources. I also served as the executive secretary of the State Historical Resources Commission, which is responsible for identifying, registering and preserving California's cultural heritage. I have served as the Chair of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) since 2010, with responsibilities for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act with federal, state, local and tribal governments. I am a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I have more than 35 years of experience in historic preservation, renovation and adaptive reuse, with extensive experience in interpretation and application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. I have also taught and lectured widely on historic preservation and preservation architecture for many years. As explained in my previous letter, the Sexlinger property is important because it retains all elements of its historic agricultural use, including the farmstead, outbuildings and the original orchard in its entirety. I understand the City is currently evaluating a proposal to retain the Farmhouse in place, but to allow demolition of more than 95 percent of the 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5% SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 nmdonsidson 13(pgynhooxorn 916 532 8004 75A -354 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA Orchard, preserving only 10 trees with space for planting up to 6 new orange trees. The environmental impact report (EIR) for the demolition concludes that preservation of 10 to 16 trees in a single row on a one - quarter acre comer of the Orchard will not have a significant adverse impact on the historic significance of the Sexlinger property. The proposal to demolish 95 percent of the Orchard does not comply with the Secretary's Standards, even when combined with retention and rehabilitation of the Farmhouse. The Orchard and Farmhouse currently have a high degree of integrity that reflects their historic use. Loss of 95 percent of the Orchard would cause a significant loss of integrity, and would affect those features and characteristics that qualified the combined Orchard and Farmhouse for listing on the National and California Registers. It is my understanding that the Council recognized the historic significance of the entire property, including both the Orchard and Farmhouse, when it designated them together in the "Key" resource designation. Demolition of the majority of the Orchard would cause the Sexlinger property to lose its historic significance. Loss of significance, as well as the loss of contributing elements, is a significant impact under CEQA, requiring mitigation. Without the Orchard, the Farmhouse alone would in all likelihood lose its eligibility for the National or California Registers because it would lack the ability to demonstrate a vital connection with the area's agricultural heritage. The Orchard demolition fails to comply with the Secretary's Standards for multiple reasons. Under the National Register Bulletin entitled "Defining the Boundaries for National Register Properties," the entire Orchard parcel is included within the eligible site. The Orchard and Farmhouse were a single functional unit, in common ownership, on a single parcel and visually separate from surrounding uses. Under the Secretary's Standard's, a building site consists of historic "buildings, structures, and associated landscape features within a designed or legally defined parcel of land." In this case, as recognized by the Council in its designation, the Orchard is significant in its own right, as well as in combination with the Farmhouse. The Secretary's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes requires consideration of continuity of form, use, features and materials. The geographic context of the landscape, including the component elements and features, are factors that affect the appropriate treatment. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered in selecting an appropriate treatment. Although it is often impossible to preserve the entirety of a cultural landscape in an urban setting, enough of the landscape must be retained to maintain integrity and the ability to convey 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 51), SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 rnr%donnld &on 13(yy%djooxom 916 532 8004 75A -355 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIR significance. A single row of 10 trees is not adequate to maintain integrity or convey significance in this case. The Guidelines also recognize that cultural landscapes are composed through a collection of features which are organized in space. This includes the patterns of fields or orchards which define the spatial character of the landscape. These include the spatial organization and land patterns that define and create spaces in the landscape. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the relationship between the Farmhouse and the much larger Orchard, are the rows and spacing of the individual trees, and their relationship to the street. The spatial organization and land patterns would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a single line of trees around the Farmhouse. The Guidelines also identify the character- defining features of a cultural landscape that collectively contribute to historic character. These include topography, vegetation, circulation, water features, and structures. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the flat topography, standardized color, height and size of vegetation, lack of ornamental landscaping, pedestrian circulation routes through the trees and the relationship to the Farmhouse along the street frontage are all character- defining features. All of these important character - defining features would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a vestigial remnant of a functioning Orchard. The Santa Ana City Council has a unique opportunity to preserve an important example of its agricultural heritage through the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. I encourage the Council to continue working with the owners of the property to preserve enough of the Orchard, together with the Farmhouse, to convey the significance of a working agricultural property. Once the Orchard is demolished, there will be no intact examples of this crucial part of the region's history for the benefit of future generations. Thank you for your stewardship of the significance and irreplaceable historic resource that has been entrusted to your care. Sincerely, kl 4` Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 4100FOLSOMBLVD UnRSD, SACRAMENTO, CA95819 9165328004 75A -356 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma (J From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:51 AM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter Attachments: SA City Council Final_MWD 01MAR2014.pdf; MWD FAIA CV 2013.pdf Categories: RFCA, Important Please add to Agenda packet. From: Magallon, Becky Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:47 AM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter [rim From: Jeannie@oidorchardconse vancv.org [mailto:jeannie Loldorchardconserya_n_c .Q 1 Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:26 PM To: Amezcua, Angelica; David Benavides; Martinez, Michele; Pulido, Miguel; Reyna, Roman; Tinajero, Sal; Sarmiento, Vince Subject: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, If you must read just one document before Tuesday, please make it this one. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old QJrc lkar i Cora el v ancy 7.14.,296 -4642 jeann � ( u >OlclC7rclirxi:lConseA:y<rn_<�y :c.�z...g "To Preserve, acquire, restore and numapr the Old Orange Orc hai -d located in Santa Arm, C "ahtoriiiu, as an lrasawic, cultural, ayriculairal, and educahonut resource,l'ar all.," 753/4/2014 1357 3/4/2014 2:47 PM A!357 2:47 PM ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA March 1, 2014 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Preservation Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse is a rare, intact example of an historic citrus farm in an area that is struggling to protect the last vestiges of its rich, nationally important agricultural history. In my capacity as the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I encouraged the Council to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse because of its eligibility to both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. I commend the Council for recognizing the importance of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse complex as a "Key" historic resource under the Santa Ana Municipal Code in 2012. First, let me explain my interest in the Sexlinger property as an historic resource. I served as the California SHPO from 2004 until 2012, during which time I was responsible for the full range of state -wide historic resources. I also served as the executive secretary of the State Historical Resources Commission, which is responsible for identifying, registering and preserving California's cultural heritage. I have served as the Chair of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) since 2010, with responsibilities for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act with federal, state, local and tribal governments. I am a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I have more than 35 years of experience in historic preservation, renovation and adaptive reuse, with extensive experience in interpretation and application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. I have also taught and lectured widely on historic Preservation and preservation architecture for many years. As explained in my previous letter, the Sexlinger property is important because it retains all elements of its historic agricultural use, including the farmstead, outbuildings and the original orchard in its entirety. I understand the City is currently evaluating a proposal to retain the Farmhouse in place, but to allow demolition of more than 95 percent of the 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonaldsonl3ryahoo.com 916 532 8004 75A -358 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA Orchard, preserving only 10 trees with space for planting up to 6 new orange trees. The environmental impact report (EIR) for the demolition concludes that preservation of 10 to 16 trees in a single row on a one - quarter acre corner of the Orchard will not have a significant adverse impact on the historic significance of the Sexlinger property. The proposal to demolish 95 percent of the Orchard does not comply with the Secretary's Standards, even when combined with retention and rehabilitation of the Farmhouse. The Orchard and Farmhouse currently have a high degree of integrity that reflects their historic use. Loss of 95 percent of the Orchard would cause a significant loss of integrity, and would affect those features and characteristics that qualified the combined Orchard and Farmhouse for listing on the National and California Registers. It is my understanding that the Council recognized the historic significance of the entire property, including both the Orchard and Farmhouse, when it designated them together in the "Key" resource designation. Demolition of the majority of the Orchard would cause the Sexlinger property to lose its historic significance. Loss of significance, as well as the loss of contributing elements, is a significant impact under CEQA, requiring mitigation. Without the Orchard, the Farmhouse alone would in all likelihood lose its eligibility for the National or California Registers because it would lack the ability to demonstrate a vital connection with the area's agricultural heritage. The Orchard demolition fails to comply with the Secretary 's Standards for multiple reasons. Under the National Register Bulletin entitled "Defining the Boundaries for National Register Properties," the entire Orchard parcel is included within the eligible site. The Orchard and Farmhouse were a single functional unit, in common ownership, on a single parcel and visually separate from surrounding uses. Under the Secretary's Standard's, a building site consists of historic "buildings, structures, and associated landscape features within a designed or legally defined parcel of land." In this case, as recognized by the Council in its designation, the Orchard is significant in its own right, as well as in combination with the Farmhouse. The Secretary 's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes requires consideration of continuity of form, use, features and materials. The geographic context of the landscape, including the component elements and features, are factors that affect the appropriate treatment. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered in selecting an appropriate treatment. Although it is often impossible to preserve the entirety of a cultural landscape in an urban setting, enough of the landscape must be retained to maintain integrity and the ability to convey 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 imvdonaldsonl3(ayahoosom 9l6 532 8004 75A -359 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA significance. A single row of 10 trees is not adequate to maintain integrity or convey significance in this case. The Guidelines also recognize that cultural landscapes are composed through a collection of features which are organized in space. This includes the patterns of fields or orchards which define the spatial character of the landscape. These include the spatial organization and land patterns that define and create spaces in the landscape. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the relationship between the Farmhouse and the much larger Orchard, are the rows and spacing of the individual trees, and their relationship to the street. The spatial organization and land patterns would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a single line of trees around the Farmhouse. The Guidelines also identify the character - defining features of a cultural landscape that collectively contribute to historic character. These include topography, vegetation, circulation, water features, and structures. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the flat topography, standardized color, height and size of vegetation, lack of ornamental landscaping, pedestrian circulation routes through the trees and the relationship to the Farmhouse along the street frontage are all character - defining features. All of these important character - defining features would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a vestigial remnant of a functioning Orchard. The Santa Ana City Council has a unique opportunity to preserve an important example of its agricultural heritage through the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. I encourage the Council to continue working with the owners of the property to preserve enough of the Orchard, together with the Farmhouse, to convey the significance of a working agricultural property. Once the Orchard is demolished, there will be no intact examples of this crucial part of the region's history for the benefit of future generations. Thank you for your stewardship of the significance and irreplaceable historic resource that has been entrusted to your care. Sincerely, ti LL Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mrcdonaldsonl Nii yahoosom 916 532 8004 75A -360 MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON, FAIA SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Donaldson is President of award winning Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Inc. since 1978, specializing in historic preservation services. He is licensed to practice architecture in California, Nevada and Arizona and holds a certified license from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Mr. Donaldson is affiliated with several historical and preservation organizations and is a past president of the California Preservation Foundation (CPF) and past chairs of the State Historical Building Safety Board, the State Historical Resources Commission, and the Historic State Capitol Commission, Milford Wayne Donaldson served as the California State Historic Preservation Officer from 2004 -2012. At this time he renamed his firm Heritage Architecture & Planning and sold his firm that continues today under that name: www.heritagearchitecture.com During Mr. Donaldson's tenure as SHPO he has streamlined Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, has led the national initiative towards the sustainability and greening of historic resources. On June 1, 2010 Mr. Donaldson was appointed Chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation by President Barack Obama and currently holds that position. Previously an instructor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, he continues to lecture at California community colleges and universities. Mr. Donaldson holds a Bachelor of Architecture and a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He engaged in postgraduate studies at Uppsala University, Sweden, and received a Master of Science degree in Architecture from University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, and a Master of Arts degree in Public History and Teaching from the University of San Diego. Over the last thirty -five years, Mr. Donaldson has established himself as a leader in Historic Preservation and adaptive reuse of existing structures. His depth of knowledge unites nineteenth century building methods with state -of- the -art twenty -first century construction technologies. In 1991, The California Council of the American Institute of Architects acknowledged Mr. Donaldson for his statewide leadership in the interpretation of the California Historical Building Code that allowed the rehabilitation of historic buildings. In 1992, the American Institute of Architects inducted Mr. Donaldson into the College of Fellows. The National Trust for Historic Preservation engaged Mr. Donaldson to assist California cities in disaster damage assessment of historic buildings following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. A commendation was awarded by Governor Deukmejian to Mr. Donaldson for his efforts. Later, in the 1992 Eureka and I 75A -361 1994 Northridge Earthquakes, Mr. Donaldson lent his expertise to save historic buildings from unwarranted demolition. His efforts continue today as a Trainer in Emergency Response for the California Office of Emergency Services' Disaster Service Worker volunteer program. Over 3000 projects have been completed by Mr. Donaldson's firm, mainly throughout the western portion of the United States, including working with the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the National Park Service, the California Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Department of Water Resources, the California Conservation Corps, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Navy, Environmental Protection Agency and many cities and counties. Mr. Donaldson is a Registered Democrat EDUCATION NewSchool of Architecture & Design San Diego, California California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California University of San Diego San Diego, California University of Stuttgart Stuttgart, Germany University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California CSIP* University of Uppsala California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California Honorary Master of Architecture 2001 Architect Alumnus of the Year M.A. History and Public Teaching Post - Graduate Studies Master Science in Architecture Bachelor of Architecture Uppsala, Sweden Bachelor Science Engineering * CSIP stands for the California State International Program. This study abroad program was undertaken during Mr. Donaldson's undergraduate studies. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Certification License 52122 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of California since 1975. License C20193 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of Nevada since 1999. License 029193 75A -362 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of Arizona since 1998. License 36433 National Council of Architectural Registration Boards certified since 1999. Engaged in the profession of architecture as a Firm Owner since 1978. PROFESSIONAL/ COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS California State Historic Preservation Officer Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 2004-2010 ICOMOS Member, 1982 -1994, Executive Board Member 2009 — 2011 National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Executive Board Member 2005 - 2010 Historic State Capitol Commission, Sacramento, CA Appointed by Senator John Burton, President Pro Tempore and Chairman of the Rules Committee. Commissioner 2000 -2003 Office of Emergency Services - Safety Assessment Program Trainer /Volunteer / Disaster Service Worker / Essential Emergency Duties SAP #10001 7/31/2007 to Present Building Standards Commission Sacramento, California Committee for the Development of an Ordinance for the Seismic Strengthening of Post Earthquake Buildings Member, 1990 -2004 State Historic Resources Commission, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California Appointed by Governor Deukmejian and Governor Wilson Commissioner, 1985 -1994 Getty Conservation Institute Getty Adobe Seismic Project GSAP Santa Monica, California Committee Member, 1990 -1998 Project Proposal Reviewer, 1989 -2000 National Trust for Historic Preservation Washington, D.C. Forum Member, 1978 - Present 3 75A -363 Preservation Action Washington, D.C. California Trustee, 1984 -1988 Association for Preservation Technology Washington, D.C. Member, 1986 - Present California Preservation Foundation, Oakland, California President, 1993 -1994 / President, 1986 -1988 / Trustee, 1984 -1994 Preservationist of the Year Award 1995 State Historical Building Safety Board, Office of the State Architect, State of California Board Member, 1985- Present Vice - Chair, 1993 -1996 Chair, 1988 -1993 San Diego Chapter of the American Institute of Architects American Institute of Architects Corporate Member, 1979 - Present Elected to College of Fellows (FAIA) 1992 San Diego Historical Society, San Diego, California Member, 1978 - Present Save Our Heritage Organization, San Diego, California Board of Directors, 1984 -1986 Member, 1980 - Present City of San Diego Historical Site Board, San Diego, California Vice Chair, 1986 Board Member, 1982 -1987 SCARAB (Honorary Professional Architectural Fraternity) California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Member, 1965- Present Historian Honor Society PHI ALPHA THETA Member, 1999 - Present San Diego State University, San Diego, California Curriculum Advisory Committee for Environmental Design, Advisor, 1986 - Present California State Polytechnic College /San Luis Obispo Architecture Advisory Committee/ Presidential Council 1999 -2005 75A -364 PRESENTATIONS Sustainability: Perspectives for the Future, Biannual NPS Federal Tax Incentives for Reviewers 2009 Workshop, Raleigh, North Carolina, September 22-24,2009 NRHP Listing of the G. T. Marsh Building Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists, California, January 25, 2008 The Use and Application of the California Historical Building Code El Presidio De Santa Barbara, California Preservation Foundation, , San Diego, California, January 15, 2008 Testimony regarding the Consistency Certification for the Foothill South Toll Road, California Coastal Commission Hearing, Del Mar Fairgrounds- Wyland Hall, February 6, 2008 NCSHPO Annual Meeting LEED Squaretable, Holiday Inn on the Hill, Washington, DC, Sunday, March 2, 2008 Identifying, Evaluating, and Preserving Modern Resources, California Preservation Foundation, 2008 Workshop Series, Pomona, California, March 7, 2008 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Historic Site Preservation Board, Palm Springs, California, March 7, 2008 Identifying, Evaluating and Preserving Modern Resources, John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, Cal Poly Pomona, March 7, 2008 The SHPO Is In! California Preservation Foundation, Napa, California, April 25, 2008 California Historical Building Code and the Preservation of Historic Resources, Vernacular Architecture Forum Conference, Fresno, California, May 10, 2008 Historic Building and Sustainability, California Historic State Capitol Commission, Friday, July 11, 2008 How Easy Is It To Be Green? National Historic Tax Credit Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 24 -26, 2008 The Significance of the Royal Presidia Chapel, Royal Presidia Chapel as a National Historic Landmark, Conservation Project History Fest, Monterey 2008, October 10, 2008 Green Design for Preservation and Revitalization, California Downtown Association, 2008 Annual Conference, Santa Rosa, California, October 1 -3, 2008 Countering the Dead Architects' Society, The Wednesday Club, San Diego, April 11, 2007 5 75A -365 PUBLICATIONS/ BOOKS Saving the Future Recent Past A California Experience, Rancho to Ranch House Conference, Save Our Heritage Organisation, May 18, 2007 Tools that Protect Historic Resources After a Disaster, Indiana MainStreet Conference, Richmond, Indiana, October 18 -20, 2007 The Nomination of World Heritage Trans - boundary Oceanic Sites, Eight Maritimes Heritage Conference, San Diego, California, October 9 -12, 2007 The Gaslamp Quarter, Then and Now, Kathleen Flanigan, Forward by Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2004 Site of Rancho El Tecolote, California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2002 Ferryboat "Berkeley," California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2000 Hotel de Anza, Calexico, Imperial County Historical Site. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2000 "Star of India," California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1999 Charles Mallory Hatfield "The Rainmaker," San Diego County Historical Site. Author: Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 1999 Santa Margarita Ranch, United States Marine Corpse Base, Camp Joseph H. Pendleton, California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1998 National City Depot, California Southern Transcontinental Railroad, California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997 National City Depot, California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997. Strategies for Historic Preservation in Seismic Areas, Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997. Leo Carrillo Ranch (Rancho de Los Kiotes), California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1996 Preservation Briefs 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible, Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA, National Park Service, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1993. A Preservationist's Guide to the Development Process, California Preservation Foundation. Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1992 Protecting the Past from Natural Disasters, Carl L. Nelson, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1991 PUBLICATIONS/ BOOT S (cont.) I nMAW "l' MAGAZINE ARTICLES Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: A Draft Model Ordinance, California Seismic Safety Commission, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1990 History at Risk, Loma Prieta: Seismic Safety and Historic Buildings, California Preservation Foundation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1990 Earthquake Risks and the Architectural Landmark, Salt Lake City Corporation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1988 Respecting the Past, Embracing the Future, San Diego Museum of Contemporary Air, San Diego, California, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA Welcoming Preservation Matters quarterly newsletter of the Office of Historic Preservation, January 2008 Wipeout of San O, Preservation Matters Newsletter, Spring 2008 Your're Nominating Air? Torrey Pines Column, Preservation Matters, 2008 Save Hanger Z, Preservation Matters Newsletter, Fall 2008 A Culture of Reuse, Preservation Matter, Spring 2009 Common Ground, THPO/SHPO Summit, Preservation Matters, Summer 2009 Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Helldiver 19866, Preservation Matters, Fall 2009 Countering the Dead Architects'Society, Preservation Matters, Winter 2009 The Children of Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Preservation Matters 2010 One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Preservation, Preser. Mat, 2010 Preserve Preserve America, Summer 2011 To Whom Does Cultural Heritage Belong? Preservation Matters, Summer 2012 Section 106: One of the Best Preservation Tools, Preservation Matters, 2012 SAN DIEGO HOME/GARDEN, June 1998, Let's Make a Deal by Carol Golden SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, December 1997, Born Again Balboa Park by Virginia Butterfield SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, December 1997, Balboa Park Remembered by Virginia Butterfield SAN DIEGO HOME & GARDEN MAGAZINE, September 1997, Restoring the Faith, by Damon I-Iedgp�th 75A -367 SUNSET MAGAZINE, June 1997, San Diego's Park of Dreams by Matthew Jaffe NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, March 1990, The Case for Retrofit of Historic Buildings by Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA SUN /COAST, June 1988 San Diego Warehouse Rehabed with Historic Intent and Modern Interiors CENTRE CITY MAGAZINE, January 1988, Horton Park Plaza Hotel Opens in Gaslamp SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, October 1986, The Horton Grand NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (Since 1990 only, extended list available upon request) New Ballpark Makes It's Home Amid Historic Buildings, Advertising Supplement to the SAN DIEGO BUSINESS JOURNAL, Petco Park, 2003 Giving the PastA Presence by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, March 24, 2002 Preservation Factories by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, February 22, 1998 Preservation Watch by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, November 23, 1997 Renovation to include Museum by Michelle Carlin SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, November 16, 1997 History in the Making by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, September, 1997 Pride of the Prado by Roger M. Showley SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, June 15, 1997 My Side of the Line by Martin Weinberger CLAREMONT COURIER, July 17, 1991 Carlsbad Theater May Have New Life by Drew Silvem SAN DIEGO UNION, July24,1990 Significant Awards and Honors NATIONAL 1998 NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PRESERVATION HONOR AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 8 75A -368 1992 FAIA - NATIONAL AIA MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON ELECTED TO THE COLLEGE OF FELLOWS FOR DESIGN AND THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES. STATE & REGIONAL 2003 LONG BEACH HERITAGE AWARD Rancho Los Cerritos Master Plan, Long Beach, California 2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Redlands AK Smiley Public Library 2003 SANTA BARBARA CHAPTER AIA Santa Barbara Depot, Restoration 2003 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Riverside County Courthouse, Restoration, Seismic Retrofit 2002 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS San Diego County Administration Center, Master Plan Santa Barbara Railroad Station, Restoration San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot, Feasibility Study Villa Montezuma, Exterior Restoration 2001 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Naval Training Center, Design Guidelines Rancho Los Cerritos, Master Plan San Diego Aerospace Museum, Courtyard Cover 2000 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Chollas Heights Transmitter Building, Adaptive Reuse San Diego County Administration Building, Restoration Rancho Los Peflasquitos Spring House, Restoration 2000 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, INLAND CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, SPECIAL CITATION AK Smiley Public Library, Tower Reconstruction 1999 CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Vallecito Stage Station, Restoration 1999 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS AK Smiley Public Library, Tower Reconstruction 1998 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction Leo Carrillo Ranch, Master Plan Vallecito Stage Station, Restoration 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 9 75A -369 1998 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL (AIACC), HONOR AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 . CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Guajome Ranch House, Restoration Historical Greater Mid -City San Diego Preservation Strategy Ivy Substation & Media Park, Adaptive Reuse 1997 CONSTRUCTION LINK MAGAZINE, BEST OF CALIFORNIA, OUTSTANDING RESTORATION PROJECT House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Americanization School, Adaptive Reuse 1996 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS -Americanization School, Adaptive Reuse 1996 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS Santa Barbara Presidio, Reconstruction San Diego Presidio, Archaeology Project Santa Margarita Rancho Chapel, Reconstruction St. Francis Chapel at Warner Springs Ranch 1995 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Preservationist of the Year 1995 DESIGN SERVICE AWARD - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Escondido Facades for Outstanding Contribution to Downtown Improvement 1994 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD - LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY Ivy Substation and Media Park 1994 MAYOR'S CULTURAL AFFAIRS AWARD - CITY OF LOS ANGELES Ivy Substation and Media Park 1994 DESIGN AWARD - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, RECOGNITION OF NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CITY GOALS Printcraft 1994 HONORABLE MENTION FOR DESIGN - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, RECOGNITION OF NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CITY GOALS Escondido Coin and Loan Christian Science Reading Room 1993 HONOR AWARD - FORO DE CONSERVACI6N DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL DE BAJA CALIFORNIA, IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 10 75A -370 1991 ACHIEVEMENT AWARD -DOWNTOWN ENCINTTASMAINSTREET ASSOCIATION, IN RECOGNITION OF EFFORTS TOWARDS DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION Downtown Encinitas SAN DIEGO / LOCAL 2002 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION - CITY OF SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD Balboa Park Botanical Building Restoration, and his assistance in the discovery of the Mohnike Adobe foundation system and National Register Nomination Proposal. 2002 THE EXTERIOR RESTORATION AWARD - SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANISATION PEOPLE IN PRESERVATION Villa Montezuma 2002 SPECIAL COMMENDATION AWARD - CITY OF SAN DIEGO Villa Montezuma "In recognition and appreciation of your contribution to the City of San Diego." 2001 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR ARCHITECTURE Harbour Lights Resort Jury Comments: "Urbane, sophisticated and confident. The building twinkles at night. The front facade is a refreshing perspective of the traditional Gaslamp Quarter style. " 2000 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA San Diego County Administration Center for Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "A terrific restoration of a jewel of a building right on the front porch to San Diego Bay. This restoration was wellconceived and executed. " 1999 OUTSTANDING PROJECT OF THE YEAR, AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES CHAPTER House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER (AIA), MERIT AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SITE BOARD HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRAND AWARD House of hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SITE BOARD HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Historic Greater Mid -City San Diego Preservation Strategy 1998 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND LIGHTING DESIGN House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 . SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANISATION (SOHO) RECONSTRUCTION AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 11 75A -371 1998 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS (ASID) INTERIOR DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARD, SECOND PLACE (TIE), COMMERCIAL PROJECT LARGER THAN 1,500 SQ. FT. House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARDS (IIDA), IES ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARDS, SPECIAL WATERBURY CITATION, HISTORICAL REPLICATION OF ORIGINAL EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION, INTERNATIONAL House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD, FOR DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE. Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 1997 AIA CITATION AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION IN DESIGN Guajome Ranch 1996 MERIT AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA Greater Mid -City Historic Preservation Strategy Jury Comments: "This project has multiple ways of being useful and hoped it is the beginning of more documentation of the city's urban history. This project gives a valuable gift to San Diego." 1996 CITATION AWARD -SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE Americanization School Jury Comments: The jury praised Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Inc. and the City of Oceanside for not overdoing the renovation, and leaving its character in tact. "The client didn't do too much, just enough to keep the wonderful things." "The use of neighborhood teenage volunteers to help with the renovation gave the whole community a pride ofownership." 1996 AIA ORCHID AWARDS -SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA Guajome Ranch, for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "Great! Looks like the new neighbors will be arriving and moving in any day." Vallecito Stage Station for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "An orchid blooming in the desert, watered by a lot of volunteer sweat. Open for business. " Santa Margarita Rancho Chapel for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "A phoenix rising from the ashes. It's a wonderful job of rebuilding. What a difference a,few good marines make. " Greater Mid -City Historic Preservation Strategy, Award for Planning Jury Comments: " The 'Stitch in time saves nine' award. Like extinction of a species, once a historic site is gone, its gone forever. The community needs to know about the historical sites in not only the mid -city, but the whole county. " 12 75A -372 1993 AIA GRAND ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN IN FIVE CATEGORIES: ARCHITECTURE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, LANDSCAPE DESIGN, INTERIOR DESIGN, AND LIGHTING City Front Terrace Condominiums Jury Comments: "The condominium project made the jury swoon admiringly in five design categories: architecture, historic preservation, landscape design, interior deign and lighting. " 1993 AIA ORCHID AWARD -SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR EXCEPTIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION Americanization Building Jury Comments: "For blossoming in true Orchid fashion, the jury held up for admiration the delighod designed as classrooms for immigrants to learn English and become "Americanized" reincarnation of the...immaculate restoration of7rving Gill's Americanization School in Oceanside. That successful story belongs mostly to neighborhood volunteers who helped save the 1931 building, originally. 1990 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD - GASLAMP QUARTER FOUNDATION, IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING EFFORTS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA END 13 75A -373 75A -374 `Z RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP March 3, 2014 VIA E -MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Mayor Miguel Pulido Members of the Santa Ana City Council City of Santa Ana PO Box 1988 M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jeffrey T. Melebing Dii eel Dial: (7 14) 641 -3422 E-mail: jmelclun0rutaacom Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the Santa Ana City Council: This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, the "Schools "), in connection with their applications for residential development of the property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue ( "Project "). On February 27, 2014, the City received letters from The Old Orchard Conservancy ( "TOOC "), and from its counsel, in opposition to the City's approval of the Project and its associated Final Environmental Impact Report. Those letters primarily reiterate TOOC's disagreement with the conclusions of the City's Planning Commission, staff, and expert consultants with regard to the Historic Preservation Alternative. The City's staff and independent expert consultants have done a thorough job in responding to those arguments — most recently in the staff report prepared for the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting. In addition to those matters, however, TOOC and its counsel mention two additional arguments: (1) that the project will impact important agricultural lands, and (2) that the criteria for granting a variance for "Lot 12" are not satisfied here. Neither argument has merit, but in the abundance of caution the Schools respectfully submit the following discussion and materials relating to those two issues. With regard to agricultural lands, TOOC's counsel claims that "the loss of prime agricultural soil is a significant impact" because the land has "a Storie Rating of 90 and Class I capability." The City reviewed potential impacts on agricultural lands in the Initial Study for the Project, and found that under both the Santa Ana General Plan and the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Project ( "FMMP "), the City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. (Initial Study, Final FIR Appx. A, p. 25, 9[ A; see also Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq., Appx. G, § II(a).) A review of the Statewide Rutan & Tucker, LLP � 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1950 7t4(i41 =511 E x 714 -546 -9035 680/030670 0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 75A 3 5 6747449.1 a03/03/14 RUTAN Mayor Miguel Pulido March 3, 2014 Page 2 Maps confirms the Initial Study's conclusions — the Sexlinger Property is within a large swath of land that covers all of Santa Ana, and is designated "Urban and Built Up Land." (Exhibits A -1, A -2; see also Exhibit B [showing survey area boundary]; see generally http: / /www.conservation. ca. gov /dlrp /finmp/Pages/.Index.aspx) Indeed, under published FMMP criteria, the Sexlinger Property simply cannot qualify as Prime Farmland, Important Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. To fall within any of those categories, the property must have been "used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four yeas prior to the Important Farmland Map date. (Exhibit C.) Since the most recent FMMP map was updated through 2010, and since the land has not been irrigated for agricultural production since before 2000, the Sexlinger Property simply cannot satisfy the criteria for Prime Farmland, Important Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Leaving no doubt over the legitimacy of the City's conclusions regarding agricultural lards, the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") allows local agencies to also use the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model to evaluate whether a project could potentially have an impact on agricultural resources. (Initial Study, p. 24; Pub. Res. Code § 21061.2; CEQA Guidelines Appx. G; http: / /www.consrv.ca .gov /dlrp/Pages /gh_lesa.aspx.) Under that model, a site is given a score (up to a total of 50 points) for both (1) Land Evaluation, and (2) Site Assessment. Both scores must be greater than 20 points to find a potential impact to agricultural resources. (LESA Manual [attached as Exhibit D], p. 28.) The Site Assessment score accounts for (1) project size (30% weighting), (2) water resource availability (30% weighting), (3) surrounding agricultural lands (30% weighting), and (4) surrounding protected resource lands (10% weighting). (LESA Manual, pp. 14 -31.) Here, the Project is 5 acres in size, so it receives a Project Size score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 14.) The Project site has no existing irrigation system, and is not amenable to dryland production, and so it receives a Water Resource Availability score of 0. (LESA Manual, pp. 18, 20.) Since less than 40% of the parcels within 1/4 mile of the Project site are used for agricultural production, it receives a Surrounding Agricultural Lands score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 25.) Finally, since less than 40% of the parcels within r/4 mile of the Project site are protected resources that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses, it receives a Surrounding Protected Resource Lands score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 28.) Based on these scores, the total LESA Site Assessment score for the Sexlinger Property cannot reach the 20 points required to find a significant impact to agricultural resources. (LESA Manual, pp. 30 -31.) The flaws in TOOC's argument concerning the variance for Lot 12 are two -fold. First, TOOL mistakenly focuses on the shape of the overall Sexlinger parcel in performing its variance analysis. The variance, however, is sought for Lot 12 — not for the overall project. Lot 12 has an abnormal shape and configuration as a result of City staff's correct determination that creating a curved street through the project area would have a beneficial traffic calming effect. That curve, 680/030670 -0001 6747449.1 a03/03/14 75A -376 RUTAN Mayor Miguel Pulido March 3, 2014 Page 3 and the associated imposition of County standards that would allow for the turn- around of emergency and waste disposal vehicles, created the need for the variance,for Lot 12. Second, TOOC artificially limits the criteria for granting a variance to "size, shape, and topography." The City's code indicates that those factors may be considered in granting a variance, but they are not the exclusive factors. Indeed, any "special circumstance" can serve as a basis for granting relief. (Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41- 638(a)(2)(i).) As described above, the imposition of a curve in Lyon Street is such a circumstance in this case. The materials referenced in this letter have been included as attachments for your reference. The School's representatives and consultants will be present at the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting, should you have any questions regarding these matters. R AN & TUC I Jef ey T. Melchi JTM cc: David Cavazos, City Manager Maria D. Huizar, City Clerk Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Karen Haluza, Interim Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner 680/0306700001 67474491 n03 /03/)4 75A -377 10461 Mel I 1] 0 WMAN 75A -378 6800,10 0.0004 6946310.1 003/02114 a nailled % I a,p'rq peparcment of Cpnserv... f^lf�f staleof Caal W Q /�ely f rf , l)I ut r:/ C m, ^ "r^ tlf Irl California Important Farmland Finder vrrrl tr ^r Ot 20 iyu fCc nniu ^ 6801030690.0001 67 46310.1 a03, @,.-0 75A -379 Google I :f'e frop �Ope nn pdfi]o .cvmpareCocs U - InP. /� r. y bbo l It� I, OFF Farmland Type Legend prune Farmland Farmland of Stafewde Importance Ual Facil Grazdg Land Fennlantl of Local Iropanence Frel of Local potential Cone, Lana Conrad MIndIA"ort Ure l Nonagricull or Nalwal Vegetation Vacant or Oiaturbea Lana Rural Rr,lo rnie Land C.ddo l Lerntl entl FOral Urban and But-0p Land Weer Area Irrlgled Farmlentl Nonirrigeed Farmland Ol of Survey Area 10461 ME I 1 0010 630/030670 -0001 6996310.1 03/0'/14 75A -380 File Flit Vim Favomes Took r.T - 0 % I � CA Repadment of Consery ^r ^< Open in pd sfateof [alitwma Ur+p Irtfns nY tr/ (f ur IvAtlon California Lnpprlant Farmland Finder 1CezktaP�Pm in PdfDocz campareCo¢x l� Into n dl0y � 'U +i, I Ip 60/03060 -0001 6146310.1 a03/02/14 75A -381 pFarmand Type Legend 6 Prime Farman Farmland of Sam q ide lmpwfence Unique Farmland GrazNg Land Farmland of Looel Imporrarme Feedumd at recall PMOMial Other Land Confined Arell Agncutlu d I. NonegrlcuXunal ar Natural Vegetation Vacant a Diddemed Land Rural RBabemnel Land um4lclel Lentla. Rural llrbeo end BuN -0p Land INMerkee �. 41,Aad FarmlerM NoNmgated FannleM Out of Survey Araa rI 04 61 680/030670.0007 67463103 a03/02/14 75A -382 THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 0' Xhk Ch',mxn 5 H rV DIVISION OF LAND RESOURfE PP.tlI£CTION DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BIndS ll TAIL- D' a FARMLAND MAFP[NG AIJD MONRORING PROGRAM IMPORTANT FARMLAND IN CALIFORNIA, 2006 EARm CLASSIFICATION *ACREAGE PME FAp.MRILi11D = 3a2 963 FARMLAIJG OF STATEWIDE IMPOETAUCE 27 6A,60A O'NQVEF u-AND t94'Oi9 5. % Q P.iRKLANd OF LOCAL LRAORIANCE 2. ➢A,4I1 4f� Nun Q (4RADISIG LIND L6,o�1414 BU1LT- AOR ® UPLAND 3A0 2,177 mEEa L.wD v, @6v,meP sod.n•ti= WATER -109'04 Other Fefltnrea 1� �V N.T UAPPED 0 5006 FMMP @OR9FY BPPrvDAP.Y COUNTS LINE V, .I / MAJOR ROAD d ,JJ COUNTT SEAT A % 5 FA9 � 4 SID4 L r Si n6 w vv N ao .o U/ .� dew M �yytn mono d[mr_s� t nT 5 1� i. Y F 6 xYxe elv.. x h ✓A.� / {/ l ' i maw, fi�� 2l, � inrol3> ...ze� ,-,,,c . W... HIM1 ea i'R ., Rtv<aae.mo am.ce,e. ooa. 680/030670 -0001 6746310 103/02/14 75A -383 69W030670 -0001 6746310I 03/0Y14 immulloolm 75A -384 ".c" C�" X �� y{ FMMP - Prime Favniand D... o File Fait View Domino, Tuols CILRP x FMMP > Overview Prime Farmland as Mapped by FMMP In order to be shown on FMMP's Important Farmland Maps as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, land must meet both the following crtleria_ Has been used for irrigated agncultuml production at some time during the four years prior to the Important Farmland Map date. Irrigated land use Is determined by FMMP staff by analyzing current aerial photos, local comment letters, and related GIS data supplemented with field verification. - -AND -- The soil must meet the physical and chemical a'itena for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as determined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) NRCS compiles Fists of which soils in each survey area meet the quality Crane Factors considered in qualification of a sod by NRCS include_ • Water moisture regimes, available water capacity, and developed litigation water supply • Soil temperature range • Acid alkali balance • Water table • Soil sodium content Flooding (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipltatlon) • Erodibility • Permeability rate • Rock fragment content • .Soil rooting depth .. ena and maptaim cafegoHes, please read this excerpt from For more detail about the sod Grit .............. ..._ the FMMP Guidelines. The Prune/Statewide lists for each county are available on the FMMP web site In PDF format. Any ques0ons specific to sod qualifications for Prime Farmland of Farmland of Statewide Importance lists should be directed to your local NRCS office _ For questions On Compilation of the Important Farmland Maps, contact FMMP_ The NRCS Set Data Mart hosts original soil data in CIS format- -see links below. 680 /030670 -0001 6746310.1 x03/0 1/14 75A -385 FMMP - Ovenrieww '...... e Overview w jKlfgr and 0) Funding R Lemsofion 6 FMMP Survey Area * Prime Farmland 8 FMIAP Cy Ordering Products • Staff • Site Index o FMMP HOME 10140, mulloolooll 690/030670 -0001 6746310.1 a03102/14 75A -386 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL AI 0 131 =III III _ •► __►' ►� ► it• Instruction Manual �a' 4 75A -387 4 t + For further information, please contact: California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 801 K Street, MS 13 -71 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3528 (916) 324 -0850 FAX (916) 327 -3430 © California Department of Conservation, 1997 The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 75A -388 75A -389 RVAIWI Instruction Manual 1997 Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 75A -390 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ExecutiveSummary ............................................................... ............................... 1 Introduction 2 Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System ........................... 2 Background on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Nationwide ..................................................... ............................... 2 Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model... ........... __ ............. __ ............... ___ .............. 3 The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ........................................................ ............................... 6 Section I. Required Resources and Information .................. ............................... 6 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors .. ............................... 7 A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors ........ ............................... 7 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating ....................... 10 2. The Storie Index Rating ....................... ............................... 12 B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors ...... ............................... 13 1. The Project Size Rating ....................... ............................... 13 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating ......................... 16 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating ........................ 23 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource LandRating.. ............................... _ ...................................... 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring ............ ............................... 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA .................................... ............................... 31 Bibliography..... .................................................................... ................................. 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step -by -step scoring instructions ............................................ ............................... A -1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project ....................... ............................... B -1 i 75A -391 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. 75A -392 INTRODUCTION Defining the LESA System The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point -based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soil - based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Background on LESA Nationwide In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis. Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government. Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions. Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is 75A -393 also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priority areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts. Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2). Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land ". Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey 3 75A -394 showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Presentation of the California LESA Model The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections: Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects. Section II. provides step -by -step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the rationale for the use of each factor. Section III. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project. Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the purpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue. 75A -395 AdditionallV: Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step -by -step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects. Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project. 75A -396 The California Agricultural LESA Model Section I. Required Resources and Information The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require: 1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers 2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map 3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical: ® A transparent grid- square or dot - planimeter method of aerial measurement ® A hand operated electronic planimeter ® The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil- mapping units for a given project. [Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a specific project survey]. 5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series, the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information. 6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. 75A -397 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors This section provides detailed step -by -step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992 -3213; phone: (916) 671 -4276. 1) The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class 1). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Stone Index - The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are 75A -398 considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity). In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists. Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting. Identifying a Project's Soils In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following: Step 1. Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey. Step 2. Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale. Step 3. Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A). Step 4. Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B. Step 5. 75A -399 Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C. 75A -400 1. Land Evaluation -The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 1. In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV -e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in Column E. Step 3. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units Land LCC Capability Point Classification Rating 1 100 Ile 90 IIs,W 80 Ille 70 IIIs,W 60 IVe 50 IVs,W 40 V 30 VI 20 VII 10 VIII 0 10 75A -401 i� L N O C O R d > P W d J I° J V U V = U- 0 m O ;s U) W N L N O f6 V CJ x 0 w 'Oa Q CL U U C •a _1 R A a N - d � L N w O N O U d N Q U) L N � N N C0 i ?� U d C O _ a x 0 L C� a G N (n N d O m N r Cf Q U y U C) J i� L N O C O R d > P W d J I° J V U V = U- 0 m O ;s U) W N L N O f6 V CJ x 0 w 'Oa Q CL U U C •a _1 R A a N - � L N N O N > Q U) U C0 i U J - E' a x 0 (n O U =_ U o U U C) J J Cf) U c U J ry m _ J U U � U J O N C (1) _O Q U c p r U J Q N y N V CO O Q U V +O+ ^O K x � L N O Q U) C0 E' a x 0 (n O U o U C) J Cf) U c U J ry J U U J O N C (1) _O Q c p r U Q N j O O 4 d a_ U N N N O U as Q m O 75A -402 Q. W 2. Land Evaluation -The Storie Index Rating Score Step 1. From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H. Step 3. Sum the Stone Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) 12 75A -403 Scoring of Site Assessment Factors The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1 A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score, Step 1. Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project. Step 2. Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site. Step 3. For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). 13 75A -404 Table 3. Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60 -79 90 120 -159 90 240 -319 80 40 -59 80 80 -119 80 160 -239 60 20 -39 50 60 -79 70 100 -159 40 10 -19 30 40 -59 60 40 -99 20 fewer than 10 0 20 -39 30 fewer than 40 0 10 -19 10 fewer than 10 0 Explanation of the Project Size Factor The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols- Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols- Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). The inclusion of the measure of a project's size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries. While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA model. 14 75A -405 In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to be considered attractive for them to farm. The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project. This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime ") is necessary. is 75A -406 2. Site Assessment -The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non - drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score. Step 1. Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4. Step 2. Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site. A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. [As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions: Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only; Portion 2 is served by ground water only; Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.] Step 3. Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0. 16 75A -407 T r+ M Q N 61 L 0 N d L Y cv m d t N Y L O Y N N G7 N N Q d w V d Z N F J ral 101 u 0 'O T O O L O O @ O X a C/) U Q O T co ._ Q)_ m ° p� 3 �m 0 > Q oa �o O N CL .o n O a a a a U (6 � O U 0 O N N ch d' to CO 0 d 75A -408 Step 4. For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non - drought years. These italicized terms are defined below: • Aphysical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction -- for example by requiring the planting of salt - tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) ® An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.) • Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when: 1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2; 2) Physical and /or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and 3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production. (A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) • Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop. • A drought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the state are by their and nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports. Kim 75A -409 Step 5. Each of the project's water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4, Step 6. For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8). 19 75A -410 f U) / \ § § \ k \ ] e LLI \U } 2927% \ ƒ \\ ^k\ \k \k\' \= zƒ \ - \ - �.000ezme; / -F ueu=, x>>* \ -U) 27 j ± s \ ) \ f k /)emmmmmm0000- 20 @ /- uuuuuu=zzzz2 » » > > > > * { _ \ -=2 /// \\ \\ ° / / / / / / > —>— \ \ ® ƒ 2 ! 2 \ g o §® C: o ® » \ o / \ / ]) 00000m ®oomm)�)2± \ ^zzzzz /(zz // \ {/2 \ \j ƒ z 0 2 § 9 ) z \ \ ® \7 2G] gf \ ) { \ U /mmmmzmmmU)U)) LU z u u u= u== z u \ /)- » » > > x > x x » » » 2 g 2 g } LL \} -a r »r e»==% -2 = � ® � \ 75A-411 CD Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols- Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols- Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report -Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower -value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions. Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost -- a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories -- physical and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system. Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not. The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? 21 75A -412 If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries. The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past -- it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 22 75A -413 3. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1. Defining a Project's "Zone of Influence" Step 1. Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site. Step 2. Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangle A). Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B. Step 5. Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.] 23 75A -414 Figure 1: Defining a Project's Zone of Influence Slr p L rluw rinll w Uiv ,Jr rwya[ Irs,wnnr�Vrx=t ➢nr ucrlhsriItI ria'h°vO1n ill wer rnd Nrvnrvs9rn±; a0LIIph r,�. S rwu,ratrr t taw im pleat ut liv lnn,lr:,tt ttt fraidlrtuard as Ir, ttv:rglv.%x, &n,p 4 ItCwrlulil4 'r,Il Fort ols dial ara cirinsn arr Un tn6Cp % B v f4li' Pet 4 urglh^ IC.. IIR Rectiln,Ple 0 Mvp 1. Oezwa sr w ouu9 r'gaa v ysPn +, fsr4 ❑xlwb li} r ru curt, fl r rrr :, 1" 0 „Q Ir et) lw,rImrl Ra c Y rrap I. 1 r rr Al gidos. Steyr S. IX,hrli ttar 11rwr]uv C' i one of lri luv v, as lln r nlne AI I � crt rl� pdro I s Wvni9llsrr1 lu `n rp d, lry v I &sa crt �x of the pen[;,wCd 1 rcar,jry i rrwarrr ,wp I, 1u rPrrs r .aanxPBc p urcth 4w, h Ind Y rcXtt,rhj }bevondY Rc c l,tnl,P 1 P angi ire ih(.Ti.l.fa ire inc Bud(-d b, Iku ibrbr +,f1ltVreii to ,ivI11 tin F, the p north t rraaYUt rat itItlrrcncc. 75A -415 Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land Step 1. Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources' Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has been (allowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or because the land has become formally "committed" to a nonagricultural use. Land that has become formally committed, whether fallow or not, should not generally be included in determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.] Step 2. Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8) . Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence in Agricultural Use Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45-49 20 40 -44 10 40 < 0 25 75A -416 Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. Ina simple example, a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself. Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below: (a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals: Or Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864); Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1 -3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does not qualify as a permanent commitment. 26 75A -417 (b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below: 1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment; 2. Payment of assessment; 3. Sale of bonds; 4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure; 5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1 -4 above and exhibit an element of permanence." Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a project's ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here. 27 75A -418 4. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1. Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above. Step 2. Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence Defined as Protected Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65 -69 60 60 -64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45 -49 20 40 -44 10 40 < 0 28 75A -419 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Stone Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. 29 75A -420 Fa— lei Its] d t N d O V � Q Q W J R s CL CO d 72 co H 70 Q) -C �O C A LL (If O > vv n �o i C O O L LO LO LO Lo Lo LO U N U II N N ,, , O C/) co 'm 7 66 6 6 6 6 Q .0 W J O _ U X X X X x x x (6 � O -p _N L O) N C O O ° 0 E co 0 LL Of O v A p �n-- N N N O N N C C C C C C J ::-j J J J J v v v v v v C N O C _ N (4 6 c0 N O J Z U Q Z3 0 L 6 U O O LL X N O W a' tz O- 'O N "O O CO C N N Of -O D U E C U -o .LD N U m L 5 o m 76 O ` LLI J(n d (n0.. Q r N O N M <f' J Ln 75A -421 0 m Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each rg eater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant 31 75A -422 Bibliography 1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land - A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987. 2. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991. 3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report -Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions -Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990. 6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996. 7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, ads. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 32 75A -423 { / \ 2 \ / k « 2 CL z LLJ 0 Z uj | & 0 \ \ § \ ) (V /U. 0 ((i/ \G§§ 0 \ \)j 75A-424 § § ) / n / (L E / \ e/ (( `) \- \\ \) ;& 3- \\ 0 =y =0 \ §v \\ \0 /0Xx o tea($ \2 §// )2 }// j \( /j / - / 6/ 0 \\ \ \\ 0 } \ )r / u`E >� 2 /()0 f /®7% ( t § 0 _ _ $ { E : \ »� »\{ \/ \| >2;_ § #_, 50 /\2$ \ ƒ \)Ld 2(),50 - MLLJ0 �2ee;a) 2 :G - -a -a 2)\7»;Dco Ef }rt2 / { /{ G}fE) /zf== *(\§ 2([m0� / /) \j /3}\ {£K /Ei \ff$ � LLJ 0 Z uj | & 0 \ \ § \ ) (V /U. 0 ((i/ \G§§ 0 \ \)j 75A-424 § § ) / n / (L E / \ e/ (( `) \- \\ \) ;& 3- \\ 0 =y =0 \ §v \\ \0 /0Xx o tea(\( \2 §// )2 }// j \( /j / T Y d d i y Y O w C cd C N N d N N 21 L Y O O a� i6 O O W C N J d O Oq vI Q) N_ w V d .o a Y MA c� LL C O Y U N L W N U U U) axi - v S CL C �L U ) U Jdo a El U U)> U @� JU> L N O 'O 00 U a - Cl) Vl U @_ J () Q) Cl) Cl) N a O O v> Q U S C/) U - o �p U U 0 O J J Y N L V y O Q V V O O h- a N X N L N O 'O 00 Cl) Vl Q) N a O v> Q S C/) o �p U U 0 O J U U J / \ o f) O CL 0 O O a` U (n N N O U d Q O_ e = E` O U) 75A -425 FN V 1 O CL O d � t Z 6 U N N 0 I 0 U @ U L N Y Lu LLI c aw c E U N N U @ �O N Z N O L d o N'0 O s O Q w@ O p N O - O N - O a 0 N -p Nj N 0 a - a E c @ @ p @ to @ U U UL-- N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 C_ o p Q t= c d 3 L N Y O° 0 0 U) oEE E`o� d c @ U N 01- 0,6 0-2J � O c> c 0 C o N y E da "E E E° m E E o o O IE fn � N N N - (1). m o 'O E E E N U @ E E EL U v 3 0 3 d y E N 0 0 6 �- '� m? � p o U U U a L c O p E E E E o d N ci U O O O L o @ E.oa co U) nU .E °ao 3 R (L Lu 2 v a 3 J O N N O O) O N m N M N .�- COl V U � o 0 Q N O O V N N R U G N ' 5 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o rn @ <p � I�. V> M V U A O Q N N O V N c w O = a U � O NN v U O o rn rn rn rn V A 6 cs 6 6 1 Q 75A -426 0 Y 0 A m V O L N N O O U U U J N N r N L.. E O O O U N 0 L m L Q N O O OJ V @ U d CO c 0 N N � t V N N d O O d U N w � �w = J w A c � LL N ro a. 7 M { / \ 0 z 75A-427 \ m 04 co a \)\ s R/ a )/) / § { ) \\ \ - \ / uj \ /) - - \| f - -- f ) = 0 \ }§ - 9f 0 j§ - \ _ \3 k\ \ \ \ U) \ ) - ( 7 \ _ / s g»® 00 )i: §« ? - J7; \z { > _ \ \\ \ a 0 uj §) m {d §\a ){ { § # {k [| 0,D 2 » U) c E a }« ƒZ{ \ f) /\\) \ \ \\ iF - /{ 2 =i( » \ -_ 2 \ - /: co 3 a £) / 3J Ef i } \/ / 2} < E§ � { / \ 0 z 75A-427 \ Y a a N N 7 O N v R E N d d t Y O G v E N N d N N Q w w .i U M 0 75A -428 0 N m m a a d m o x U) v d w v o o � O ¢ O O U N N i U C O O (O O 75A -428 0 N m m a a d d C .O U fn a d U 0 O N .ate. t0 W U u W W p Q O 0 U) CO ° ° Ln W o O N o of in f� Ln O o to rn V Ln M o M in N o N ° U C O ° L r. p W O z W } U W } O Z 0 W } O Z W } i U Z m O O p` O U W N U O 0 N K U U U C N. � ,O o° N m o >U U } U U Y T U >U U } O z O z O Z O Z a m a m N O N O N N T L O o 00 W O Z O Z w } O Z O Z O Z W } O Z w } O Z W } @ a m N T m C O a f0 m m -°o o N a m C O N O - C 6 O = a cr O Z O Z O Z O Z O z Lu W } O Z O Z w } W } N OU O Z U z W of C N O a OC O C a O L O O 2 N 00 C O U O a O U O U O a G a O m .o m -o m Loa) W U y U } U } U } U } U } co } U } U } U } U } U L _C N U (6 O C a0 C o m U f6 D N c0 N L_ n a Z c .Q N M V Ln (fl r of a1 O 75A -429 0 a c O U L (n LU Q Z ui W J N F rn c `o U e J 7 U Q e :o e O O U) E a E O WO @ a O v J U O r Q 0 7 @ T N N O Y 3 Q J y E N n Q p m m (D ° c O u O of m a O co l0 N L.. � 't O e C '- U p E o O O O o O In N � C N N N N O O LO In V V Q O O Y @ O N Y C C L_ O) E- � N d 0 - @ O @ O O o V oy -° a O mad c m U) @ O O @ O O a N 0— O V U N= N 3 O N w y1 3 J a @ C @ @ CU = 7 C @0 CD O Q U cn a=- g Q N O N UwL- C O 0.0 N CO �a�O1Na C '- O @ @L� p 3@ ✓Y = Y@ N o m O M E N 01L Y C Ea C= 30 �J @o @mF pE_ Cn 76 O N N O N N N O — U)OO O-Oa 6 v a c O U L (n LU Q Z ui W J N F rn c `o U e J 7 U Q e :o e O O U) 75A -430 0 a e a � U O O 0 V V W r CO t0 7 c`7 N 3 Q J y N O u O of I� ti O co l0 47 d' 't O e C '- U O O O l(7 O In d O y Gl U p� W I� CO O LO In V V Q a 75A -430 0 a M m d s Y L cd C N N N N N Q Y m N L W 101 re -al 75A -431 G N Ql N b d a U O Q C U O U M O O O ~ O 0 �0� O 5 a L B L U) J UU G N O U h E L L C O U) -j W C � O J � O Q m U L Q) �o0 a� c m d �= m _ ` U � O � w. _C v- O N U Q E O N N Q a J U) � U U 'L Q Q O h 75A -431 G N Ql N b d c 0 U N N L y Y Ul Q uj LLI d s m F- m C O L) U) v C R J O L O y d U d O 0. 0) C 'a c 0 t d 0 O N y G � U fA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO n V M N 0 d U N a) J M O � o a` N9 w O 2 O O O C O t O V m d' U co I� r (D CO N N V d' O G 0 O O O Ln O N O O V � a a C = J W p m a ,� -NO at6i O O U O N U) O _ O O O E = U v❑ N N O N p U OU C U O vi N U Q n 0 a o c m N C w U a aO o o m U 00 a L N (9 �' in >LO ^✓ y O 0 `�' NQ N Oa0 a��,�o3 y@ (n to O O J -� N � 5 N C O N O L O Y O Y O N U O E U (6 O �- d `O E N N o maDU):+_� aoa Yd o�UvNUr� w�J L � N a c 0 U N N L y Y Ul Q uj LLI d s m F- m C O L) U) v C R J O L O y d U d O 0. 0) C 'a c 0 t d 0 O N y G � U fA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO n V M N 0 d U N a) J O a` N9 w O 2 O O O C O t O V m d' U co I� r (D CO N N V d' O G 0 O O O Ln O N O O V � a 75A -432 n a N o. d C\ � \\ ) �\\ }}\ a) {)j \0 o \ \ \k §{ f \ \ 2 \ \ «ems @ /a ^ ^] =,r?7u �®®) :—'0 2 \( \\\ 0#»122 \ /27aa U -LL G 2 \ / \ 75A- 22 / 7 \ 7 [ ) j CO / / \ } \ 3 / E \ \_ ƒ ) \ 75A -434 Q) Mitre - Ramirez, Norma To: Huizar, Maria Subject: RE: Supplemental Materials Orchard From: Huizar, Maria City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:25 PM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Supplemental Materials - City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard From: Cathy Richardson [ mailto •CRichardson(&sheppardmuliin com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:12 PM To: Huizar, Maria Cc: Deborah Rosenthal; Fregoso, Vince Subject: Supplemental Materials - City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Dear Maria: Please find attached supplemental materials for the City Council relative to tomorrow's City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. These materials are referenced in Mr. Wayne Donaldson's letter to the City Council dated March 1, 2014. Please include these supplemental records in the City's public record for the Council hearing. We appreciate a reply email confirming you received this email. Thank you for your assistance. Cathy Richardson Legal Secretary to Deborah M. Rosenthal 714.424.8262 I direct. CRichardson9sheupardnT .dlin_con_i ,ShepperdNlulfin Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LL P 650 Town Cente,[ Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714,513.8100 1 main www. shenoardmu II in. com Circular 230 Notice: bn accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein (or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any i 3/4/2014 2:55 PM 2:55 PM 75A -435 transaction or platter addressed herein (or in any attachments). Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e -mail and delete the message and any attachments. 3/4/2014 2:55 PM 2:55 PM 75A -436 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 1 of 8 t FIMVIOue U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Evaluating a Designed Historic Landscape for the National Register of Historic Places To qualify for the National Register, a designed landscape must have significance as one of the designed historic landscape types listed above and retain integrity of location, design intent, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet National Register criteria. Determining the significance of a designed landscape depends upon conducting a systematic investigation of the history, purpose, social significance, qualities, associations, and physical characteristics of the property and using this information to establish whether or not the landscape is an exemplary representative of one of the types listed above. A typical landscape investigation should accomplish the following: 1. Obtain information about the specific example of landscape gardening, planning, and /or design through documentation of its history and collection of available plans and photographs. Conduct site visits to identify the historic characteristics of the design intent of the landscape. 2. Identify the an rn o )riate landscape tv )es within which the landscape should be evaluated. 3. Analyze characteristic features that the landscape should possess to he a good representative of its landscape type. �y 4. Evaluate the significance of the historic landscape using National Register criteria. (See National Register Bulletin: Flow to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.) 5. Evaluate the integrity of each landscape characteristic and list the features that the r landscape should retain to possess integrity. J 6. Determine if any aspect of the landscape's history or present condition might place it in a category of properties generally considered ineligible for the National Register, httn, / /wvvw.nns.9Dv NR/ publications /butletinn75A437.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 2 of 8a and therefore requiring specialjustification. (See National Resister Bulletin: How to AppIv the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.) 1. Obtain Information An evaluation of a designed historic landscape should begin with compiling a general description and history of the property including: • dates of design and construction; • names of owners, landscape architects, designers, and administrators; • identification of construction techniques, methods, and plant materials; • landscape style; • existing and previous uses with the dates of these uses identified; and • the acreage and existing boundaries of the original tract and any subsequent additions or reductions. The researcher should determine the original intent of the landscape design based on original plans, photographs, correspondence, etc., as well as any alterations to the original design and the dates such alterations occurred. Additional information may be important, including the introduction of hybrid or exotic plant materials; the innovative use of new construction materials or techniques; and the relationship between this and other nearby properties, designed by the same individual or firm, or owned by the same individual, family, organization, agency, municipality, or State or Federal government. Information should not be limited to that concerning design and physical appearance, but should also include data concerning the function of the landscape during its history and the individuals or groups associated with its ownership, design, and uses. Narrative Description and Mapping of Present Features and Function The present features and functions of a designed historic landscape should be described in a written narrative and located on a map or plan. Both the written narrative description and the map or plan may include the following features: • existing topography and grading • natural features • land uses • circulation system of roads, paths, trails, etc. • spatial relationships and orientations such as symmetry, asymmetry, and axial alignment • views and vistas into and out of the landscape • vegetation by botanical name and common name with caliper for trees and heights for shrubs (put this onto maps) • landscape dividers such as walls, fences, and hedges • drainage and engineering structures • site furnishings and small scale elements such as benches, planters, and urns • bodies of water such as pools, fountains, lakes, streams, and cascades • lighting: include actual fixture such as street lights and lanterns, as well as the use of both natural and artificial lighting as design elements (e.g., intensity, color) • signs delineating entrances, street names, and other features • buildings such as houses, barns, dormitories, or hospitals that may be contained within hrrn / /�x vw. nns .uov /NR /nublications/bullefl7 8//]338 5,htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 3 of 8 the landscape • strictures such as bridges, roads, and dams • sculpture and other works of art Individual features, even though some may be movable or could be considered separately, contribute to the overall identity and character of the landscape and should be considered, in most instances, not individually but in terms of their relationship to the totality of the landscape. A recent survey or aerial photograph of the landscape is often helpful in identifying and locating such features. Narrative Description and Mapping of Historic Features and Function The narrative of the historical appearance should draw upon both documentary evidence and field observations. The discussion should include a chronology describing the evolution of the site from its original state original topography, and native vegetation (i.e., prairie grass, hardwood forest), if known, through its earliest and subsequent uses, designs, and physical alterations. Maps should delineate the exact, if known, or approximate locations of all known historic features. (See "Narrative Description and Mapping of Present Features and Function" above for types of features to include and "Research. Field Work. and Documentation Techniques" for assistance in identification.) Determine Period of Significance and Preliminary Boundaries Using the information collected and organized above, the researcher should begin to determine the property's period of significance and preliminary National Register boundaries. The period of significance should be the time period in which the property achieved the qualities that make it eligible for the National Register. Continued use over time does not mean that the period of significance necessarily coincides with that time. There may be several distinct periods of significance for some properties. If this is the case, all historic periods should be noted. 2. Identify Designed Historic Landscape Types and Develop Historic Context Once the history of the landscape has been compiled, it is necessary to determine the type to which it most properly belongs. Then identify important events and trends that influenced the development of the landscape type during the period of the property's design or during any major alterations, At present the standard source for American landscape history is Design on the Land, the Development of Landscape Architecture by Norman'r. Newton. It also may be helpful to check with the State Iistoric Preservation Officer, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the National Association for Olmsted Parks, the Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, and other historical, preservation, and landscape professionals and organizations that may have already evaluated the significance of the landscape or identified the designed landscape type that it represents. They may also be able to recommend important source materials, to assist in identifying the physical features necessary to represent a particular type, period, or method of construction or planting, or to suggest significant associations within the development and practice of landscape gardening and plamiing. Decisions about the significance of properties can only be made with knowledge of the historic and comparative context for the property evaluated. Therefore, determining the htto-// www_ nnq. vnv /NR /nuhlications /bulletirl7SA4 39.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 4 of 8 , relationship between an individual landscape and the historic development and practice of landscape architecture is an essential factor in determining significance. All landscapes that possess age are not significant, and those that are significant must be determined from their connection to the historic theme(s) it represents and in relationship to a group of similarly associated properties. All the information required to demonstrate the significance of a designed historic landscape will vary according to whether it is significant to the local community, the State, or the nation. It may not be necessary to describe the development of local gardening styles, for example, for a designed historic landscape that is significant in the national development of landscape architecture. If, however, the designed landscape has no importance on the State or national level but is a significant example of a local style of landscape gardening or landscape architecture, then such a discussion is required. If a designed landscape is important at all three geographic levels -- local, State, and national - -it should be discussed within the context of all three with significant contributions noted for each level. Many State I3istoric Preservation Offices are defining formal historic contexts as part of their comprehensive State historic preservation planning process and may be able to assist nomination preparers with the compilation of comparative and thematic data for the evaluation of a property. 3. Analyze Characteristic Features Next, the researcher needs to determine the characteristic features that the property must possess to be a good representative of its type, period, or method of design or construction, and how it relates to the development and philosophy of its designed landscape type. For example, a researcher approaching a park designed in the American Romantic style may be looking for an emphasis on natural scenery and native plant materials, a lack of formal design, and a curvilinear circulation system and other characteristics generally associated with such parks. A landscape where these characteristics are not identifiable would not be a good representative of this type and, therefore, ineligible for the National Register. 4. Evaluate Significance of the Historic Landscape Using National Register Criteria As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Register criteria, to be eligible for the National Register a designed historic landscape must possess the quality of significance in American history, architecture (interpreted in the broadest sense to include landscape architecture and planning), archeology, engineering, and culture and integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. hnn / /www.nns.aov /NR/ nub lications /bullet stAI 4 l© 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 5 of 8 Many designed historic landscapes will be eligible because of their associations with significant events and trends. For example, the creation of designed landscapes has historically been associated with social movements. The historic designs for parks, suburbs, and playgrounds have direct links, in many cases, to the social issues of their times. In addition to possessing significance according to such historical themes established by the National Register as social history, agriculture, or transportation and meeting criteria A -D above on that basis, a property nominated because it is a designed historic landscape should meet these criteria primarily on the basis of associations with landscape gardening or landscape architecture under criterion C. In general, such questions as whether a particular designed historic landscape was the first of its type; is noted for some particular innovation in design, construction, planting, or use; or is associated with a significant figure in landscape architecture, gardening, and planning, should be considered. Typically, a designed historic landscape meets criterion C for one of the following reasons: • its association with the productive careers of significant figures in American landscape architecture such as Andrew Jackson Downing, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jens Jensen, Beatrix Farrand, or other noted practitioners; • its association with a historical trend or school of theory and practice within landscape architecture such as the City Beautiful Movement or the Country Place Era, rather than with an individual person of significance; • the presence of highly skilled craftsmanship or use of particular materials in the construction of walls, walks, fountains, and other landscape elements; • evidence of distinguished design and layout that results in superior aesthetic quality and constitutes an important artistic statement; or • a rare or specimen plant materials associated with a particular period or style of landscape history. 5. Evaluate Integrity Not all historic properties retain integrity. The National Register criteria recognize seven aspects, or qualities, which, in various combinations, define integrity. Historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association must be considered in determining whether a landscape retains enough of its important features to convey its historically significant appearance or associations. Landscapes have unique attributes that often complicate the evaluation of integrity, but the degree to which the overall landscape and its significant features are present today must be evaluated. In general, the researcher should ask the following questions when evaluating integrity: 1) To what degree does the landscape convey its historic character? 2) To what degree has the original fabric been retained? 3) Are changes to the landscape irrevocable or can they be corrected so that the property retains integrity? The specific features that a designed historic landscape must retain will differ for various landscape types. Such features may include, but are not necessarily limited to, spatial relationships, vegetation, original property boundary, topography /grading, site- furnishings, design intent, architectural features, and circulation system. If, for example, a property is primarily significant because of its internal road circulation, yet the historic road patterns are no longer discernible or have been badly damaged, then the landscape has suffered a loss of integrity that may make it ineligible for the National Register. In addition to establishing the reasons for a designed landscape's significance, it is also necessary to determine if the designed landscape is significant for its original or altered character or both. Although a landscape need not retain all the characteristic features that (see list above) it had during its httnl/ www. nns. eov/ NR/ nublications /bulletig7s&A&l4M 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 6 of 8 period(s) of significance, it must retain enough or have restored enough of the essential features to make its historic character clearly recognizable, and these features should be identified. The clearest evaluation of integrity is based on the presence of identifiable components of the original design. To evaluate the historic integrity of a designed landscape, it is useful to compare the present appearance and function of the landscape to its historical appearance and function. The relationship between present function and that intended or actually in use during the period of significance may also affect the integrity of a designed historic landscape. An area that was designed for passive recreation may have suffered a loss of integrity if it has been converted for active play such as baseball. On the other hand, an open meadow within a large estate or institutional grounds may survive an adaptive use to a golf course without loss of integrity if its open design qualities remain dominant. Conversions of designed landscapes to agricultural or forest uses may also seriously affect historic integrity, although the existing landscape remains scenic. The features to be evaluated should also be considered in terms of survival, condition, and appropriateness to the original design intent and period of significance. Such features include grading, rock formations, water bodies, road networks, and paths. Such elements are relatively stable and their integrity can be addressed in much the same way that one would analyze the integrity of a building. Some additions dating from a period later than the period of significance but that retain the spirit of the original design, such as a rusticated concrete wall extension of an original stone wall, may have achieved significance of their own over time. Site furnishings such as benches, urns, and street lights are particularly vulnerable to periodic change; although their presence may strengthen the integrity of the designed historic landscape, their absence when the special integrity of the designed landscape is intact does not necessarily mean ineligibility. Vegetation, another important feature of most landscapes, is not stable. It is always changing - -by seasonal cycles, maturation, pruning, removal, neglect, and other forces. If one first determines that the more stable elements of the designed landscape are sufficiently intact to represent the original design intent, then it can be determined whether the existing vegetation taken as a whole reinforces or supports the original design intent. A bare site that was once heavily proved, for example, usually would be considered ineligible. Less dramatic changes in vegetation might not disqualify a site on the question of integrity. A designed historic landscape need not exist today exactly as it was originally designed or first executed if integrity of location and visual effect have been preserved. Originality of plant materials can increase integrity but absence of original materials does not automatically disqualify a designed landscape. The absence of original vegetation may not diminish integrity, for example, if the same or similar species of appropriate size have been replanted to replace dead, diseased, or mature specimens. A boulevard that has lost its original trees but where appropriate new street trees have been planted may retahn integrity. Some later vegetation, especially specimen varieties, may also possess significance in its own right regardless of its relationship to the original design or implementation. Condition will play a significant role in evaluating integrity. Such categories as excellent, good, fair, deteriorated, and severely deteriorated applied to individual features may assist the researcher in making a final judgment about the overall condition, and thus the integrity, of the property. Plant materials that are diseased, overmature, or have been subjected to excessive pruning or other improper treatment, as well as areas where there is extensive soil erosion, may diminish a landscape's integrity. Condition, of course, is reversible; in many httn- / /www nn.e nnv lhlR /nnhlications /bullet7,SA1 /442 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 7 of 8 instances it may be possible to enhance integrity through maintenance, replanting, or other restoration or reconstruction procedures. In most instances the original boundaries of the landscape design will define the limits of the geographic area to be evaluated. Adjacent offsite conditions will not be considered in the evaluation of integrity, unless they were included as part of the original design intent. In such cases, a landscape's immediate surroundings may have an impact on an evaluation of integrity. Major adjacent encroachment, such as highways, parking lots, and new buildings, may violate the original design intent and intrude upon the property. Views from the property, for example, that were intended to be pastoral but that are now industrial, or views that were established along sight lines to buildings, monuments, or other features that have been destroyed, may be a serious detriment to the integrity of a historic landscape. 6. Determine the Need for Special Justification Certain types of properties do not usually qualify for the National Register. Cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not ordinarily considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify under the criteria as they apply to designed historic landscapes if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or c, a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events, or e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or g, a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Usually considerations b and c above do not apply to designed historic landscapes, but there may be historic districts that contain properties that must meet these considerations to kiln . /hvww nnc anv/, iR/ nnhlications lbulleti;7SA8ddAA5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 8 of 8 0 contribute to the historic significance of the designed landscape. Cemeteries and the grounds associated with religious institutions are among the most obvious examples of landscapes requiring justification under the National Register criteria considerations. Only those possessing artistic quality because of their landscape design will meet the test of significance as designed historic landscapes. A landscape that had pivotal physical characteristics reconstructed may be eligible if it is significant for its original landscape design, if it is the sole surviving landscape of its type, or if it is the only survivor associated with a significant figure in landscape architecture. However, the property will require special justification. To be eligible for the National Register, a designed historic landscape that is less than fifty years old must be exceptionally significant. A property that has achieved significance within the last fifty years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important and will continue to retain that distinction in the future. Scholarly recognition is usually required to establish exceptional significance because only that type of analysis can convincingly demonstrate that despite the lack of the passage of the fifty-year period, sufficient historical perspective exists to evaluate the particular property. A property must be compared with other properties of its type that have similar associations and qualities to establish exceptional significance. The reasons for which a property is considered exceptionally significant must be explained along with a discussion of the qualities and characteristics that distinguish the landscape as exceptional. Occasionally, a landscape may contain exceptionally important elements such as sculpture and other works of art. If the work of art is an integral part of the design for the landscape, it may make the entire landscape eligible for the National Register even if it is less than fifty years old. Landscapes not determined to be especially significant should be reevaluated when they are fifty years old. (See National Register Bulletin• How To ii, a/it ate mid the Past Fifiv Years for a more detailed discussion of the evaluation process for properties that are less than fifty years old.) 111111 1 ;;,Previous '�" Next = National Register Home I Publications Home I Previous Page I Next Psc Continents or Ouestions JPJ limn Jhanxnu nnc vmi/NR /mihl ioati nn.S /hul let 75A444 5,htm 2/28/2014 Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment / Cultural Landscape Gui... Page 1 of 2 INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment Change and Continuity. There is a balance between change and continuity in all cultural resources. Change is Inherent in cultural landscapes; it results from both natural processes and human activities. Sometimes that change is subtle, barely perceptible as with the geomorphological effects on landform. At other times, It is strikingly obvious, as with vegetation, either in the cyclical changes of growth and reproduction or the progressive changes of plant competition and succession. This dynamic quality of all cultural landscapes Is balanced by the continuity of distinctive characteristics retained over time. For, in spite of a landscape's constant change (or perhaps because of it), a property can still exhibit continuity of form, order, use, features, or materials. Preservation and rehabilitation treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change. Relative Significance in History. A cultural landscape may be a significant resource as a rare survivor or the work of an important landscape architect, horticulturist or designer. it may be the site of an important event or activity, reflect cultural traditions, or other patterns of settlement or land use. This significance may be derived from local, regional, or national importance, Cultural landscapes may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as contributing features in a historic district. in some instances, cultural landscapes may be designated National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior for their exceptional significance in American history. Geographical Context. I he surroundings of a cultural landscape, whether an urban neighborhood or rural fanning area [see center top left and right], may contribute to its significance and its historic character and should be considered prior to treatment. The setting may contain component landscapes or features which fall Il /Asr,xnx, m,c 5*4452uidelines/factors.htm 5euidelines /faetors.htm 2/28/201 4 overview • =r Preservation Planning Factors to Consider I Special Requirements �ru. i re _Ste ..... Using the Standards +Guidelines Organization of the Guidelines 1. s Terminology Bibliography rp rr7; ,w Acknowledgments The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation's irreplaceable cultural resources. They cannot be used to make essential decisions about which contributing features of a cultural landscape should be Before a treatment was selected forme retained and which can be changed. But once a specific treatment is selected, the Standards can Piper Farm at Antietam Battlefield, it provide the necessary philosophical framework for a consistent and holistic approach for a cultural was important to understand that the landscape project. farm complex had a high level of A treatment is a physical intervention carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal —it cannot be integrity for its turn -of- the - century development. In fact. if the landscape considered in a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical variables that influence the was restored" to the period or the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include, but are not limited to, the extent of historic battlee, fl would have resulted in the documentation, existing physical conditions, historic value, proposed use, long and short term removal of this form complex and objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and anticipated capital improvement, staffing and maintenance costs. The impact of the treatment on any significant subsequent loss of significant history , archeological and natural resources should also be considered in this decision making process. MPS.1994) Therefore, it is necessary to consider a broad array of dynamic and interrelated variables in selecting a treatment for a cultural landscape preservation project. For some cultural landscapes, especially those that are best considered ethnographic or heritage landscapes, these Guidelines may not apply. However, if people working with these properties decide that community coherence may be affected by physical place and space --or if there is potential for loss of landscape character whose significance is rooted In the community's sewities and processes (or other aspects of its history) —this guide may be of service. Change and Continuity. There is a balance between change and continuity in all cultural resources. Change is Inherent in cultural landscapes; it results from both natural processes and human activities. Sometimes that change is subtle, barely perceptible as with the geomorphological effects on landform. At other times, It is strikingly obvious, as with vegetation, either in the cyclical changes of growth and reproduction or the progressive changes of plant competition and succession. This dynamic quality of all cultural landscapes Is balanced by the continuity of distinctive characteristics retained over time. For, in spite of a landscape's constant change (or perhaps because of it), a property can still exhibit continuity of form, order, use, features, or materials. Preservation and rehabilitation treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change. Relative Significance in History. A cultural landscape may be a significant resource as a rare survivor or the work of an important landscape architect, horticulturist or designer. it may be the site of an important event or activity, reflect cultural traditions, or other patterns of settlement or land use. This significance may be derived from local, regional, or national importance, Cultural landscapes may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as contributing features in a historic district. in some instances, cultural landscapes may be designated National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior for their exceptional significance in American history. Geographical Context. I he surroundings of a cultural landscape, whether an urban neighborhood or rural fanning area [see center top left and right], may contribute to its significance and its historic character and should be considered prior to treatment. The setting may contain component landscapes or features which fall Il /Asr,xnx, m,c 5*4452uidelines/factors.htm 5euidelines /faetors.htm 2/28/201 4 Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment / Cultural Landscape Gui... Page 2 of 2 , , within the property's historic boundaries. It also may be comprised of separate properties beyond the landscape's boundaries, and perhaps those of the National Register listing. The landscape Context can include the overall pattern of the circulation networks, views and vistas Into and out of the landscape, land use, natural features, clusters of structures, and division of properties. Use. Historic. current, and proposed use of the cultural landscape must be considered prior to treatment selection. Historic use is directly linked to its significance [bottom left], while current and proposed use (s) can affect integrity and existing conditions. Parameters may vary from one landscape to another. For example, in one agricultural landscape, continuation of the historic use can lead to changes in the physical form of a farm to accommodate new crops and equipment. In another agricultural property, new uses may be adapted within the landscape's existing form, order and features. Archeological Resources. Prehistoric and historic archeological resources may be found in cultural landscapes above and below the ground (below] and even underwater. Examples of prehistoric archeological resources include prehistoric mounds built by Native- Americans. Examples of historic archeological resources include remnants of buildings, cliff dwellings, and villages; or, features of a sunken garden, mining camp, or battlefield. These resources not only have historical value, but can also reveal significant information about a cultural landscape. The appropriate treatment of a cultural landscape includes the identification and preservation of significant archeological resources. Many landscape preservation projects include a site archeologist. Natural Systems, Cultural landscapes often derive their character from a human response to natural features and systems. The significance of these natural resources may be based on their cultural associations and from their Inherent ecological values. Natural resources form natural systems that are Interdependent on one another and which may extend well beyond the boundary of the historic property. For example, these systems can include geology, hydrology, plant and animal habitats, and climate. Some of these natural resources are particularly susceptible to disturbances caused by changes in landscape management. Many natural resources such as wetlands or rare species fall under local, state, and federal regulations which must be considered. Since natural resource protection is a specialized field distinct from cultural landscape preservation, a preservation planning team may want to include an expert in this area to address specific issues or resources found within a cultural landscape. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered when selecting an appropriate treatment. . ............. .... Management and Maintenance. Management strategies are long -term and comprehensive, They can be one of the means for implementing a landscape preservation plan. Maintenance tasks can be day -to -day, seasonal, or cyclical, as determined by management strategies. Although routine honicultural activities, such as mowing and weeding, or general grounds maintenance, such as re- laying pavement or curbs, may appear routine, such activities can cumulatively alter the character of a landscape. In contrast, well. conceived management and maintenance activities can sustain character and integrity over an extended period. Therefore, both the management and maintenance of cultural landscapes should be considered when selecting a treatment. Interpretation. Interpretation can help in understanding and - reading the landscape. The tools and techniques of interpretation can include guided walks, self - guided brochures, computer -aided tours, exhibits, and wayside stations. Interpretive goals should compliment treatment selection, reflecting the landscape's significance and historic character. A cuYural landscape may possess varying levels of integrity or even differing periods of significance, both orwhich can result in a mule- faceted approach to interpretation. In some cases, interpretation and a sound interpretive strategy can inform decisions about how to treat a landscape. Landscan G Jtlelln¢s Hom¢ „• /i.,na ar„ anv /inc /gland tats/ four- trea7mtAla s e- Guidelines /factors.htm 2/28/2014 5. NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources U.S. oeparr of the Interior National Paark k Se Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES M �4,ateS±4 �7 1 r fi Sch Sch h t t1 f* r FuP ��WE9i'�A�NJ Pa .y P } }� ✓ n 4, $3oxuh,',k r. `� F{v, `� th erns ,r •3 rr" rli��i ,� 4 pW r A C i''r,FiiPF {''.:: fifi,`I 'i7J ✓fur. �. YWx The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Cover: (Top Left) Detail of USGS map showing the National Register boundaries of the Columbia Historic District in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. (Top Right) View of Architect Marcel Breuer's International Style home in Lincoln, Massachusetts. (Ruth Williams) (Bottom Left) View of the Roxborough State Park Archeological District near Waterton, Colorado. (William Tate) (Bottom Right) Detail of a 1987 land survey map defining the property boundaries of Gunston Hall in Buncombe County, North Carolina. (Blue Ridge Land Surveying, Inc.) 75A -448 DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES BY DONNA J. SEIFERT including Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John H. Sprinkle, Jr. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 1995, REVISED 1997 75A -449 PREFACE........... ............................ . ............. ........... . ...... I ............ I............ CREDITSAND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ........... ............................................................................................................. .... iii I. DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES ................................................... ..............................1 ..�. o,. 16 .......... v .................. ............................... - . DOCUMENTING BOUNDARIES — ................................................................................................................ ............................... 5 Completing Section 10, Geographical Data ............................................................................................ ..............................5 The Verbal Boundary Description and Boundary Justification ......................................................... ............................... 5 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) References .............................................................................. ............................... 6 GlobalPositioning System (GPS) ............................................................................................................ ............................... 6 III. CASE STUDIES .......... ................ ... ..... .. .............. . .... . .... . .......... ........... . ....... —.... .............. . ..... .— ... . ........... ........ . ............ 1.......1 ....... ... 7 Boundariesfor Buildings .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Buildingsin Urban Settings ..................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Buildingsin Rural Settings ...................................................................................................... ............................... 10 Boundariesfor Historic Districts ........................................................................................................... ............................... 12 Contiguous Districts in Urban Settings ................................................................................. ............................... 13 Discontiguous Districts in Urban Settings ................. .. ........................... .................................... — ...................... 16 Contiguous Districts in Rural Settings ................................................................................... ............................... 17 Discontiguous Districts in Rural Settings .............................................................................. ............................... 23 Parksas Districts ................................. ...................................... ........... .......... ..... ........................ ............... --- ....... 23 Boundaries for Particular Property Types ....... ......... ...................... .......... ....... ........................... .. ................................... — 27 TraditionalCultural Properties ................ ...................................... --- ..... ............................. ........... ................ .... 27 MiningProperties ................... .. ........................ ................................. .. ............. ................. — ......... ........ ................... 27 Boundaries for Archeological Sites and Districts ............................................................................... ............................... 30 ArcheologicalSites .................................................................................................................... ............................... 31 ContiguousArcheological Districts ........................................................................................ ............................... 33 Discontiguous Archeological Districts ................................................................................... ............................... 34 ShipwreckSites .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 35 Boundariesfor Historic Sites ................................................................................................................. ............................... 36 Boundariesfor Objects ........................ ........................... ............. .......... ............................... ..................................... ........ -- 40 Boundariesfor Structures.... ........ I ... I .... -- ..... 1— .................. ........ ... -- ....... -- ......................................... ........... ................ 41 IV. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... .............................45 V. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ..... ..................................... ........ .. .............. ..................... ........ ........ 46 VI. NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS .............. .... .................. ... ........... ................................................................ ....... ....... ......... 47 APPENDIX: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties (formerly National Register Bidletin 12: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties) ....................... 43 a 75A -450 The National Register of Historic Places is the official Federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. National Register properties have significance in the prehistory or history of their community, State, or the nation. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. National Register Bulletins provide guidance on how to identify, evaluate, document, and register significant properties. This bulletin is designed to help preparers properly select, define, and document boundaries for National Register listings and deter- minations of eligibility. It includes basic guidelines for selecting bound- aries to assist the preparer in complet- ing the National Register Registration Form. Examples of a variety of property types are presented. These examples illustrate several ways to address boundary issues. 75A -451 This bulletin was prepared by Donna J. Seifert, archeologist, under a cooperative agreement between the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Na- tional Park Service. Carol D. Shull Keeper, National Register of Historic Places National Park Service U. S. Department of the Interior IN r I Me FA 0 [61UT r This bulletin addresses issues originally presented in National Register Bulletin: Definition of Bound- aries for Historic Units of the National Park System and National Register Bulletin: How to Establish Boundaries for National Register Properties. Both were prepared before National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form was revised. This revised bulletin complements the guidelines on boundaries in How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form and provides a variety of case studies to assist nomination preparers. This bulletin benefited from the suggestions offered by the staff members of the National Register of Historic Places, who shared their opinions and expertise. Critical guidance was provided by Carol D. Shull, Antoinette J. Lee, and Jan Townsend; Beth Savage provided an important case study, which was included in the bulletin. John Byrne of the National Register staff, pre- pared lists of properties to consider in the selection of the case studies, and Tanya M. Velt of the National Confer- ence of State Historic Preservation Officers provided research assistance. Comments and contributions from the following individuals were particularly valuable: Paul Alley, Western Regional Office, National Park Service; David Banks, Inter- agency Resources Division, National Park Service; Robin K. Bodo, Dela- ware Historic Preservation Office; Carol Burkhart, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; William R. Chapman, Historic Preservation Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa; Rebecca Conard, Tallgrass Historians L.C.; Dan G. Diebler, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; Jim Draeger, Wisconsin Division of Historic Preservation; Audry L. Entorf, General Services Administration; Betsy Friedberg, Massachusetts Historical Commis- sion; Bruce Fullem, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Elsa Gilbertson, Vermont Division for Historic Preser- vation; Susan L. Henry, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; Gerri Hobdy, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development; Thomas F. King, Silver Spring, Maryland; John Knoerl, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; Paul Lusignan, Interagency 75A -452 Resources Division, National Park Service; Kirk F. Mohney, Maine Historic Preservation Commission; David L. Morgan, Kentucky Heritage Council; Bruce Noble, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; William W. Schenk, Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service; and Robert E. Stipe, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make avail- able information concerning historic properties. Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties was developed under the general editorship of Carol D. Shull, Keeper, National Register of Historic Places. Antoinette J. Lee, historian, was responsible for publications coordina- tion, and Tanya M. Veit provided editorial and technical support. Comments on this publication may be directed to Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. The preparer of a National Register nomination collects, evaluates, and presents the information required to document the property and justify its historical significance. Among the decisions the preparer must make is the selection of the property's bound- aries: in addition to establishing the significance and integrity of a prop- erty, the physical location and extent of the property are defined as part of the documentation. Boundary infor- mation is recorded in Section 10, Geographical Data, on the National Register Registration Form. This bulletin is designed to assist the preparer in selecting, defining, and documenting boundaries for National Register properties, The bulletin addresses the factors to consider and includes examples that illustrate properly defined boundaries for a variety of property types. WHY BOUNDARIES ARE IMPORTANT Carefully defined boundaries are important for several reasons. The boundaries encompass the resources that contribute to the property's significance. Boundaries may also have legal and management implica- tions. For example, only the area within the boundaries may be consid- ered part of the property for the purposes of Federal preservation tax incentives and charitable contribu- tions. State and local laws that require consideration of historic resources may also refer to boundaries in the application of implementing regula- tions or design controls. National Register boundaries, therefore, have legal implications that can affect the property's future. Under Federal law, however, these considerations apply only to government actions affecting the property; National Register listing does not limit the private owner's use of the property. Private property owners can do anything they wish with their property, provided no Federal license, permit, or funding is involved. , Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties (defined as properties in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places) and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment. To be in compliance with the act, Federal agencies must identify and evaluate National Register eligibility of properties within the area of potential effect and evaluate the effect of the undertaking on eligible properties. The area of potential effect is defined as the area in which eligible properties may be affected by the undertaking, including direct effects (such as destruction of the property) and indirect effects (such as visual, audible, and atmo- spheric changes which affect the character and setting of the property). The area of potential effect may include historic properties that are well beyond the limits of the under- taking. For example, a Federal undertaking outside of the defined boundaries of a rural traditional cultural property or an urban historic district can have visual, economic, traffic, and social effects on the setting, feeling, and association of the eligible resources. Large properties present special problems. For example, an undertak- ing in a narrow corridor, such as a pipeline, may affect part of a large 75A -453 archeological site, traditional cultural property, or rural historic district. Such properties may extend far beyond the area of potential effect or access may be denied in areas beyond the undertaking. It is always best to consider the entire eligible property, but it may not be possible or practical to define the full extent of the prop- erty. In such cases, reasonable, predicted, estimated, or partial boundaries encompassing resources within the area of potential effect may be the only way to set the limits of contributing resources when the entire property cannot be observed or evaluated from historic maps or other documents (as in the case of subsur- face archeological resources). Con- sider all available information and select boundaries on the basis of the best information available. When defining boundaries of large resources extending beyond the area of poten- tial effect, it is advisable to consult the State historic preservation office. GETTING HELP In addition to the guidance in this bulletin, assistance is also available from State Historic Preservation Officers, Federal Preservation Offic- ers, and the staff of the National Register of Historic Places. These professionals can help preparers with general questions and special prob- lems. For assistance with specific questions or for information on how to contact the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer or Federal Preservation Officer, contact the National Register of Historic Places, National Register, History and Education, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Several other National Register publications are also available to assist preparers. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form provides the basic instructions for boundary selection and documentation. The following instructions, which are consistent with those in How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form, provide additional assis- tance for the preparer. The following discussion addresses many property types by considering the special boundarY problems associated with each type and providing case studies to assist the preparer in dealing with such issues. Bulletins that deal with specific property types may also be useful (see the list of National Regis- ter Bulletins at the end of this publica- tion). DECIDING WHAT TO INCLUDE Selection of boundaries is a judg- ment based on the nature of the property's significance, integrity, and physical setting. Begin to consider boundaries during the research and data - collection portion of the nomina- tion process. By addressing boundary issues during the field and archival research, the preparer can take into account all the factors that should be considered in selecting boundaries. When significance has been evalu- ated, reassess the boundaries to ensure appropriate correspondence between the factors that contribute to the property's significance and the physical extent of the property. Select boundaries that define the limits of the eligible resources. Such resources usually include the immedi- ate surroundings and encompass the appropriate setting. However, exclude additional, peripheral areas that do not directly contribute to the property's significance as buffer or as open space to separate the property from surrounding areas. Areas that have lost integrity because of changes in cultural features or setting should be excluded when they are at the periphery of the eligible resources. When such areas are small and surrounded by eligible resources, they may not be excluded, but are included as noncontributing resources of the property. That is, do not select boundaries which exclude a small noncontributing island surrounded by GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: ALL PROPERTIES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries to encompass but not exceed the extent of the signifi- cant resources and land areas comprising the property. • Include all historic features of the property, but do not include buffer zones or acreage not directly contributing to the significance of the property. • Exclude peripheral areas that no longer retain integrity due to alter- ations in physical conditions or setting caused by human forces, such as development, or natural forces, such as erosion. • Include small areas that are disturbed or lack significance when they are completely surrounded by eligible resources. "Donut holes' are not allowed. • Define a discontiguous property when large areas lacking eligible resources separate portions of the eligible resource. contributing resources; simply identify the noncontributing resources and include them within the bound- aries of the property. Districts may include noncontribut- ing resources, such as altered build- ings or buildings constructed before or after the period of significance. In situations where historically associ- ated resources were geographically separated from each other during the period of significance or are separated by intervening development and are now separated by large areas lacking eligible resources, a discontiguous district may be defined. The bound- aries of the discontiguous district define two or more geographically separate areas that include associated eligible resources. FACTORS TO CONSIDER There are several factors to con- sider in selecting and defining the boundaries of a National Register property. Compare the historic extent of the property with the existing eligible resources and consider integrity, setting and landscape features, use, and research value. • Integrity: The majority of the property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to be eligible. The essential qualities that contribute to an eligible property's significance 75A -454 must be preserved. Activities that often compromise integrity include new construction or alterations to the resource or its setting. Natural processes that alter or destroy portions of the resource or its setting, such as fire, flooding, erosion, or disintegration of the historic fabric, may compromise integrity. For example, an abandoned farmhouse that has been exposed to the ele- ments through years of neglect may have lost its integrity as a building; however, it may retain integrity as an archeological site. Setting and Landscape Features: Consider the setting and historically important landscape features. Natural features of the landscape may be included when they are located within the district or were used for purposes related to the historical significance of the prop- erty. Areas at the margins of the eligible resources may be included only when such areas were histori- cally an integral part of the property. For example, a district composed of farmsteads along a creek may include the creek if it runs through the district, if the creek was impor- tant in the original siting of the farmsteads, or if the creek was a source of waterpower or natural resources exploited by the farm- steads. Consult National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Land- scapes for additional guidance in selecting boundaries for rural historic landscapes. Use: Consider the historic use of the property when selecting the boundary. The eligible resource may include open spaces, natural land forms, designed landscapes, or natural resources that were integral to the property's historic use. Modern use may be different, and some modern uses alter the setting or affect built resources. The effect of such uses must be assessed in identifying resources that retain integrity. For example, a Hopewell mound archeological site now used as a golf course may retain integrity where the form of the prehistoric earthworks has been preserved, but construction of sand traps or other landscaping that altered landforms would compro- mise integrity. A marsh that provides plant materials for traditional basketmakers may retain integrity where it remains in its natural wetland condition, but may have lost integrity where it has been drained and cultivated. Research Potential: For properties eligible under Criterion D, define boundaries that include all of the resources with integrity that have the potential to yield important information about the past. Such information is defined in terms of research questions to which the information pertains, and the property should include the com- ponents, features, buildings, or structures that include the informa- tion. For example, an eligible prehistoric longhouse site should include longhouse features as well as associated pit features, middens, and hearths. Geographically separate but historically associated activity areas may also be included in the property even when they are not adjacent to the main concentra- tion of eligible resources. For example, lithic procurement and processing loci that were histori- cally associated with a village site but geographically separated from it may be included in a discon- tiguous district. Remember that many properties eligible under other criteria include contributing archeological resources that may yield important information about the property. Consider the extent of associated archeological re- sources when selecting boundaries. SELECTING BOUNDARIES Identify appropriate natural or cultural features that bound the eligible resource. Consider historical and cartographic documentation and subsurface testing results (for archeo- logical resources) in addition to existing conditions. Some boundaries can be directly observed by examin- ing the property; others must be identified on the basis of research. Take into account the modern legal boundaries, historic boundaries (identified in tax maps, deeds, or plats), natural features, cultural features, and the distribution of resources as determined by survey and testing for subsurface resources. Owner objections may affect the listing of the entire property, but not the identification of the boundaries. If the sole private owner of a property or the majority of the private owners (for properties with multiple owners) objects to listing, the property (with boundaries based on an objective assessment of the full extent of the significant resources) may be deter- mined eligible for the National Register but not listed. Boundaries should include sur- rounding land that contributes to the significance of the resources by functioning as the setting. This setting is an integral part of the eligible property and should be identified when boundaries are selected. For example, do not limit the property to the footprint of the building, but include its yard or grounds; consider the extent of all positive subsurface test units as well as the landform that includes the archeological site; and include the portion of the reef on which the vessel foundered as well as the shipwreck itself, • Distribution of Resources: Use the extent of above- ground resources and surrounding setting to define the boundaries of the property. For archeological resources, consider the extent of above - ground re- sources as well as the distribution of subsurface remains identified through testing when defining the boundaries of the property. • Current Legal Boundaries: Use the legal boundaries of a property as recorded in the current tax map or plat accompanying the deed when 75A -455 these boundaries encompass the eligible resource and are consistent with its historical significance and remaining integrity. • Historic Boundaries: Use the boundaries shown on historic plats or land- ownership maps (such as fire insurance or real estate maps) when the limits of the eligible resource do not correspond with current legal parcels. • Natural Features: Use a natural feature, such as a shoreline, terrace edge, treeline, or erosional scar, which corresponds with the limit of the eligible resource. • Cultural Features: Use a cultural feature, such a stone wall, hedgerow, roadway, or curb line, that is associated with the signifi- cance of the property, or use an area of modern development or disturbance that represents the limit of the eligible resource. Selecting boundaries for some properties maybe more complicated, however. Consider and use as many features or sources as necessary to define the limits of the eligible re- source. In many cases, a combination of features may be most appropriate. For example, the National Register boundaries of a property could be defined by a road on the south, a fence line on the west, the limits of subsurface resources on the north, and an area of development distur- bance on the east. Consider map features or reasonable limits when obvious boundaries are not appropri- ate. • Cartographic Features: Use large - scale topographic features, contour lines, or section lines on United States Geographical Survey maps to define the boundaries of large sites or districts. • Reasonable Limits: Use reasonable limits in areas undefined by natural or cultural features. For example, define the boundary of a property as 15 feet or 5 meters from the edge of the known resources, or define a straight line connecting two other boundary features. If a surveyed topographic map is available, select a contour line that encompasses the eligible resources. Reasonable limits may also be appropriate for a rural property when there is no obvious house lot or natural or cultural feature to use. Be sure that an appropriate setting is included within arbitrary boundaries, however, and explain how the limits were selected. REVISING BOUNDARIES Boundaries for listed properties need to be revised when there are changes in the condition of the resources or the setting. if resources or setting lose integrity and no longer contribute to the significance of the property, it is appropriate to revise the boundaries. Revisions may also be appropriate for nominations prepared in the early years of the National Register program, when nominations had limited or vague boundary documentation. Follow the guidance presented in this bulletin when revising boundary documenta- tion. 75A -456 COMPLETING SECTION 10, GEOGRAPHICAL DATA Section 10 of the National Register Registration Form is the portion of the form where boundaries of the nomi- nated property are documented. The documentation requirements are discussed in National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form; the information presented here is consistent with that discussion. The information require- ment in Section 10 of the registration form includes acreage of the property, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) references, a verbal boundary descrip- tion, and a boundary justification. In addition, nomination preparers should submit a USGS map that shows the location of the property and plotted UTM coordinates and at least one detailed map or sketch map for dis- tricts and for properties containing a substantial number of sites, structures, or buildings. SECTION 10, GEOGRAPHICAL DATA THE VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION The verbal boundary description describes the physical extent of the nominated property. A verbal boundary description or a scale map precisely defining the property (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, pp. 54 -55) Acreage: Calculate the acreage of the property to the nearest whole acre; calculate fractions of acres to the nearest one -tenth acre. For small properties, record "less than one acre." For large properties (over 100 acres), use a United States Geological Survey (USGS) acreage estimator or digitizer to calculate acreage. UTM Reference: Use Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid references to identify the exact location of the property. For a small property, use a single UTM reference; for larger properties, use a series of UTM references (up to 26) to identify the boundaries. Even when natural or cultural features are used to define the boundaries, use UTM grid references to define a polygon which encloses the boundaries of the property and identifies the vicinihj of the property. Determine UTM references by using a UTM template and USGS quadrangle maps (see Appendix VIII in How, to Complete the National Register Registration Form and Using the UTM Grid Systern to Record Historic Sites for assistance in determining UTM references). Verbal Boundary Description: Describe the boundaries verbally, using one of the following: • a map may be substituted for a narritive verbal boundary description • legal parcel number • block and lot number • metes and bounds • dimensions of a parcel of land, reckoning from a landmark, such as a natural or cultural feature Boundary Justification: Provide a concise explanation of the reasons for selecting the boundaries, based on the property's historic significance and integrity. Discuss the methods used to determine the boundaries. Account for irregular boundaries and areas excluded because of loss of integrity. For archeological properties, discuss the techniques used to identify the limits of the eligible resource, including survey procedures and the extent and distribution of known sites. 75A -457 boundaries must be given for all properties regardless of their classifi- cation category or acreage. The verbal boundary description need not be complicated or long, but it must clearly describe (or show) the limits of the resources to ensure that a Federal agency, State historic preservation office, city planning office, planning agency, or property owner can identify the limits of a National Register property. A map drawn to a scale of at least 1 inch to 200 feet may be used in place of a verbal description. When using a map in place of a verbal description, note under the verbal boundary description that the boundaries are indicated on the accompanying map. The map must be clear and accurate. Be sure the map clearly indicates the boundaries of the property in rela- tionship to standing structures or buildings, natural features, or cultural features. Include a drawn scale and north arrow on the map. When the boundary is the same as a legally recorded boundary, refer to that legal description of the property in the verbal boundary description. Citation of the legal description (beyond parcel number or block and lot number) and deed book reference are optional. When natural or cul- tural features are used in defining boundaries, identify these features (such as street names, property lines, geographical features, or other lines of convenience) to designate the extent of the property. Begin at a fixed reference point and follow, the perim- eter of the property, including dimen- sions and directions, in the verbal boundary description. The verbal boundary description may refer to a large -scale map (such as 1 inch to 200 feet) which shows the property boundaries. Large -scale maps that show streets, rights -of- ways, property lines, and building footprints are often available from the local planning agency or tax assessor's office. For large rural properties, a small -scale topographic map, such as a USGS map, may be used. If such a map is not available, draw a sketch map to scale (prefer- ably 1 inch to 200 feet) and show the location of the resources relative to the boundary and surrounding features. Include a north arrow, drawn scale, and date on the map. The verbal boundary description is followed by a justification of the selected boundaries. Explain how the boundaries were selected. Clarify any issues that might raise questions, such as excluding portions of the historic property because of lost integrity. UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (UTM) REFERENCES Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) references are required to indicate the location of the property. Generally, the UTM coordinates do not define the property boundaries, but provide precise locational infor- mation. Plot a single UTM reference on a 7.5 minute series USGS map for a small property; plot three or more UTM references that define the vertices of a polygon encompassing the area to be registered for properties over 10 acres. UTM references may also be used to define boundaries 75A -458 (for example, large rural properties lacking appropriate cultural or natural features to define boundaries). When UTM references define bound- aries, the references must correspond exactly with the property's bound- aries. For additional guidance, see National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form and National Register Suite- tin: Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) The Global Positioning System (GPS) technology now can be used to define boundaries for National Register properties. GPS technology records (digitizes) the location of lines, points, or polygons on the earth's surface using trilateration from satellites orbiting the earth. The locational accuracy of the data varies between 2 and 5 meters (when using differential correction). Thus, districts and archeological sites can be digi- tized as polygons, and historic trains or roads, as lines. The result is a potential National Register boundary. With GPS, the UTM references are automatically calculated along with any other type of descriptive data, such as condition, materials, intru- sions, and integrity. Data from GPS is generally entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Using GIS, boundary data can be combined with data on cultural and natural features, such as roads, rivers, and land cover, to yield a composite map suitable for inclusion with the registration form. 111 NEOM4601 to] 11 1=1 Many kinds of property types are eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and different property types have different boundary issues to be considered. To illustrate a variety of appropriate boundaries, examples are given for several property types. For each property type, the general guidelines are presented. Appropri- ate examples are provided to illustrate the issues and solutions. The sum- mary information is abstracted from registration forms of properties listed in the National Register or documen- tation from properties determined eligible for the National Register. The verbal boundary descriptions and boundary justifications are quotations of Section 10 of the registration forms. For some properties, such as archeo- logical sites, locational information is restricted to protect the property. Examples drawn from such properties are edited to omit or alter locational information. BOUNDARIES FOR BUILDINGS Buildings are constructions created principally to shelter any form of human activity. The National Regis- ter use of the term "building' also refers to historically and functionally related units, such as a courthouse and jail. Buildings include houses, barns, churches, schools, hotels, theaters, stores, factories, depots, and mills. Remember that many buildings have associated contributing land- scape and archeological features. Consider these resources as well as the architectural resources when selecting boundaries and evaluating significance of buildings. The verbal boundary descriptions and boundary justifications cited in the following case studies provide examples of boundaries for several GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: BUILDINGS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries that encompass the entire resource, including both historic and modern additions. Include surrounding land histori- cally associated with the resource that retains integrity and contrib- utes to the property's historic significance. • Use the legally recorded parcel number or lot lines for urban and suburban properties that retain their historic boundaries and integrity. • For small rural properties, select boundaries that encompass signifi- cant resources, including outbuildings and the associated setting. • For larger rural properties, select boundaries that include fields, forests, and open range land that is historically associated with the property and conveys the property's historic setting. The areas included must have integrity and contribute to the property's historic significance. types of buildings in a variety of settings. In a few cases, the preparer has elected to provide a large -scale map (such as a tax map) that shows the boundaries in lieu of a verbal boundary description. Buildings in Urban Settings La Casa Blanca, Coamo, Puerto Rico, is a Spanish Creole vernacular house constructed in 1865. Character- istics of this style include a raised, wooden construction; main living core with rear service wing (martillo), forming an L- shaped plan with an interior courtyard; full - length frontal balcony or veranda; and hipped or side - gabled, usually high - pitched roof covered with corrugated zinc. La 75A -459 Casa Blanca includes these character- istics, except that the martillo opens into the grounds at the southeast corner of the lot and not into an interior courtyard. The house is located at 17 Jose f. Quinton Street, the corner of Quinton and Ruiz Belvis streets. The boundaries of the Na- tional Register property follow the legal lot boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The house is bounded in the north by Jose Quinton Street; south, No. 18 Federico Santiago Street; east, Ruiz Belvis Street; and west, No. 19 Jose Quinton Street. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the entire city lot that has been historically and is currently associated with the prop- erty. VnNW Bute 0.wi'mm al uw In[wlP, Heeonal Perk Service National Register of Hlstoric Places Continuation Sheet BeGIM nl+rber _ Pepe_ 1 c 1t .. ill. l s.,t.: i'MO La Casa Blanca, Coamo, Puerto Rico. City plan showing the National Register boundaries (shaded lot). 2rdian Sfi-eef — szrs ecw cunnat s�noot cart nyata, rm,ma smlb 1 Incn • 91 fact (aPP =oxtratel S no„macea proce=tr 5' y am n nas'e g 3> i r-- i Pall Lawrence Dunbar School, Fort Myers, Florida. Plan showing the National Register boundaries. 75A -460 Paul Lawrence Dunbar School, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, is a two - story, T- shaped, Mission -style building built in 1927. The school was built as the first high school for African American students in Lee County. The original building has undergone few alterations and still serves its original function as a public school. The present school complex includes several buildings constructed in the 1950s, which are excluded from the nomination. The Paul Lawrence Dunbar School is significant for its association with African American community life and education in the Fort Myers, Florida, area. This property illustrates boundaries including the historic core of a prop- erty but excluding peripheral, noncon- tributing buildings. Verbal boundary description: The boundary for the Dunbar School is shown as the dotted line on the accompanying scale map entitled "Site Plan, Dunbar School." Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the building and immedi- ately adjacent grounds historically associated with Dunbar School and excludes that part of the original site now occupied by new construction. Thomas I. Stoner House, Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa, is an early 20th century Spanish Eclectic style house. The Stoner house is significant as a rare example of its style, display- ing high artistic values and properly expressed design principles associated with the style, particularly the de- tailed stonework and balanced massing with side wings. The house is located on an irregular corner lot, overlooking Waveland Golf Course. The boundary for this property is limited to area that continues to be associated with the house and ex- cludes areas historically separated from the house. Verbal boundary description: The nominated property occupies the eastern 31.4 feet of lot 53 and all of lots 54, 55, and 56 in Waveland Hills in Des Moines and is roughly 168 x 181 feet in size. Bound- ary justification: The boundary includes the immediate grounds that have historically been associated with the property and that maintain historic integrity. At the time of construction, the owner also owned lots 52 and 57 -60, property that was later subdivided and therefore is excluded from this nomination. John D. Bush House, Exira, Audubon County, Iowa, is a two - story frame house built for John Bush by Danish immigrant carpenter Jens Uriah Hansen in the 1870s. When it was built, the house was on the outskirts of town and was part of a larger holding, which included Bush's stock farm. The town expanded and now encompasses the Bush property within a residential area. Through the years, the Bush holding has been subdivided and the large lot on which the house is situated is all that re- mains intact of the original Bush holding. The property is significant as the best surviving example of the early Danish immigrant dwellings built by Hansen, who was the first Dane to settle in Audubon County and was responsible for the construc- tion of several of the early buildings, homes, and outbuildings in the Exira area. The legal property boundary was used to define the National Register property boundary. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property is bounded by the legal description as recorded in the Audubon County Recorder's Office: Part of Lot 14, Subdivision of Original Lot 9, Town of Exira, Section 4, T78N, R35W. Boundary justification: The boundary of the nominated property is the remnant of the original parcel historically associated with the property. Marshall Field Garden Apart. ments, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, include ten buildings sur- rounding a spacious interior garden court, built in 1928 -1929. The com- plex occupies two city blocks. The buildings are oriented toward Sedgwick Street, the busiest of the streets bordering the complex: twenty storefronts and offices face this street. The central interior courtyard runs the length of the complex, with the small inside courtyards of the eight H- shaped buildings opening on to the central courtyard. The two end buildings extend the length of the block. The complex is a notable example of early privately funded, moderate- income housing in Chicago. The limits of the two city blocks occupied by the apartments define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: The area bounded by Sedgwick, Evergreen, Hudson, and Blackhawk streets, starting at the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick, � I I I 4 35.5 I i I I � W A PM IR L9s ss• Id I 1 5,.5•. y� ' I m,4M 5Vffi 4O QM'Y AHN3. -UI,�. —Css,- ` — 7"'-r _ i+5• .I.5. MN tin¢!. Thomas I. Stoner House, Des Moines, Iowa. Plan showing the National Register boundaries, v...• avw¢ �tt � r Ali r 1 we 1 r(1 ♦ � { �A}; REsiDENCE. o; STOCKFAFtM Jol-iN D. BuSW; fXiml,AbddCon Cuj&, John D. Bush House, Exira, Iowa. Drawing of the house from the 1875 Illustrated Historical Alias of the State of Iowa: Eighth Congressional District (Andrea Atlas Conryan y), 75A -461 Ill .ad>a• Sl• IS• � Sce ms Iss, �— L® J ,Sb• e4aw -ss �tlnu• w• ss n 5f•i HIV rrn� ?�II tss• y.t I55' m,4M 5Vffi 4O QM'Y AHN3. -UI,�. —Css,- ` — 7"'-r _ i+5• .I.5. MN tin¢!. Thomas I. Stoner House, Des Moines, Iowa. Plan showing the National Register boundaries, v...• avw¢ �tt � r Ali r 1 we 1 r(1 ♦ � { �A}; REsiDENCE. o; STOCKFAFtM Jol-iN D. BuSW; fXiml,AbddCon Cuj&, John D. Bush House, Exira, Iowa. Drawing of the house from the 1875 Illustrated Historical Alias of the State of Iowa: Eighth Congressional District (Andrea Atlas Conryan y), 75A -461 Ill WkSd1L4 F[FL6 GGp S�jN ',, }1PAR7t eifr_ Zonc I� q aA' - AE44y96q v��z w Uca9 G�7 yryyA r, BE 49�oso inya ,$';: ":N - 4a37 Gi0 CE yg oso y 639 090 i 4469G4 R ua34 �9o_. Marshall Field Garden Apartments, Chicago, Illinois, Detail of USGS quadrangle rnap showing the National Register boundaries. to 75A -462 extending south 938'9" to Evergreen Street, extending west 263'9" to Hudson Street, extending north 938' to Blackhawk Street and back east 263' to the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick. These dimensions are measured from the masonry edges of the buildings. Boundary justifica- tion: This acreage has historically been associated with the Marshall Field Garden Apartments. Minto School, Minto, Walsh County, North Dakota, was built in 1895. The property includes the school building with attached rear additions and six noncontributing elements moved to the site in the past 20 years and associated with the school building's present use as the Minto Museum, operated by the Walsh County Historical Society. The moved structures are arranged to the south and west (rear) of the school grounds, where they do not affect the integrity of the school's original setting. The National Register bound- aries include the 12 adjacent lots comprising the north half of the city block occupied by the school and its newly associated buildings. Verbal boundary description: The north half of block 11, Original Townsite, Minto, North Dakota, comprising lots 1 -12. Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the north half of block 11 (lots 1 -12), which has been historically and is currently associated with the property. Buildings in Rural Settings Theophilus Jones House, Newhaven County, Wallingford, Connecticut, is an 18th century farmstead, which includes a house, barn, carriage house, carpentry shop, woodshed, pigeon house, icehouse, and well with washing terrace. The house was constructed ca. 1740. The property retains the character and feeling of its period, because the property is bounded on the south by open land and the arrangement of the outbuildings blocks the view of more recent residential construction to the north and east. The house faces Jones Road, originally a farm road serving only the house, which is now a residential street. The immediate neighborhood is mostly residential, although there are farms and orchards in the vicinity. The property is significant for its association with Wallingford's origins as an agricul- �,U4PA � me FeWe �Si's 4a '' _1 ' C41CA00, LCGP,ILL. rvoranso�� rns WkSd1L4 F[FL6 GGp S�jN ',, }1PAR7t eifr_ Zonc I� q aA' - AE44y96q v��z w Uca9 G�7 yryyA r, BE 49�oso inya ,$';: ":N - 4a37 Gi0 CE yg oso y 639 090 i 4469G4 R ua34 �9o_. Marshall Field Garden Apartments, Chicago, Illinois, Detail of USGS quadrangle rnap showing the National Register boundaries. to 75A -462 extending south 938'9" to Evergreen Street, extending west 263'9" to Hudson Street, extending north 938' to Blackhawk Street and back east 263' to the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick. These dimensions are measured from the masonry edges of the buildings. Boundary justifica- tion: This acreage has historically been associated with the Marshall Field Garden Apartments. Minto School, Minto, Walsh County, North Dakota, was built in 1895. The property includes the school building with attached rear additions and six noncontributing elements moved to the site in the past 20 years and associated with the school building's present use as the Minto Museum, operated by the Walsh County Historical Society. The moved structures are arranged to the south and west (rear) of the school grounds, where they do not affect the integrity of the school's original setting. The National Register bound- aries include the 12 adjacent lots comprising the north half of the city block occupied by the school and its newly associated buildings. Verbal boundary description: The north half of block 11, Original Townsite, Minto, North Dakota, comprising lots 1 -12. Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the north half of block 11 (lots 1 -12), which has been historically and is currently associated with the property. Buildings in Rural Settings Theophilus Jones House, Newhaven County, Wallingford, Connecticut, is an 18th century farmstead, which includes a house, barn, carriage house, carpentry shop, woodshed, pigeon house, icehouse, and well with washing terrace. The house was constructed ca. 1740. The property retains the character and feeling of its period, because the property is bounded on the south by open land and the arrangement of the outbuildings blocks the view of more recent residential construction to the north and east. The house faces Jones Road, originally a farm road serving only the house, which is now a residential street. The immediate neighborhood is mostly residential, although there are farms and orchards in the vicinity. The property is significant for its association with Wallingford's origins as an agricul- tural community; its association with prominent 20th century resident and scholar of American decorative arts, Charles F. Montgomery; and its embodiment of distinctive characteris- tics of Connecticut domestic architec- ture of the 1740s and 1750s. The National Register boundary corre- sponds to the legal block and lot description of the property. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property includes the house, outbuildings, and associated lot known as 40 Jones Road, shown as Map 085, Block 003, Lot 017 in the Wallingford Assessor's records and recorded in the land records in Volume 544, page 476. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the farm house, outbuildings, and farm yard that have historically been part of the Jones farm and that maintain historical integrity. Adjoin- ing parcels of the original farm have been excluded because they have been subdivided and developed into a residential neighborhood. Chris Poldberg Farmstead, Shelby County, Iowa, includes a house, barn, hog house, poultry house, machine shed, cob house, granary, and metal grain bin. The farmstead was estab- lished in the early 20th century by Danish immigrants. The house is situated on the south side of the cluster of farmstead buildings and structures, with the cob house situ- ated off the rear of the house within the yard. The west side of the cluster consists of the poultry house, machine shed, and barn, with the grain bin, granary, and hog house forming the north side of the cluster. A dirt lane extends into the farmstead from the gravel road, bisecting the cluster between north and south halves. Historically, the entire area west, south, and east of the house had a dense tree cover. The property's section, township, and range descrip- tion is used to locate the property; reasonable limits and cultural features (roads) are used to define the Na- tional Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The topo- graphic location of the nominated property is as follows according to the USGS quadrangle map, Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa 1978: E' /4, SE 1/4, SE' /4, NF 1/4 of Section 27, T79N, R37W, Jackson Township, Shelby County, Iowa. The specific property boundary is described as follows: Beginning at a point 10 feet north of the hog house and starting at the west Plumbush, Philfpstown, New York. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. edge of the gravel road proceed west 300 feet, turn south for 300 feet, turn east for 300 feet to the west edge of the road, and turn north for 300 feet to the point of beginning. Boundary justification: The boundary of the nominated property includes that portion of the historic farm holdings that encompasses all of the buildings and structures of the farmstead itself. Plumbush, Putman County, New York, consists of two contributing buildings, a mid -19th century farm- house and an associated wood house. The original carriage house has been extensively remodeled for use as a garage and is, therefore, noncontrib- uting, as is a modern two -story house, which is separated from Plumbush by a wooded area. The surrounding neighborhood is rural, with few residences located nearby. The property is bounded on the north, northeast, and south by the Cold Spring Cemetery; on the west by Route 91); on the south by Moffet 75A -463 Road; and on the east by private property. Much of the original 65- acre farm has been subdivided, and extensive infill has destroyed the historical integrity and setting of the larger farm. The limits of the tax parcel that includes the eligible resources define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary description: Plumbush is located on the east side of Route 9D between the intersections of Peekskill and Moffet roads. The nominated property includes two adjacent tax parcels which comprise 9.3 acres as shown on accompanying tax map. Boundary justification: Historically, Plumbush was part of a 65 -acre farm owned by Robert Parker Parrott. Over time, much of the property was subdivided and sold off. Extensive modern infill on the original farm acreage has destroyed the historical integrity and setting of the larger farm. The 9.3 -acre nominated prop- erty is all that remains of the original farm associated with the house. 11 34T 0 6uLN � /6(t° M•V5L / d _ CNV ._..., P.` 3T4.1 WALK iS I—L- i. The Church of Saint Dismas, The Good Thief, Dannemora, New York. Detail of tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Church of St. Dismas, The Good Thief, Dannemora, Clinton County, New York, is a large, stone chapel on the grounds of the Clinton Correc- 12 tional Facility. The chapel, which was completed in 1941, was built on the site of the abandoned prison farm building along the north edge of the prison grounds within the walls; 1.07 acres were set aside for the building, and the boundary of the nominated property coincides with the lot lines drawn around the 1.07 acres when the church was built. The boundary encompasses three additional historic features directly associated with the chapel: a greenhouse, a terraced stone wall, and a grotto. The remain- der of the Clinton Correctional Facility, established in 1845, had not been surveyed at the time the chapel nomination was prepared nor evalu- ated for National Register eligibility; therefore, only the chapel and its grounds are included in the nomi- nated property. Verbal boundary description: Heavy black outline on attached county tax map defines boundary of nominated property. Boundary justification: The bound- ary is drawn to coincide with the 1.07 -acre parcel which was delineated when the prison farm was abandoned and the church was constructed. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICTS BOUNDARIES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS A historic district possesses a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aestheti- cally by plan or physical develop- ment. Districts may include several contributing resources that are nearly equal in importance, as in a neighbor- hood, or a variety of contributing resources, as in a large farm, estate, or parkway. Noncontributing resources located among contributing resources are included within the boundaries of a district. When visual continuity is not a factor of historic significance, when resources are geographically separate, and when the intervening space lacks significance, a historic district may contain discontiguous elements. (See National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form for further discussion about defining a district.) (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Fornt, pp. 56 -57) Select boundaries that encompass the single area of land containing the significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects making up the district. The district's significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Consider the following factors: • Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character. • Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources. • Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch. • Clearly differentiated patterns of historic development, such as commercial versus residential or industrial. A historic district may contain discontiguous elements only under the following circumstances: • When visual continuity is not a factor of historic significance, when resources are geographically separate, and when the intervening space lacks significance: for example, a cemetery located outside a rural village may be part of a discontiguous district. • When cultural resources are interconnected by natural features that are excluded from the National Register listing: for example, the sections of a canal system separated by natural, navigable waterways. • When a portion of a district has been separated by intervening development or highway construction and when the separated portion has sufficient significance and integrity to meet the National Register Criteria. 75A -464 National Register properties classified as districts include college campuses, business districts, commercial areas, residential areas, villages, estates, plantations, transportation networks, and landscaped parks. Historic districts often include contributing archeological resources that should be considered when evaluating signifi- cance and selecting boundaries. Examples of such properties are included in the discussions of districts in rural settings. Examples of archeo- logical districts are presented in the discussion of archeological sites. Boundaries of historic districts are often difficult to describe verbally. Consider using a scale map instead of a narrative verbal boundary descrip- tion to define the boundaries. Contiguous Districts in Urban Settings Taylorsville Historic District, Taylorsville, Spencer County, Ken- tucky, encompasses 34 contributing buildings and 2 contributing sites in the center of the town. The district includes the contiguous, intact, historic resources at the center of the community, which comprise the residential, commercial, governmen- tal, and religious resources that document the development of Taylorsville from its early days through the 1930s. These buildings, along with the streets, alleys, and lots on which they are located, provide an excellent picture of the development of Taylorsville from 1818, the date of the earliest extant house, to 1938, the construction date of the most recent historic building in the district. The district is eligible under Criterion A because it reflects the effects of a number of key events in the town's history, including designation in 1824 as the seat of newly formed Spencer County and the destruction and rebuilding of its commercial area and courthouse after fires in 1898, 1899, and 1913. The district also reflects gradual trends, such as changing patterns in siting and housing types and styles and the development of the community into a commercial and supply center for the surrounding agricultural county. The district is also significant for its representation of community planning and develop- ment: the streets, lots, and buildings in the district document Taylorsville's growth from a tiny, early 19th century settlement to an antebellum govern- ment center and into a small early 20th century county seat. Legal lot descriptions and a reasonable limit were used to define the boundaries of the National Register district. Verbal boundary description: The district is clearly delineated on the accompany- ing sketch map. With one exception, it follows the rear property lines of the properties included in the district. At the Enoch Holsclaw House on Garrard Street ( #1), the western 50 feet of the property where a 1980s house is located have been excluded. Boundary justification: Excluded from the district are other areas of historic Taylorsville where small pockets of historic buildings and individual buildings have been isolated from the district by nonhistoric construction. The historic development along Main Cross Street north of Main Street was considered for inclusion in the district but deter- mined ineligible. Although the area contains a number of historic and contributing buildings including the Taylorsville Public Library, All Saints Church, and some historic houses, the large percentage of nonhistoric and other noncontributing buildings along the street makes it a poor representa- tion of the historic character of the town. Two other collections of historic buildings have also been considered for National Register listing but considered ineligible. Along ReaSDT Street and Maple Avenue, in an area developed begin- ning in 1899 as "Reasor's Addition," is a collection of small, modest houses dating from about 1900 through the 1940s. A large number of these houses have been seriously altered by the addition of new siding, major changes to front porches, and lateral additions that alter the form of the house. They no longer constitute an intact historic district. At the east end of Main Street, east of Railroad Street, is another collection of 12 historic houses. Although many of these houses retain a significant number of their identifying features, it was determined that they were too dispar- ate a group, with no theme to unite them, to justify a district. Ten historic buildings in Taylorsville have been determined to be individually eligible for the National Register and will be nominated as part of the current project. The district encompasses the contiguous intact historic properties along Main Street and Garrard Street that help to document the district's area of significance— community 75A -465 planning and development. The district boundaries are determined by concentrations of nonhistoric proper- ties that surround the district on all sides. To the east are nonhistoric and noncontributing commercial build- ings. To the south is the 1948 flood wall. To the west, a few remaining historic houses are interspersed with several nonhistoric governmental buildings, including a post office and Spencer County School office and a number of late 1940s infill houses. To the north along Washington Street and Main Cross Street, a number of historic houses at the north ends of the streets are separated from the district by a 1950s church and single - family houses and apartments, all dating from the late 1940s through the 1980s. r I li 8 ' 2 c > 6 unrb.w.Nn 0 IS �p ✓J 9 2 W li 9 Ila 6 l a 22 � a la 2 Y Taylorsville Historic District, Taylorsville, Kentucky. Detail of Spencer County Property Identification Map T -2 showing contributing and non- contributing resources, photo views, and National Register boundaries. 13 Bay Shore Historic District, Miami, Dade County, Florida, in- cludes 201 single - family residences and 70 outbuildings. The district, which is located about 31/2 miles north of downtown Miami, represents a wide variety of early 20th century architectural styles, including Medi- terranean Revival, Art Deco, Colonial Revival, Mission, and Masonry Vernacular. The 90 -acre district is roughly bounded by N.E. 55th Street on the south, Biscayne Boulevard on the west, N.E. 60th Street on the north, and Biscayne Bay on the east. The Bay Shore Historic District is significant at the local level under Criterion A as one of Miami's most intact historic neighborhoods and the city's best extant example of a planned, Boom -era suburb that continued to develop in the years prior to World War II. The district is also significant under Criterion C for its wealth of Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, and Masonry Vernacular style houses that reflect the diversity and evolution of architectural design in South Florida during the 1920s and 1930s. The National Register bound- aries, defined on a map, are based on assessments of historic boundaries and modern setting. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary of the Bay Shore historic District is shown as the heavy line on the accompany- ing map entitled 'Bay Shore Historic District." Boundary justification: The boundaries of the Bay Shore Historic District have been drawn to generally follow those of the original Bay Shore subdivisions, platted between 1922 and 1924, and the Bay Shore Plaza subdivision, platted in 1936. Excluded from the district are those portions of the Bay Shore subdivisions located west of Biscayne Boulevard, which is now a major commercial area. The proposed boundaries encompass those portions of the present Bay Shore neighbor- hood that contain a predominance of buildings constructed between 1922 and 1942. The plan and period of significance clearly set the Bay Shore Historic District apart from its sur- roundings. The boundaries of the district are based on boundaries'at a specific time in history, visual changes, and visual barriers. N.E. 60th Street was selected as the north- ern boundary because it is the north- ern limit of the earliest Bay Shore subdivision. Furthermore, the area north of this street contains few --•ODD � Mul u ~ �0� 40 •-� I1I Bay Shore Historic District, Miami, Florida. Detail of neap showing a portion of the district's National Register boundary. historic buildings and is of a different character, containing a number of multi - family buildings. On the east, Biscayne Bay and Morningside Park form natural physical boundaries, as well as significant historic boundaries. The bayfront lots help to define the character of the district, and their presence was a major factor in the district's development. Morningside Park is not included because it was not opened until 1951, although the northern portion was acquired by the city in 1935. The rear property lines between N.E. 55th Street and N.E. 53rd Street were chosen as the south- ern boundary because they delineate the southern limit of the Bay Shore Plaza subdivision. In addition, the majority of houses south of this line were constructed after 1942. Finally, Biscayne Boulevard was selected as the rough western boundary because a majority of the development on Biscayne Boulevard is of a different character. Since the mid- 1960s, Biscayne Boulevard has developed into a major thoroughfare with office zoning, and many of the newer buildings are large -scale office or residential structures. Several historic structures do remain, however, and these have been converted into office use. That portion of the original Bay Shore subdivision west of Biscayne Boulevard was excluded because it no longer contains a concentration of historic buildings. 14 75A -466 Clifton Townsite Historic District, Clifton, Greenlee County, Arizona, clearly defines an intact grouping of buildings of various types dating from the early years of Clifton's development, 1871 -1920. These resources lie within the bottom of the canyon formed by the San Francisco River at its intersection with Chase Creek. This low -lying location, while giving the town a visual boundary, has subjected it to periodic flooding. This has had the greatest impact along Park Avenue where many buildings have been washed away in the past. Many aspects of Clifton are repre- sented by the various buildings and structures: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, religious, and governmental buildings are included as well as character - defining engineering works such as bridges and flood- control features. Remain- ing buildings represent a variety of late 19th and early 20th century styles. The physical setting in the canyon along the San Francisco River as well as the relative proximity and visual continuity of the structures unifies the district. The general architectural integrity of the district is good, although many properties are aban- doned and have fallen into disrepair: 32 of the 86 resources are noncontrib- uting. The district is significant under Criterion A for its association with the early copper mining and smelting operations in that region and with the town that grew to support those operations. The district is additionally significant under Criterion C for its intact examples of architecture typical of Arizona's mining towns. Two sites within the district, the smelter ruins and a commercial building ruin, are significant under Criterion D as above - ground remnants which reveal important information about signifi- cant aspects of the district. The district's period of significance begins with the construction of the earliest remaining structure in 1874 and ends when the copper smelter moved to Morenci in 1937. The National Register boundaries are defined on a map; natural and cultural features were used to define the property. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Clifton Townsite Historic District is shown as the dashed Iine on the accompanying map entitled "Clifton Townsite Historic District." Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the properties within an area in central Clifton that retain integrity and are associated with the functioning of Clifton as a major copper smelting center. The boundary excludes, where possible, properties that have lost integrity and /or have no significance. Beginning at the northwest boundary of the district, the cliffs form a natural and well- defined limit encompassing the visible rem- nants of the smelter and associated structures. Proceeding clockwise, the northern Iimit of the district is marked by the transition from industrial uses to a residential area that contains modern and historic houses of poor integrity. At the point at which the floodwalls appear at the east bank of the San Francisco River, the boundary includes the riverbed and floodwall. The northeast boundary may be divided into two parts: at the north end, geographic limits of the cliffside define the boundary, no further structures being visible uphill; to the south, the slope becomes less steep and additional structures, either modern or of poor integrity, appear uphill from Park Avenue. Properties one -lot -width uphill from Park Avenue are included within the district, because all properties, even noncontributory, "are an important part of the Park Avenue Steetscape. At the southernmost end of Park Avenue, no structures exist at the northeast side of the street and the boundary is drawn to exclude this open land. The boundary continues rr•� 1 t� 1 .rg j.�11 '� 'II' =' -J) uuw•1 C�1 —'ply l_IE;� •�� t1 ARlZd14 cttPCx ro • � ^�., i� '�. p 1 ��""� �1 �I�� TMEL�EM1 1 R«1 =T bN WaWCS\ I `�'�Q^^ O 1 CLIFTON, . - h `•1 �(�, G� A2 1,10 �Y r.. rtNTUnu � 4 i.�.0 C� �• _ 9 i[vpui MoOErzu INO NiSMU `` ^u -u�l DIH4} SNO4u „! GMY�� W` ` ,•Z �, Clifton Townsite Historic District, Clifton, Greenlee County, Arizona. Map showing the National Register boundaries. south, excluding open land, but including the east floodwall south to its end. The southern boundary is defined by a line connecting the southernmost ends of the formally constructed floodwalls at both sides of the San Francisco River (slag - rubble walls continue to the south through much of the town). This location coincides with a construction in the width of the canyon, a bend in the river, and a break in continuity of development from the remainder of the town to the south. The boundary continues northwest along the west- ern floodwall, excluding the site of the former freight depot (now demol- ished). The boundary then is drawn to include the passenger depot, following the geographic boundary of the cliffside, which firmly delineates the boundary at this location. At the 75A -467 point where the canyon of Chase Creek and the San Francisco River meet, the boundary is drawn at the edge of U.S. Route 666 to exclude an area of intruded properties that step up the cliffside, which is not as steep at this point. At the south side of the Chase Creek commercial area, the property line or street curbline and the cliffside largely coincide to define the edge of development in Clifton. The westernmost termination of the district at Chase Creek is drawn at the end of the area of dense commercial character of Chase Creek and at the westernmost extant of the stone retaining wall at the cliffs north of Chase Creek. This location coincides with a restriction in the width of the canyon and a corresponding pause in the continuity of development sites from development further west. 15 Elm Hill, Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia, is a mid -19th century Greek Revival mansion on a secluded esplanade. The area, which was historically farmland, is now part of suburban Wheeling. The grounds are landscaped lawn with shade trees, evergreens, and shrubs. The associ- ated brick springhouse /smokehouse, barn /garage, and cemetery are contributing resources. The legal property description was used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is inclusive of the 19.33 -acre tract identified as parcel #7, sur- rounded by acreage of the Wheeling Country Club, on Ohio County assessor's Map RD -14, Richland District, February 1960, Wheeling, West Virginia. Boundary justifica- tion: The property is inclusive of broad lawns and open areas that form a significant setting between Bethany Pike and the rear property lines. Within this green space stand the house, smokehouse / springhouse, barn, and cemetery. Discontiguous Districts in Urban Settings Plemons —Mrs. M. D. Oliver - Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Potter County, Texas, includes about 40 blocks of residential development originally platted as the Plemons Addition (1890) and the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition (1903). The district is characterized by an eclectic mix of modestly scaled dwellings representing architectural styles of the early 20th century. The historic landscaping reinforces the neighborhood's cohesiveness. De- spite the intrusion of a major arterial highway (which separates the district into two discontiguous parts), the historic district retains a high level of its historic integrity, with 357 of 535 resources classified as contributing elements. The district is one of Amarillo's most intact early 20th century residential neighborhoods. The design, scale, and materials of the building stock reflect the cyclical development of Amarillo's economy from the turn of the century to the beginning of World War 1I. The predominant Prairie School and Craftsman - influenced bungalow styles reflect Amarillo's growth from the 1910s through the 1930s as re- gional discoveries of oil and natural 16 Elm Hill, Wheeling, West Virginia. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Plemons =Mrs, M. D, Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Texas. Detail of USGS nap showing the National Register district boundaries and UTM references. 75A -468 s 9 � � aan.. .••• � ELM lalLL- sw ,E, SI'�OKE /Si'KruG NpaSE' y ¢• cFn FrER7 `' ne;vm .wwra we 4 �z f �... N T SR ao -R Elm Hill, Wheeling, West Virginia. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Plemons =Mrs, M. D, Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Texas. Detail of USGS nap showing the National Register district boundaries and UTM references. 75A -468 gas augmented agriculturally based wealth. The district is nominated to the National Register under Criteria A and C. The National Register bound- aries of this discontiguous district follow existing roadways that encom- pass the eligible resources. Verbal boundary description: As indicated by the solid black lines on the accom- panying USGS map, the historic district is comprised of two discontiguous elements divided by Interstate Highway 40. The northern portion of the historic district encom- passes 86 acres bounded by the following parameters: Beginning at the center point of the intersection of E. 16th Avenue and S. Taylor Street, proceed south along the center Iine of South Taylor Street continuing to its intersection with the center line of the North Access Road of Interstate Highway 40; thence southwest and west along the center line of the North Access Road of Interstate Highway 40 to its intersection with the center line of the alley west of S. Madison Street; thence north through the alley along its center line to its intersection with the center line of W. 16th Avenue; thence east along the center line of 16th Avenue until reaching the point of beginning. The southern portion of the historic district encompasses 94 acres bounded by the following parameters: Beginning at the center point of the intersection of S. Taylor Street and E. 26th Avenue, proceed west along the center line of 26th Avenue continuing to the point of its intersection with the alley west of S. Van Buren Street; thence north through the alley along the center line to its point intersection with W. 24th Avenue; thence east along the center line of W. 24th Avenue to its point of intersection with S. Van Buren Street; thence north along the center line of S. Van Buren Street to its intersection with the center line of the South Access Road of Interstate Highway 40; thence east and southeast along the center line of the South Access Road of Interstate Highway 40 to the point of its intersection with S. Taylor Street; thence south along the center line of S. Taylor Street until reaching the point of beginning. Boundary justification: Consisting of two discontiguous elements currently divided by the incursion of Interstate Highway 40, the Plemons —Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District encompasses a cohesive collection of residential properties dating to the early 20th century. District boundaries coincide with concentrations of historic properties within the original limits of the Plemons Addition and the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition to the City of Amarillo. The boundaries encompass those portions of the neighborhood that retain a significant degree of integrity of historic setting and feeling strengthened by the continuity provided by historic streetscapes. Areas beyond these boundaries generally consist of properties whose character differs from those within the historic district, including residences that exhibit loss of historic integrity or were built following the historic development period of the neighbor- hood. Properties outside the historic district also include functionally different resources, such as nonhistoric commercial properties and large -scale institutional proper- ties. Changes in the historic residen- tial character of the neighborhood establish the boundaries on all sides. The northern boundary along 16th Avenue demarcates the transition between the commercial and institu- tional character of Amarillo's central business district and the residential neighborhoods in the southern reaches of the city. The eastern boundary along Taylor Street coin- cides with the dissolution of historic residential character prompted by the incursion of Interstate Highway 27. Numerous noncontributing commer- cial and residential properties com- promise the integrity of the area east of this boundary. The southern boundary along 26th Avenue occurs at the point of transition between residential properties developed during the early 20th century and those developed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. On the west, the district boundary coincides with the limits of residential development with the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition, as the campus of Amarillo College hems in the neighborhood along this bound- ary. Interstate Highway 40, which obliterated portions of the historic neighborhood between 18th and 19th Avenues, is excluded from the historic district and divides it into dis- contiguous components. North of Interstate Highway 40, the western boundary falls along the alley west of Madison, which separated historic residential development from non- contributing commercial development along Washington Street. 75A -469 Contiguous Districts in Rural Settings Woodlawn Historic and Archaeo- logical District, King George County, Virginia, is a 899 -acre historic riverfront plantation along the north bank of the Rappahannock River and the west bank of Gingoteague Creek. Woodlawn is among the oldest plantations in the county and retains essentially the same boundaries it had when the land was first consolidated in the late 18th century. The property includes 21 buildings, sites, and structures: the planation house, dating from ca. 1790, and its early to mid -19th century ancillary buildings, with major additions and renovations to the plantation house ca. 1841, 1934, and 1982. There are 6 contributing buildings, including the plantation house and two antebellum outbuild- ings and slave quarters and an early 20th century barn and implement shed. The 10 contributing archeologi- cal and landscape sites include 5 prehistoric sites, a historic domestic site, a ditch network, the field system, the farm road network, and a springhouse foundation site. There are 3 noncontributing buildings,1 noncontributing site, and 1 noncon- tributing structure. Periods of signifi- cance are represented by contributing prehistoric Native American re- sources and the historic resources of the 17th century and of the late 18th century through 1937. Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District is eligible under Criteria A, C, and D at the state and local levels. The well - preserved plantation house is one of a number of important and interrelated houses built along the Rappahannock River between 1760 and the 1850s. In addition to its architectural signifi- cance, the district also represents the historical influence of agriculture and transportation on the settlement and economy of the Northern Neck of Virginia. Woodlawn is also signifi- cant for its association with the Turner family, whose history in Virginia dates to the mid -17th century and whose occupation of Woodlawn lasted into the 1920s. The Turners were members of an extended family of prominent landowners who left an important architectural legacy in the area. The social and cultural values of the antebellum planter class are reflected in the architectural traditions of Woodlawn. The patterns of residential, agricultural, and wood lot 17 land use persist today. Field patterns, vegetation, and drainage ditches dating from the period of significance survive. Natural and cultural features and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register bound- aries of this large rural property. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District begins at the northern bank of the Rappahannock River at UTM 18 309780 4226640; and continues north /northeast until it intersects the drainage ditch (Archeo- logical Site 44KG94) at UTM 18 309910 4227160; and continues north/ northeast along the western edge of the ditch until it intersects a tributary of Gingoteague Creek at UTM 18 310380 4228360; and continues north/ northeast until it intersects a dirt road at UTM 18 310560 4228890; and follows the western edge of the dirt road until it intersects State Route 625 to UTM 18 310645 4229165; and continues west along the northern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 310645 4229240; and continues north/ northeast to UTM 18 310600 4229520; and continues east until it intersects the northern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 310730 4229430; and crosses State Route 625 and follows the southern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 310830 4229380; and continues south /southwest to UTM 18 310675 4228845; and continues east to UTM 18 311220 4228820; and continues north /northeast to the southern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 311300 4229240; and contin- ues west along the southern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 311240 4229240; and continues northeast, crossing State Route 625, to UTM 18 311490 4229495; and continues southeast to UTM 18 311520 4229430, east to UTM 18 311560 4229450, southeast to UTM 18 311610 4229325, east to UTM 18 322735 4229270, and southeast, crossing State Route 625, to the southern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 311760 4229220; and continues east along the southern edge of State Route 625 until it intersects the Gingoteague Creek at UTM 18 311830 4229230; and contin- ues south along the center of the Gingoteague Creek until it intersects the Rappahannock River at UTM 18 312045 422660; and continues east along the northern bank of the Rappahannock River to UTM 18 309780 4226640. Verbal boundary justification: The boundary chosen W Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District, King George County, Virginia. Detail of USGS map showing contributing resources and the National Register boundaries. for the Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District corresponds to traditional and current property lines. Significant contributing historic and archeological resources are contained within these bound- aries. Dietz Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, is a 96 -acre property, occupying a high knoll with gently sloping pastures and adjacent wood- lands at Meadow Bluff, overlooking the historic Kanawha and James River Turnpike. During the Civil War, the house served as temporary Confederate and Union headquarters and hospital, and winter quarters were constructed near the house. The brick farm house, two outbuildings, and a noncontributing barn make up the farm complex. On two knolls several hundred meters due west of the house are the earthwork remains of Confederate fortifications. In a depression between the knolls are the unmarked graves of an unknown number of Confederate soldiers who died in the house during the time that it served as a hospital. The burial area is a contributing site. South of the turnpike is a third contributing Confederate earthwork. The Na- tional Register boundaries follow cultural features, natural features, 75A -470 and a contour line, defining the extent of the contributing resources and their setting. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at a point where County Route 60/25 meets State Route 28; thence approximately 750 feet northeast along the west side of Route 60/25; thence in a line approximately 1,600 feet due north- west along the southern side of Route 60/25 to where said route begins to cross Meadow River; thence in a slightly meandering fashion follow- ing the east bank of Meadow River for approximately 2,500 feet south- west to where the major contour line meets the east side of Meadow River; thence following the principal 2,500 - foot contour line (as lined in red on the accompanying USGS topographic map) in an eastward direction; thence south eastward; thence north for approximately 2,000 feet until the line meets the east side of State Route 28; thence in a line northwest for approximately 500 feet along the west side of State Route 28 to the point of beginning, encompassing approximately 96 acres. Boundary justification: The boundary is drawn so as to include the principal area immediately around the Dietz House /Headquarters that served as outdoor bivouac for soldiers of both sides during the time the property was used for military purposes. On the north and west the boundaries are drawn so as to include the major Confederate trenches along the east side of the Meadow River and the defensive earthworks on the two principal rises that were constructed in anticipation of Federal assault down Route 60 from the northwest. The boundaries also include the burial sites of Confederate soldiers who died while the property was being used as a field hospital. Dietz Fang, Greenbrier County, West Virginia Topographic nmp showing the National Register boundaries and UTM reference points. 75A -471 Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Cape Cod, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, is located within Cape Cod National Seashore, on Cape Cod peninsula. The dune shacks, which have been determined eligible for the National Register as a historic district, are scattered along a three -mile stretch of unvegetated dunes in view of the Atlantic Ocean, The shacks were historically used as summer retreats by members of a colony of artists, writers, poets, actors, journalists, bohemians, and socialites from the 1920s to 1960s. The dune shacks and the natural landform of the dunes form a unique historic cultural landscape. The eligible property includes 17 shacks and the surround- ing dune landscape, Because the natural landscape served as selling and inspiration for the inhabitants; the appropriate boundary includes the collective extent of the visible landscape for all the dune shacks in the district. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis techniques were used to analyze the viewshed for the purpose of defining the district boundaries. Natural features, cultural features, and viewsheds were used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary for the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District encompasses ap- proximately 1,500 acres and is de- scribed as follows: the shoreline to the north, the crest of the second dune line away from the shore south of the second jeep trail delineated on the accompanying USGS map, the viewshed line of the cluster of shacks F, A,1, and D on the west, and the crest of the first dune ridge to the east of shack B. These boundaries are demarcated on the attached map of the area. Boundary justification: This boundary encompasses all of the dune shacks and the area incorporat- ing the entirety of the historically significant cultural landscape and associated important viewsheds as seen from the dune shacks. This boundary is supported by the written documentation and by the attached GIS viewshed analysis. The shifting characteristics of the dune landscape are recognized; for this reason this boundary is a close approximation. In light of dune movement, the boundary may move in some loca- tions some degree, but the basic principles underlying its justification 19 shall remain constant. Allowing for this movement, the boundary shall continue to include the dune shacks and the extent of the landscape to the crest of the second dune ridge, wherever that may occur. Tomahawk Lake Camp Historic District, Oneida County, Wisconsin, is a 20th century tuberculosis rehabili- tation camp. The 17 buildings and one structure are located on a site surrounded by forest reserve on Little Tomahawk Lake. The camp was established in response to advances in the treatment of tuberculosis and the perceived need to reforest the cut - over region of northern Wisconsin. At the camp, infected patients were isolated from general hospital patients and benefitted from the curative effects of open space for exercise and fresh air. Natural features, cultural features, and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the inter- section with the south edge of Rain- bow Road and a north - northwest line extending 200 feet south of Raven Road, commence north - northwest along that line 500 feet to the intersec- tion of a north -south line extending 200 feet east of the garage and work- shops to Little lake Tomahawk; commencing south along that line to the intersection of the Little Lake Tomahawk shoreline, then northwest along the lake shore to the intersec- tion of a north -south line extending 150 feet west of the garage, then commencing north along that line to the intersection of a west -east line extending 150 feet north of the shed and commencing east along that line to the intersection of a north- north- west line extending 200 feet north of Raven Road and commencing along that line to the intersection of County Highway D, then running south along the west side of County Highway D to the point of beginning. Boundary justification: The Tomahawk Lake Camp boundary was drawn to encompass all historic and nonhistoric resources in the complex. It also includes the surrounding landscape features that provide the northwoods setting, This includes the wooded area around the Raven Road entrance and the woods surrounding the buildings. The northwoods environ- ment was a very important part of the camp's outdoor, health- conscience philosophy that was advertised to 20 Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Barnstable County, Massachusetts. This CIS viewshed analysis map shows the National Register - eligible historic district in black and the dune shacks as white dots within the district; roads, trails, and lakes are shown in white (Knoerl and Chittenden 1990:7). S 'roMAXANk LqX% Cgryv,ygfez,a 4P/Mllr LAX[ aae b4 (war% )V 4mlS <N -------------------------------- 0 o A p � of .w .: —/ r a pl n U y ^B!, of : � I w-. 7 l U s 2 1 t� a a• I . n.y ena L f� ' .:�' � w, S ^,i` rPl r � I G : gig of ` ® I+ 10 p�4= I Q p Q Sea mr/Gnngt ^a rimer GI 11 w °o-n+, o¢ pt a0 fnf,T 4`cl — -I — g - -- -- U -, 061 C� naxc><,rnieun.vc GI oom,nnnY �oj3 I i3IK j ZU..sui.c�- 1 _- IGI Tomahawk lake Camp Historic District, fake Tonwhawk, Oneida County, Wisconsin. Sketch may showing the National Register boundaries. 75A -472 prospective patients. The site in- cludes 21 acres of the former 536 -acre site. Acreage not included in the district is heavily wooded and does not contribute to the historic signifi- cance of the complex. Bloomvale Historic District, Dutchess County, New York, is a small industrial site, established in the mid -18th century. The district's eleven contributing resources include the Bloom house and well, the Bloomvale mill, a worker's house, the mill's water system, the old highway and bridge abutments, four mill complex building sites, and the district's archeological remains. The agricultural function of the Bloom farm declined; farm buildings are gone and the agricultural fields are overgrown. However, the industrial history of Bloomvale is well repre- sented, and the Bloom house and the industrial complex remain suffi- ciently intact to preserve the setting of the mill site and the visual and functional interrelationships of its components. Thus, the industrial history of the site is the focus of the district's significance. The bound- aries of the district were selected to include the present -day parcels containing the significant historic resources. National Register bound- aries correspond to tax parcel bound- aries. Verbal boundary description: See attached site map and boundary map composed from local tax maps. Boundary justification: The bound- aries of the district were determined by the present -day parcels containing the significant historic components identified on the site map. Today, the house and the mill are owned sepa- rately. The Bloom house and its lot were divided from the mill site and two northern farm lots in the 1860s. Those farm lots were subsequently sold off and have since been further subdivided. The agricultural function of the Bloom farm declined over the years to the point where the farm buildings have disappeared and the agricultural fields reforested. Con- versely, the industrial history of Bloomvale is well represented and the Bloom house and the industrial complex remain sufficiently intact to preserve the setting of the mill site and the visual and functional interre- lationships of its components. Thus, it is the industrial history of the site that is the focus of the district's significance. Tax map showing nominated boundaries or district , TOWN i PLEASANT' VALLEY oJCH ES$ COlNTY, RA W YORK TOWN OF WASHINGTON OVTCIIE$$ CO"TY, NEW 'OAK 6$45 Bloonroale Historic District, Dutchess County, New York. Tax map showing the National Register district boundaries. 75A -473 Martin M. Bates Farmstead, Richmond, Chittenden County, Vermont, is a 45 -acre property induct- ing a 19th century ltalianate farm- house and associated barn, ice house, and chicken house surrounded by hay fields and forested hills. The farm- stead contributes to understanding the development of dairy farming in the region; therefore, the intact open farm fields around the farm buildings are also important components of the farmstead. Although the farm is no longer in operation, the fields con- tinue to be hayed. Natural features, tax parcel boundaries, and reasonable limits were used to define the Na- tional Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The Bates Farmstead includes land on both sides of Richmond Town Highway #1. The boundary above the road is formed by the southern edge of a brook that drains into the Huntington River and the eastern line of tax parcel number 11 -51.1. The boundary below the road follows the southern line of tax parcel number 11 -50 to a point approxi- mately 500 feet from the edge of the road. From that point, the boundary extends in a straight line parallel with the road to the brook, which it touches south of Hillview Road. The boundary thence follows the brook downstream to Hillview Road and continues along the edge of that road to the town highway. Boundary justification: The boundary includes all buildings and the surrounding open fields historically associated with the Bates Farmstead. Martin M. Bates Farmstead, Richmond, Vermont. Plan rnap showing the National Register boundaries, which include buildings and associated fields and woods. 21 Rocky Butte Scenic Drive Historic District, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, includes the view- point on the crest of Rocky Butte, the scenic drive approaches to the view- point, and Joseph Wood Hill Park, also on the crest. Rocky Butte Scenic Drive is a serpentine automobile roadway that climbs with three switchbacks and a final girdling loop to the summit of Rocky Butte. Con- tributing features include the road- ways and accompanying historic structures, the crest viewpoint struc- ture, and the historic aircraft beacon. The district's original association was with recreational driving and scenic views, although residential develop- ment has encroached on the lower portions of the roadway; nevertheless, the viewpoint still offers a scenic vista over the Columbia River plain in all directions. The road right -of -way and tax parcel boundaries were used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated area is located in Sections 21 and 28, Township 1N, Range 2E, Willamette Meridian in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. It is a lineal, serpen- tine district consisting of the entire 50- foot -wide right of way of Rocky Butte Road and approach sections of NE 92nd Avenue from Halsey Street on the south and NE Fremont Street from 82nd Avenue on the west to include all historic developed features of the scenic parkway and Joseph Wood Hill Park at the crest of Rocky Butte, encompassing in all 21.48 acres, more or less, in the corporate limits of the city of Portland. The total number of contributing features (14) includes the road system, its retaining walls, two tunnels, drainage structures, stone fenders, stone bollards, the park, a stone outlook with lamp posts, a stone staircase, a viewfinder, a commemo- rative monument, and the historic aircraft beacon. Boundary justifica- tion: The district is located in Town- ship I North, Range 2 East, Sections 21 and 28. The district is bounded by the 50- foot -wide right of way as measured from the center lines of Rocky Butte Road, and of 92nd Avenue from Halsey Street to Rocky Butte Road South, and along Fremont Street from 82nd Avenue to Rocky Butte Road North. Tax Lot 47 of Section 28 is located within the confines of Rocky Butte Road as it circumnavigates the crest of the butte. The district comprises an approximate 22 total of 21.48 acres. This includes 2.38 acres which is the Joseph Wood Hill portion of the district, Tax Lot 47. Because the district comprises ap- proach drives and a viewpoint located within the confines of approach drives, it was felt that the road right of ways would appropriately bound the district. The approach drives pass through residential areas at the butte's foot and then wind through newer residential areas as they climb the butte. Houses cluster along portions of the roads on the butte. Other portions of the roads are still in natural woodland. Weyerhaeuser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic Landscape, Thurston County, Washington, encompasses 260 acres of uplands and 190 acres of tideland along the Henderson Inlet of southern Puget Sound. Twin estuaries of Woodard and Chapman Bays on Henderson Inlet intersect the property forming north, south, and central peninsulas of land. The property reflects a continuity of land uses and the evolution of functional relationships between wooded land and water in the south Puget Sound region through prehistoric and historic periods. Use of the property by successive groups— Native Americans, Euro- American settlers, loggers, oyster growers, and the Weyerhaeuser log transport operation — reflects historic waterfront activities on lower Puget Sound over thousands of years. The use of the site for log dumping and booming by Weyerhaeuser Corpora- tion since 1926 has forestalled en- croachment of modern subdivision development typical of adjacent areas, thus preserving evidence of the land - use patterns of earlier eras. Evidence of prehistoric and 20th century land use is still evident, and natural landscape features survive as well The area was occupied by prehistoric Native Americans, who gathered WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH BAY LOG DUMP RURAL HISTORIC LANDSCAPE WOODARD BAY NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AREA (01 mI• Ai ., TNIuon co., VA) SKETCHMAP OF STRUCTURES Weyerhaeuser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic District, Thurston County, Washington. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. 75A -474 shellfish and plant foods and hunted there. European- American settlers arrived in the mid -19th century, and logging began in the 1880s. The area was purchased by Weyerhaeuser in the mid -1920s for log transshipment. Tax parcel boundaries were used to define the National Register boundaries of this property. Verbal boundary description: Boundaries as described in parcel numbers 11918100000, 11918410000,11918430000, 11917320000,11917320100, 11917330100,11917220000, 93006700000,93006800000, 93006900000,93007000000, 93007100000,93007200000, 93007300000,93007400000, 93007500000,93007600000, 93007700000, and 93007800000 on file at the Thurston County Assessor's Office and illustrated in the attached map. Boundary justification: The nominated property includes all land in the historic Weyerhaeuser owner- ship. Discontiguous Districts in Rural Settings (See also Discontiguous Archeological Districts) Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District, Southwest, [location restricted], contains 16 discontiguous sites associated with prehistoric cultures. The sites are located among the cliffs and canyons of the Ardra Plateau, approximately 20 miles northeast of Fort Sickles. The sites were nominated as a district because they document an extensive, diverse, and well-preserved assem- blage of prehistoric artwork; they define distinct stylistic traditions among petroglyph and pictograph groups; and they identify long -term aboriginal habitation directly associ- ated with the rock art. The sites are related by artistic style, artifact group- ings, and geologic setting. Individual site boundaries are based on the extent of surface features and artifacts. Verbal boundary description: The Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District consists of 16 significant areas of aboriginal rock art, shelters, and campsites. The accompa- nying topographic maps show the location and configuration of each nominated site by using labeled points and UTM grid coordinates. Crockett Canyon sites are: [excerpted site example] 33GGIII: This site contains approximately 1.5 acres and is found on the USGS 7.5' Crockett Canyon topographical sheet. From point 1 (UTM coordinates QQQ /RRR), follow the 2,400 -foot contour southward to point 2 (UTM coordinates SSS /TTT), a distance of about 197 feet (60 m). Continue to the NE for approximately 197 feet (60 m) to point 3 (UTM coordinates UUU /VVV), and then to the NW about 262 feet (80 m) to point 4 (UTM coordinates WWW /XXX). Proceed southward along the 2,400 - foot contour approximately 197 feet (60 m) back to point 1. The State owns this site, which is located in Section 4, Township 2S, Range 4W. Boundary justification: All 16 sites in the district are culturally linked by similar artifactual and pictographic design styles. The boundaries of the discontiguous district correspond to the boundaries of the 16 individual segments (sites). Individual site boundaries were determined by mapping the extent of surface - visible cultural features and artifacts. All of the sites are fairly discrete locations of cultural activity, with artifacts concen- trated near the petroglyph panels, shelters, and fire - cracked rock hearths that comprise the most significant features at each locus. Areas of low - density scattered artifacts or features (less than approximately 1 artifact per 50 square meters) were not included within the site boundaries. The data the sites present jointly is more important and convincing than when presented in isolation. Taken to- gether, these data overlap and suc- ceed each other, documenting over 7,000 years of occupation and the change in subsistence from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Reflect - ing this economic change is a rich and varied body of artistic expression that spans the entire period of occupation. Parks as Districts Local, State, and national parks may also include National Register properties. Boundaries for National Register properties within parks are limited to eligible resources; therefore, the National Register boundaries may differ from park boundaries. Special provisions apply to historic and cultural units of the National Park System (as discussed below). In selecting boundaries, consider the extent of the eligible resources and their setting. Do not include buffer zones or large areas that lack contrib- 75A -475 uting resources. Each historic and cultural unit of the National Park System is automati- cally listed in the National Register on the date its authorization is signed into law. During the interim period before the National Park Service has defined the extent of the areas of historic value, the National Register boundaries are those defined in the National Park Service authorizing legislation, regardless of ownership. Congress may authorize for the National Park System, with no requirement of notice, land areas not yet acquired as well as those never to be acquired in fee, including those to be controlled by easement acquisition. For each historic or cultural unit, the National Park Service will evalu- ate the entire authorized (listed) area, prepare a nomination form, and precisely define the boundaries to encompass the resources that have historic significance. If the proposed National Register boundaries coincide substantially with the park bound- aries, the documentation is forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register, and a courtesy copy is sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer. When the Keeper signs the nomina- tion form, the boundaries of the property considered to be listed in the National Register are thus defined by the documentation. If the proposed National Register boundaries differ from the area authorized, the documentation is submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer for comment within 45 days. In some cases, the area documented and subsequently listed may be less than the area authorized to exclude nonhistoric buffer zones. The listed area may include privately owned areas, but only to the extent that they have been authorized by Congress. Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C., is a 1,754.62 -acre property in the northwest quadrant of the District of Columbia. The prop- erty is legally defined as Reservation 339 and its boundaries are roughly defined as Sixteenth Street on the east, Oregon Avenue and Branch Road on the west, Mingle Road on the south, and the District of Columbia line and Parkside Drive on the north. Rock Creek Park is a natural reserve within a heavily urbanized area. The park is surrounded by commercial and residential development, and it has 23 only two modern areas of concen- trated recreational and administrative activity. Otherwise, Rock Creek Park Historic District retains a high degree of integrity that well reflects the development of this public landscape between 1791 and 1941. , Andrew Ellicott's 1791 survey recorded the topography of the property and shows the location of the District of Columbia boundary at the northwest corner of the park. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Rock Creek Park Historic District is shown as the bold black line on the accompa- nying map entitled "Rock Creek Park Historic District, 1990." This tract of land is legally defined as Reservation 339. Boundary justification: The boundaries of this district were determined by both legal and histori- cal considerations. Reservation 339 was the land set aside by Congress as Rock Creek Park in 1890 with ap- proximately 100 acres of related boundary rectifications and additions. The Piney Branch Parkway was acquired by the government in 1907 and was extended in the 1920s. It was included in this district because it is legally a part of Reservation 339. Furthermore, there is also historical justification for the parkway's inclu- sion in Rock Creek Park Historic District because this land area was surveyed and included in the 1918 Olmsted comprehensive plan for Rock Creek Park. The plan was prepared in 1917.1918 by the famous Brookline, Massachusetts, landscape architecture firm. of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., and his half- brother John C. Olmsted. Their plan for Rock Creek Park was adopted in 1919 and has remained a vital management document ever since. As an administrative unit, Rock Creek Park presently contains many other urban parks that are not con- tiguous to Reservation 339, including the Rock Creek and Potomac Park- way, the Normanstone Parkway, and the Soapstone and Klingle valleys. These areas were acquired and integrated into Washington's park system between 1913 and 1950 as access routes and a means of preserv- ing the watershed of the Rock Creek valley. Although the Melvin Hazen Park and Pinehurst Parkway are contiguous to Rock Creek Park, they were acquired and consolidated as park land within the recent past and do not share the Piney Branch Parkway's early legal or historical associations to Reservation 339. 24 Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C.. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico, is strategically located at the mountain gateway between the Southern Great Plains And the Rio Grande valley. The boundaries of the 384.8 -acre archeo- logical district are coterminous with Pecos National Historical Park. The history of the upper Pecos River valley, as represented by the archeo- logical and historic sites within the archeological district, demonstrates a succession of attempts to exploit the natural and cultural resources of the Southwest. The 96 archeological sites within the property represent a complex of pueblos inhabited by ancestors of the Pecos Indians from A.D. 800 to 1838 and a series of Spanish Franciscan mission churches and secular buildings constructed during the 17th and 18th centuries. Adolph Bandelier mapped ruins at Pecos in 1881, and archeologists including Edgar Hewett, Kenneth Chapman, A.V. Kidder, Stanley Stubbs, and Bruce Ellis conducted investigations at various sites on the property during the first half of the 20th century. Verbal boundary description: Pecos National Historical Park is surrounded by private ranch holdings, almost all of which are owned by the Fogelsons. The nom- inated district boundaries are coterminous with the National Historical Park boundaries. Boundary justification: Pecos National Histork Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C.. Southeast view o %Boulder Bridge (ca. 1901-2902). (William Bushong) 75A -476 cal Park was established in 1965 and added to in the 1980s by land dona- tions from the Fogelsons. Maquoketa Caves State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa, includes 111 acres of land acquired in three parcels between 1921 and 1940. These parcels consti- tute the eastern portion of the park and include all of the park structures, most of which were built between 1932 and 1939. Between 1961 and 1981,161 acres were added west of the historic park area as a nature preserve; this acreage is not included in the National Register historic district. In the center of the park is a steep ravine with sheer limestone cliffs ranging from 10 to 75 feet high. NORTH ARROYO Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Plan map of the Forked Lightning Ruin, adapted from A. V. Kidder's field maps from 1926, I927, and 1929. - Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Ruins of the 17th centunj church. (Pecos National Monument) 75A -477 Foot trails snake around the tops of the cliffs to overlooks, which offer views of the valley and caves below. Other trails lead to cave entrances which are connected by underground passages. Nine of the fifteen struc- tures in the park are associated with the 1932 -1939 development period and are contributing resources. The district is significant as one of the first parks established in Iowa, selected because of the property's limestone caves. The property in included in two multiple property submissions, "The Conservation Movement in Iowa, 1857-1942," and "CCC Proper- ties in Iowa State Parks, 1933 - 1942. " Because of the related periods of significance, the 1940 boundaries are appropriate. Verbal boundary description: The historic portion of Maquoketa Caves State Park com- prises three separate ladjoiningj parcels which form an irregular tract of 111.08 acres located in Section 6, T- 84N, R -lE. This acreage covers approximately half of the park on the east side. The tract is bounded on the west by newer park lands and on the north, east, and south by privately owned farmland. Boundary justifica- tion: These boundaries represent the extent of park holdings as of 1942. Hanging Rock State Park Bath- house, Stokes County, North Caro - Iina, is the largest and most distinctive facility constructed in North Carolina by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The building is significant for its architecture (Criterion C) as the most prominent example of CCC - constructed rustic park facilities in North Carolina. Included in the nomination are the adjacent 12 -acre Hanging Rock Lake and its concrete stone dam, which were built concur- rently with the bathhouse. These resources are also eligible for their associations with the CCC program in North Carolina. The building and its setting embody the ideals of park design that emphasized harmony with the natural landscape through sensitive siting and the use of native building materials and rustic architec- tural forms. The lake and shoreline, which are included as a contributing site, constitute the historic setting, which is integral to the historic character and function of the bath- house. A reasonable limit of 175 feet from the Lakeshore was used to define the National Register boundaries. 25 u , - /j.. ,! -i ne4 Maquoketa Cave State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa. Plan rnap showing the park boundaries and the National Register district boundaries. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA /Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Porte county, Minnesota. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. 26 75A -478 N N 5 � i t 8 � LAkt 2. w.t 1 _.rte , _ ♦uci �TAIi PAR u , - /j.. ,! -i ne4 Maquoketa Cave State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa. Plan rnap showing the park boundaries and the National Register district boundaries. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA /Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Porte county, Minnesota. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. 26 75A -478 Hanging Rock State Park Bathhouse, Stokes County, North Carolina. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nominated area includes the 12 -acre Hanging Rock take and 12 acres of surrounding land defined by a line running 175 feet from the high -water edge of the lake on all sides. Bound- ary justification: The nominated area incorporates the bathhouse and its immediate historic setting of lake and surrounding woodland essential to its historic function and character, including the dam that forms the lake. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, includes three buildings in the public -use area of the park, located adjacent to the Lac qui Parle River. Architects for these projects were from the National Park Service and the Design Office within the Department of Conservation. The district is significant for its association with the social, political, and eco- nomic impact of the Great Depression and the subsequent development of the Federal relief programs that were responsible for the construction of the contributing buildings. The buildings are outstanding examples of rustic style /split stone construction. The boundaries were selected to include a limited setting around the three contributing buildings. Verbal boundary descriptions The boundary for Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District is shown N N 5 � i t 8 � LAkt I5 ♦uci �TAIi PAR 9�E[xMeVSE S [S Cwatt�N.V'. Hanging Rock State Park Bathhouse, Stokes County, North Carolina. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nominated area includes the 12 -acre Hanging Rock take and 12 acres of surrounding land defined by a line running 175 feet from the high -water edge of the lake on all sides. Bound- ary justification: The nominated area incorporates the bathhouse and its immediate historic setting of lake and surrounding woodland essential to its historic function and character, including the dam that forms the lake. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, includes three buildings in the public -use area of the park, located adjacent to the Lac qui Parle River. Architects for these projects were from the National Park Service and the Design Office within the Department of Conservation. The district is significant for its association with the social, political, and eco- nomic impact of the Great Depression and the subsequent development of the Federal relief programs that were responsible for the construction of the contributing buildings. The buildings are outstanding examples of rustic style /split stone construction. The boundaries were selected to include a limited setting around the three contributing buildings. Verbal boundary descriptions The boundary for Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District is shown as the heavy, cross- hatched line on the accompanying map entitled "Lac qui Parle State Recreation Area." It is defined by the land immediately encompassing three historic build- ings. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the buildings developed by the WPA that have been historically associated with the park and that maintain historic integrity. BOUNDARIES FOR PARTICULAR PROPERTY TYPES Traditional Cultural Properties A traditional cultural property is a building, structure, site, object, or district that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community's history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Defining boundaries for traditional cultural properties can be challenging. Carefully consider the traditional uses of the property. For example, where a property is used for contemplative purposes, viewsheds are important and must be consid- ered. In an urban district significant for its association with a specific social group, consider the limits of residence or use by the group. Con- sider changes in time, as well. For example, archeological evidence may contribute information on past use areas, which may differ from present use areas. Select boundaries that encompass the area associated with the traditional use or practice and document the factors that were considered in the boundary justifica- tion. For further assistance, consult National Register Bulletin : Guidelines. for Evaluating and Documenting Tradi- tional Cultural Properties, the appropri- ate State historic preservation office, any concerned Indian tribal preserva- tion program, and the traditional group or community that ascribes values to the property. Kuchamaa (Tecate Peak), Tecate, San Diego County, California, is a sacred mountain to the Kumeyaay Indians of southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. Although there are modern intrusions (a road and communications facilities on the summit), the mountain is important to the Kumeyaay community's belief system. The peak is a special place, marking the location for the acquisition of knowledge and power by Kumeyaay shamans. Oral tradition records the use of Kuchamaa as the place where several important shamans instructed their initiates and the sacred place of vision quests and purification ceremonies. Contempo- rary Native Americans continue to use Kuchamaa during the full moon and at equinoxes, when they pray for renewal of Earth Mother and peace. Kuchamaa is significant under Criterion A for its association with Native American cultural history. A contour line and a legal boundary were used to define the National Register boundaries of the property. Verbal boundary description: Kuchamaa is 3,885 feet above mean sea level. The nominated area in- cludes all land from the 3,000 -foot contour level up to and including the peak. On the north it drops abruptly to Highway 94. The western flank consists of several dissected subpeaks and the eastern aspect is an upland spine. The southern boundary conforms to the international border [between the United States and Mexico]. This is a total of 510 acres, 320 to the west and 190 to the east. Boundary justification: Kuchamaa was and remains important to south- ern California Native Americans as a structural unit. If the mountain lacked its physical proportions and regional position, then it is quite possible that the peak would not have been revered. The physical stature of Kuchamaa constitutes one reason that it was used as a place of spiritual learning and worship. During a visit to Kuchamaa to evaluate a develop- ment proposal, Native Americans identified a sphere of spiritual influ- ence extending for several miles from the mountain. This constitutes one zone of spirituality; approachable by both Kwisiyai (shamans) and ordi- nary people. Actual Native American use of Kuchamaa provides guidelines for establishing boundaries. This nomination includes that portion of the mountain located above an elevation of 3,000 feet above mean sea level. According to current data, this area is considered sacrosanct. In the ethnographic and prehistoric past, the summit was used for arcane rituals and approached only by shamans and 75A -479 their initiates. Cultural taboos prohibited common folk from ascend- ing beyond a spring known as God's Tear. The location of God's Tear Spring has not been verified, but best estimates place it as the spring located just above the 3,000 -foot level. Fi- nally, according to Rosalie Pinto Roberston (granddaughter of the last traditional chief of the Kumeyaay], the high mountain slopes hold burials of cremated Kwisiyai. As with the spring, none of these has been veri- fied. Their presence above the 3,000 - foot level requires the use of the contour line as the boundary for the National Register district. The nominated portion of Kuchamaa includes 510 acres, with the eastern segment, consisting of public lands, containing 190 acres. The western, state -owned parcel is demarcated by north -south section lines. This area contains 320 acres. The southern boundary conforms to the interna- tional border. Private lands occupy a large portion of the lower slopes of the mountain below the 3,000 -foot contour line. Mining Properties Sterling HiII Mine, Ogdensburg Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey, is located on a 33 -acre tract that includes five mines (open -cut, open - pit, and underground types), nine contributing buildings, one noncon- tributing building, and the ruins of a structure. Primary construction periods were 1830 -1897 and 1916- 1938. The property is located on the west side of Plant Street and the south side of Passaic Avenue, about one - half mile from the municipal center of the Borough of Ogdensburg. The property was divided among three heirs in the early 19th century. The parcels were not commonly owned until the end of the 19th century, when all three parcels were pur- chased by the New Jersey Zinc Company. Mining on the property ceased in 1986, and the property was converted into a museum dedicated to the history of the Sterling Hill Mine, mining history, and mineralogy of the Sterling Hill ore body. The legal description of the lot that includes the eligible resources was used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of the site consists of the entire parcel of land known as Block 31, Lot 11.07 lying and being within 27 the Borough of Ogdensburg, Sussex County, New Jersey. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the entire municipal lot that has been historically associated with mining activities at Sterling Hill during the period 1830 -1940. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone Township, Pine County, Minnesota, is located along the Kettle River on the east edge of the city of Sandstone in east - central Minnesota. The property includes the abandoned quarry site, the pumping station, the artesian well control building, and derrick mast. The quarry, which was active from 1885- 1919, was designated a city park in 1960. The quarry was the source of high - quality sandstone which was used in buildings throughout the United States. Cultural features, natural features, and reasonable limits were used to define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary description: The nominated property is roughly bounded by Minnesota Highway 123 to the south, on the north by a point 600 feet north of the Great Northern Railroad bridge, the Kettle River to the east, and the former quarry walls to the west, as shown on the accompa- nying map entitled "Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, May 1990." Boundary justification: The boundary encompasses all of the abandoned quarry site including those buildings, structures, and ruins that have historically been part of the Kettle River Sandstone Company and that maintain historic integrity. Within the boundary is city-owned Robinson Park and the recently constructed park shelters and build- ings located toward the south end of the quarry. 28 Sterling Hill Mine, Ogdensburg, Sussex County, New Jersey. rtan map of me National Register boundaries and resources. The Sterling Hill property as it appeared in 1918. (Gant Grenter) 75A -480 0 0 ° `�.�.v' i_....._ ..... " . ...... tat.... .... Do eo.]d � o ° o o 0 . Sterling Hill Mine, Ogdensburg, Sussex County, New Jersey. rtan map of me National Register boundaries and resources. The Sterling Hill property as it appeared in 1918. (Gant Grenter) 75A -480 . �Jwe{Ewc\ � Vo BOUNDARIES FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND DISTRICTS A site, according to the National Register classification, is the location of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or building or structure (whether standing, ruined, or vanished) where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value. The most common types of resources classified as sites are archeological resources. Archeological districts generally include several sites and their settings, as well as other types of resources (such as structures and landscape features). For examples of districts that include buildings as well as archeological sites, see the proper- ties cited in the sections on districts in rural settings. 30 Defining boundaries for archeo- logical sites raises special issues because most or all of the eligible resources may be underground. For sites that have not been excavated, subsurface testing can provide data to identify and evaluate the resources and define the boundaries. In situa- tions where the site type is well known (because similar sites in the region have been excavated) and there is clear surface evidence of preserved resources, testing may not be necessary to determine significance or select boundaries. Consider natural topographic or cultural landscape features that indicate the limits of the resources. Legal or lot boundaries may be used for historic sites, both urban and rural, when such boundaries are know to be consistent with the historic boundaries. Note surface evidence of disturbance that may have disrupted or destroyed resources. When access is restricted or when a deeply buried site cannot be tested, select.the boundaries on the basis of predictions (based on topographic setting and site type). Describe the limitations of the data and support the predictions with a discussion, demonstrating the reliability of the predictions in the context of known local and regional site types. For all archeological properties, include a large -scale map (preferably 1 inch to 200 feet) to document the property boundaries, along with a USGS map locating the property. The large -scale map may be used in place of a verbal boundary description. It is difficult to provide a range of examples of boundaries from listed properties because locational informa- tion is routinely restricted to protect the resources from vandalism. Loca- tion and boundary information is recorded in the documentation but is not released to the public. The boundary descriptions that follow are drawn from documented sites, but most descriptions are altered and edited to omit critical locational information: direction, distance, and landmark information in the original GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND DISTRICTS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 57) The selection of boundaries for archeological sites and districts depends primarily on the scale and horizontal extent of the significant features. A regional pattern or assemblage of remains, a location of repeated habitation, a location of a single habitation, or some other distribution of archeological evidence all imply different spatial scales. Although it is not always possible to determine the boundaries of a site conclusively, a knowledge of local cultural history and related features, such as a site type, can help predict the extent of a site. Consider the property's setting and physical characteristics along with the results of archeological survey to determine the most suitable approach. Obtain evidence through one or several of the following techniques: • Subsurface testing, including test excavations, core and auger borings, and observation of cut banks. • Surface observation of site features and materials that have been uncovered by plowing or other disturbance or that have remained on the surface since deposition. • Observation of topographic or other natural features that may or may not have been present during the period of significance. • Observation of land alterations subsequent to site formation that may have affected the integrity of the site. • Study of historic or ethnographic documents, such as maps and journals. If the techniques listed above cannot be applied, set the boundaries by conservatively estimating the extent and location of the significant features. Explain the basis for selecting the boundaries in the boundary justification. If a portion of a known site cannot be tested, the boundaries may be drawn along the legal property lines of the portion that is accessible, provided that portion by itself has sufficient significance to meet the National Register Criteria and the full extent of the site is unknown. Archeological districts may contain discontiguous elements under the following circumstances: • When one or several outlying sites has a direct relationship to the significance of the main portion of the district, through common cultural affiliation or as rela ted elements of a pattern of land use, and • When the intervening space does not have known significant resources. Geographically separate sites not forming a discontiguous district maybe nominated together as individual properties within a multiple property submission. 75A -482 documentation is not included. Sites are identified by type and region, not by name and specific location. For further assistance, see Appendix: Definition of National Register Bound- aries for Archeological Properties; National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites and Districts; or contact the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, Federal Preser- vation Officer, or the National Regis- ter to speak with an archeologist. Archeological Sites Rockshelter Petroglyphs, Upper South [location restricted], includes two petroglyphs components, one on a boulder at the mouth of the shelter and a second on a ledge. The designs are well preserved examples of prehistoric rock art in the region. No other archeological resources have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the rockshelter. Natural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property includes the entire rockshelter, the petroglyph boulder, and that portion of the sandstone ledge containing the chevron -like designs. The boundary for the site is indicated on the sketch map. The center point shown on the sketch map corresponds to the UTM coordinate on the USGS quadrangle. Boundary justification: The rockshelter houses the petroglyphs and is an integral element of this rock art site. The shelter probably served as a tempo- rary or extended habitation and focus of ritual activities associated with the execution of the petroglyphs. As a conspicuous natural feature ofcul- tural importance, the rockshelter may also have been ascribed mythological identification in connection with the rock art. Historic Trading Company Ware- house and Clerk's House Site, Pacific Northwest [location restricted], are located on a natural river levee, parallelling the south bank of a major river. By the early 1840s, the trading company established a grain ware- house on the site adjacent to the south bank of the river. The warehouse and an associated clerk's house were erected to maintain the company's monopoly on trade in the region by purchasing agricultural produce from residents of the river valley. A flood o io' 'i i /Ik�u /pk5+c��V O pq[e ✓R4. Rockshelter Petroglyphs, Upper South. Sketch map showing the National Register boundaries. in 1861 destroyed other development in the area and moved the warehouse about 50 yards; it was never used again. The site is significant for its role in the early settlement and trade in the region. Archeological excava- tions indicated that cultural strata were mixed as a result of 20th century recreational use of the site. However, artifacts are plentiful above the 100 - foot contour line, and horizontal integrity remains to generally define building locations and differential functions of structures within the site. A contour line and a reasonable limit were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is located in the NW 1/4 SW '/4 Section 4, Township 2S, Range 4W, in a state park. The boundaries of the property encompass 1.03 acres of the 100 -foot contour levee of a flood plain that contains the site of the trading company warehouse and its associated archeological features, including the clerk's house site. The north, south, and west boundaries follow the 100 -foot contour line; the east boundary is defined by a reasonable line crossing the levee and intersecting a granite monument. The monument and a park pavilion are included within the boundaries as noncontributing resources. Boundary 75A -483 justification: The bounds of the site were determined by surface observa- tion, informant testimony, and subsur- face excavation. Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site, Middle Atlantic [location restricted], consists of several large outcroppings of quartzite and sandstone. Surface evidence suggests that the lithic source may have been used by prehistoric Native Americans as early as the Middle Archaic period. Archeological sites in the region often include debitage thought to be from this quarry source. There has been no subsurface testing at the site; evalua- tion is based on surface evidence and knowledge of associated sites in the vicinity. The site is significant for the information it may provide about the extraction of lithic resources in the region. The National Register prop- erty boundaries are based on the extent of the natural feature quarried by Native Americans. Verbal bound- ary description: Boundaries for the site are determined by the natural topography of the area. The site is located within the confines of the hill on which the outcropping of quartzite occurs [as shown on the accompany- ing map]. The base of the hill is the site boundary. Boundary justifica- tion: The boundary for the site is 31 tion: The boundary for the site is established by the limits of the natural outcropping of rock. The site was utilized solely as an extractive or procurement site; therefore, the limits of the site are set by the limits of the availability of the lithic resource. Prehistoric Camp and Habitation Archeological Site, Western Moun- tains [location restricted], is a multi - component camp and habitation site with at least five occupations, ranging in time from 5050 B.C. to A.D. 750. Three of the occupations reflect short - term camp or special activity uses. Two long -term occupations are represented by pit house ruins and associated materials, dated to the Early Archaic period. The site is at an elevation of ca. 7,000 feet, about 1/2 mile from the area's major river. Test and data recovery excavations re- vealed buried resources including pit houses, lithic tools, ceramics, and faunal remains. Road construction has affected the site; however, excava- tions were conducted in association with recent construction, and the upgraded road was realigned to avoid the pit houses. The distribution of archeological resources (surface artifacts) and natural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The southern, southeast- ern, and western boundaries are determined by a sharp reduction in surface artifact density; the northern boundary is at the topographic drop - off into the adjacent gulch, and the eastern boundary is along the east side of a tributary arroyo to the gulch. Boundary justification: The bound- aries of the Prehistoric Camp and Habitation Archeological Site have been determined from a combination of natural, topographic, and archeo- logical evidence. Western, southeast- ern, and southern limits have been drawn on the basis of surface artifact density evidence, after careful surface reconnaissance found a clear decline in the number of visible chipped stone artifacts in this area. A portion of the western boundary at the adjacent ranch house and outbuildings shows such a decline in surface artifact density due to ground disturbances from ranch building construction and occupation, as well as limited ground visibility in an adjacent pasture. The southeastern and southern limits, where surface artifact density is also quite low, are in relatively rocky RESTRICTED INFORMATION 6V 1 �DOP QUARTUT& QUAr2ey � AQ& SPAesf� -y ^W 000 At2LHAE0— ��' LOCs1UtG SIrE awroPe� 3,��roPQ��aq 0 0 N L - -- -- drrJ L01( See7rq NOT SCIaLE' Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site, Middle Atlantic. Sketch map shozoing the National Register boundaries, defined by geological and topographic features. terrain with good ground visibility but very little soil accumulation. Archeological survey and excavation data have been used to determine the eastern site boundary, drawn on the east side of a tributary arroyo of the gulch. Burned rock, charcoal-stained soil, and sparse artifacts exposed in the east cut bank of the arroyo led to investigation of the Feature 14 locus, where artifact density at the present ground surface is otherwise very low. The arroyo becomes an entrenched feature only north of the road, then Joins a large tributary wash just upstream of where the latter drainage flows into the gulch. The east bound- ary of the site is drawn along the east side of the arroyo system to include the Feature 10 locus, although no test excavations have been done farther east beyond Feature 10 to search for other buried remains on the interfluvial flat where no surface artifacts are visible. The northern boundary is topographically defined 32 75A -484 at the south bank of the gulch, beyond which any archeological remains would have been long since eroded away. The 30 -acre site area depicted on the topographic map does not include a continuous scatter of surface artifacts, although at least a light scatter of chipped stone, ground stone, and /or ceramic artifacts is visible in most areas. Excavations have been conducted in the southern third of the site; the evidence from these excavations, in combination with subsurface exposures in nearby washes, the arroyo, and several road cuts, demonstrates that much of the Prehistoric Camp site resources remain buried. John Houstoun McIntosh Sugarhouse, Camden County, Georgia, built in the early 19th century as a cane - processing facility, consists of an extensive ruin with associated archeological resources. The ruin was constructed of tabby, a coastal building material grade by mixing equal parts of oyster shell, lime, and water. The sugarhouse was a rectangular building with three large rooms, two porches, and several door and window openings. The west room was the milling room; the middle room was the boiling room; and the east room was the curing room. The tabby -paved area north of the milling room was probably an unloading area. In 1934, archeologist James Ford visited the site and concluded that it was not the remains of the Spanish Mission Santa Maria (as it had been previously identified), but the remains of a sugarhouse. Although Ford may have conducted some excavation at the site, no such excavations were reported. In 1981 the University of Florida's Depart- ment of Anthropology investigated the site to define the nature, condi- tion, distribution, and significance of the archeological resources at the site. Archeological investigations focused on the sugarhouse ruins and immedi- ate area of the site. The site is signifi- cant for its association with the 19th century sugar manufacturing industry and for its research potential. The National Register boundaries are based on the extent of above - ground and below - ground resources. Verbal boundary description: The boundary includes the sugarhouse, two depres- sions, and the property surrounding them. The property is marked on the enclosed sketch map. It consists of one acre of land centered on the sugarhouse. Boundary justification: The one acre is inclusive of the sugarhouse and contiguous areas of activity identified by reported archeo- logical investigations. At such time in the future if the locations of associ- ated buildings and /or areas of activity are identified, an appropriate boundary expansion will be pro- posed. Contiguous Archeological Districts Sinarboles Archeological District, Southwest [location restricted], located on a broad lava flow at an elevation of ca. 6,000 feet, includes 39 prehistoric sites occupied between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1300. The sites were exposed as a result of a juniper - eradication project. The surface was disturbed, but subsurface resources retain integrity, although several sites have been looted in the past. Archeo- logical investigations during the late John Houstoun McIntosh Sugarhouse, Camden County, Georgia. The tabby wall ruins of the sugarhouse, facing west. (James R. Lockhart) 1930s addressed several sites. In the late 1980s, an intensive archeological survey of the district was conducted to define the boundaries of the prehistoric community, Factors considered in defining the boundaries included topography, community organization, and the known archeo- logical resources. Survey indicated that site density decreased rapidly north and east of the edge of the lava flow; therefore, the north and east boundaries follow the edge of the flow. West and south boundaries define the limits of the inferred community based on survey data; site density decreases beyond this limit. The district represents the archeologi- cal expression of the prehistoric community. The sites represent a wide variety of types, including artifact scatters, specialized activity areas, and large sites with structures, representing several stages of commu- nity development. Verbal boundary description: The Sinarboles Archeo- logical District is a 4,000 -by -5,125 -Foot rectangle defined by the edge of a remnant lava flow on the north and east side with straight lines drawn to the south and west boundaries. Boundary justification: The district is defined by site density and cluster- ing as well as topographic features on the north and east side. Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District, New England [location restricted], is composed of 75A -485 an entire island of about 45 acres located in the harbor of a New England city. The island is half a mile long and irregular in shape. The district in- cludes 22 contributing archeological sites, structures, and buildings repre- senting an extensive period of human occupation, beginning in the Middle Archaic 8,000 years ago and continuing today. Activities associated with that human occupation are related to a number of important themes in North American, State, and local prehistory and history, particularly the exploita- tion of the marine ecology, the develop- ment of a historic maritime economy, and the changing cultural uses as- signed to coastal areas. Contributing historical archeological sites, structures, and buildings are associated with the Coast Guard, a school, and historic residences. Noncontributing resources include modern roads, recreational structures, and residences. These intrusions have had little impact on the island's archeological and historic integrity. Tax parcel boundaries define the National Register district. Verbal boundary description: The Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District boundaries are indicated on the attached Assessors Maps. Boundaries correspond to the island's shoreline, indicated on the assessors maps as a dotted line. Boundary justification: The nominated boundaries include all the land historically and currently known as Harbor Island; an island of about 45 acres. 33 Discontiguous Archeological Districts Midwest Prehistoric Cave and Rock Shelter Sites Discontiguous Archeological District, Central Midwest [location restricted], includes 20 archeological sites in the water- shed of Mule, Goose, and Broad creeks. Archeological sites in rock shelters and caves represent an important part of the settlement pattern of prehistoric hunters and gatherers of the region. Sheltered sites were used as temporary camps, lithic- knapping sites and resource - processing stations, and base camps. Reoccupation and sedimentation has left a deep, stratified record of prehis- toric human activities. The 20 sites in the district area representative sample of the best preserved shelter deposits in the three creek drainages. The district is significant under Criterion D for the sites' potential to contribute important information on prehistoric life in the region. Shel- tered sites preserve the remains of special uses as well as the activities of daily life. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: [The verbal boundary descrip- tion for this district consists of town- ship, range, section references as well as UTM references for each of the 20 sites. The sites are also marked on accompanying maps of the three drainages. Because this information is restricted, it is not reproduced here]. Boundary justification: This district consists of 20 cave and shelter archeo- logical sites located within the drain- age basins of Mule, Goose, and Broad creeks. The archeological sites are specific points within the three drainage basins and are defined by UTM coordinates. In the future, other cave and shelter sites within the basins may be determined significant and added to the district. Plantation Cemeteries Archeologi- cal District, Deep South [location restrictedl, consists of two separate but historically associated African American cemeteries dating from the early 1800s to 1929. Both were established as slave cemeteries on adjoining sugar plantations. The land was purchased by the U.S. govern- ment in 1929 for construction of a flood - control project. There are no surface indications of the cemeteries due to extensive modern landscape modifications. Archeological investi- gations, however, demonstrated a 34 high degree of integrity. Investiga- tions included magnetometer survey, topographic survey, excavation of five 1 -by -2 -meter units, backhoe trench- ing, and augering. All cultural remains were left in place. Portions of each cemetery were affected during excavation of water - control ditches; however, damage was limited. Based on identified grave sites and density predictions, each cemetery is esti- mated to include between 100 and 150 graves. The district is significant for its association with African American plantation populations of the antebel- lum and postbellum periods and for its research potential. The boundaries of the two cemeteries are based on cultural features and reasonable limits beyond known resources, as deter- mined by survey and testing. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated district consists of two discontiguous historic cemeteries. The first cemetery is delineated by a polygon whose vertices are marked by UTM references A, B, C, and D [listed in registration form and marked on accompanying USGS map]. The second cemetery is delin- eated by the polygon whose vertices are marked by UTM references A, B, C, and D [listed in the registration form and marked on the accompany- ing USGS map]. Boundary justifica- tion: The fieldwork determined a total site size of ca. 3,000 square meters (under 1 acre) for the first cemetery. The western, northern, and southern boundaries were extended 10 meters beyond confirmed burials. This was considered necessary due to the limited amount of fieldwork and the irregular and elusive nature of this type of archeological resource. No topographic, vegetative, or other natural markers remain to help define the site boundaries. The discovery of burials 10 and 11 in a backhoe trench excavated beyond the previously identified limits of the site illustrated the need to expand the site bound- aries beyond the confirmed burials. The eastern boundary is defined by the haul road which abuts the site. Magnetometer survey did not indicate any burials under the road; however, this boundary is problematic since further archeological investigation was precluded in the road bed. The boundaries described above provide a reasonable estimate of the extent and location of burials at the site. The field work determined a total site size of 3,300 square meters (less than one 75A -486 acre) for the second cemetery. The site boundaries include a 10 -meter exten- sion beyond confirmed burials on the eastern and southern margins of the site and a 20 -meter zone along the northern and western margins. As with the first cemetery, these extended boundaries were required due to the inconclusive nature of the limited fieldwork. Woodland Mounds Archeological District, Upper Midwest [location restricted], is a group of prehistoric mounds located on the grounds of a school. The district originally in- cluded 15 mounds; 12 survive, includ- ing conical, linear, and bird effigy forms. The mounds date to the Late Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 650 - 1300). The district is composed of three discontiguous areas (A, B, and C), with modern buildings and landscaping separating the areas. Several mound groups in the vicinity were mapped in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Woodland Mounds groups, and in the 1930s, three of the mounds were excavated. Remnants of damaged mounds have been identi- fied, but the seriously compromised mounds have not been included in the district. Since the early 20th century, efforts have been made to protect the surviving mounds. Intact deposits probably survive in several of the mounds. The district is significant for its potential to yield information on the Late Woodland period. Research questions are focused on information that can be obtained through non- invasive means, such as location and arrangement, geographical distribu- tion, and proximity to resources. Cultural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The site is divided into three areas [bound- aries of which are shown on the accompanying map]. Area A includes UTM reference C and is a small, less - than -1 -acre parcel whose east bound- ary is Mound 1 and west boundary is Mound 2. Area B includes UTM reference Band is an L- shaped 1 -acre parcel. Area B is bounded on the north by Mound 11 and on the south by Oak Drive. UTM reference B is the easternmost point of Area B and is the point where Mound 3 intersects with Oak Drive. UTM point A is the westernmost point of the district an is located in Area C. It is the point where Mound 12 intersects Maple Drive. Boundary justification: The AREA C 0 _ ncmin tion ❑ndari Woodland Mounds Archeological District, Upper Midwest. Detail of plan map showing the locations of two discontiguous areas in the district. Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Midwest. Underwater view of the ship's wheel and steering gear. 75A -487 boundaries were drawn to include only the mounds and area between them known to be relatively undis- turbed by modern construction. Areas A, B, and C are unconnected and are deemed to be the site portions where the integrity of the mound group is most intact. Shipwreck Sites Lake Superior Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a three - masted schooner constructed in 1869 and wrecked in 1896 against a breakwater. The vessel represents the type constructed in the late 1860s and 1870s for the shipment of iron ore. The vessel was in tow of a steamer when the two vessels encountered a storm. The steamer threw off the schooners line. The schooner dropped anchor, but continued to drift and hit the breakwater. The vessel sank with the crew seeking . refuge in the rigging, from which they were rescued the following morning. Rigging and masts may have been salvaged, but machinery was left in place. Although thousands of ships have moved through the waters where the wreck lies, the resources have seen relatively little disturbance. The site is significant for its role in local maritime history, the structural integrity of the vessel, and the re- search potential of the site. The National Register boundaries were defined by reasonable limits around the vessel remains. Verbal boundary description: The area included in the shipwreck is a rectangle extending 200 feet southeast and 65 feet on either side of a centerline extending south- east and beginning at a point that is 150 feet from the monument located on the northwestern end of the breakwater. Boundary justification: The Lake Superior Shipwreck Site is about 70 percent intact. The boundary for the site is based on the debris field associated with the wreck. This was determined from information ob- tained by divers during mitigation activities. Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a two - masted wooden schooner com- pleted in 1856. The vessel transported iron ore and pig iron between Lake Huron and Lake Erie ports. During a storm on Lake Huron in 1868, the 35 vessel collided with another schooner near Piney Point. The other schooner managed to make it to port, but this vessel was abandoned by its crew and sank. The shipwreck site was discov- ered and surveyed in the late 1980s. The wreck of the schooner rests in an upright position on a sandy bottom in 150 feet of water. The vessel is nearly intact, and major equipment is still in place. The schooner site is significant for the vessel's role in Great Lakes shipping, the naval architecture of the vessel, and the research potential of the site. The National Register bound- aries were defined by reasonable limits around the vessel remains, selected to include the area likely to contain rigging. Verbal boundary description: The Lake Huron Ship- wreck Site is located 2 statute miles west and 1.5 miles north of Piney Point at the intersection of Loran C coordinates XXX and YYY. The area included in the site is a square 1,000 feet on a side; the geographical center being the charted vessel's position. Boundary justification: The Lake Huron Shipwreck is the site of a relatively intact vessel with structural damage primarily to the rigging only, based on diver assessments and videotape evidence of the site. Little noticeable deterioration has been evident on the vessel in terms of subsequent deposition on the site, ice damage, erosion, or other environ- mental factors with the exception of anchor damage to the hull. The boundary is based on the probability of locating major rigging elements lying near the hull as a result of the wreck. drifting and sinking slowly after the collision. The wreck's depth has prevented a thorough evaluation of the total extent of the site away from the hull itself. BOUNDARIES FOR HISTORIC SITES Locations of significant events or activities where the location possesses historic or cultural value may be classified as National Register sites. Cemeteries, battlefields, and natural and cultural landscapes where historic events took place are examples of historic sites. 36 GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: HISTORIC SITES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) Select boundaries that encom- pass the area where the historic events took place. Include only portions of the site retaining historic integrity and documented to have been directly associated with the event. Denis Julien Inscription, Grand County, Utah, consists of historic inscriptions on a sandstone block in a side canyon of Green River, in the mouth of Hell Roaring Canyon. There are two inscription panels. The first bears the name D. Julien, the date 3 mai 1863, and a sunburst design and a one - masted boat. The second panel includes five names of early surveyors from the U.S. Reclamation Service . with 20th century dates. Denis Julien, an American fur trapper of French descent, etched his name and date along waterways in eastern Utah at least eight time between 1831 and 1844. In this location, he also in- scribed the one - masted boat, suggest- ing his mode of travel. The site is significant for its association with fur trading and exploration, conservation and reclamation, and mining. Rea- sonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The site is located within the NE 1/4, NW 1/4, SW' /4, NW 1/4, Section 6 (unsurvey- ed), T265, R1 8E. USGS 7.5 minute series, Mineral Canyon, Utah, quad - rangle,1988. Boundaries of the actual parcel included in the nomination can be described as a circle with a radius of 30 feet centered on the inscription rock. Boundary justification: The description provided above includes the rock upon which the historic inscriptions are located and additional amount of surrounding property deemed sufficient to convey some sense of the site's surroundings. Tinta Massacre Site, Merizo, Guam, is the place where soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army killed sixteen people of the village of Merizo in 1944. During the last days of the Japanese occupation, soldiers marched a group of thirty men and women from the village to an area called Tinta at the foot of a hill west of the village. The soldiers herded the villagers into a dugout cave, lobbed hand grenades through the opening, and attacked survivors with their sabres. Fourteen people survived the attack. The massacre site is located at the base of the hills on the eastern edge of the Gans Valley. The site is marked only by a wooden cross in the overgrown gully, which is what remains of the dugout cave. Reason- Denis Julien Inscription, Grand County, Utah. This ea. 1909 photograph shows the inscription and its environs. (Utah Historical Society) 75A -4$8 F i into Massacre Site, Merizo County, Guam. Detail of USGS map showing the National Register boundaries, able limits were used to define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: Boundary lines are as indicated on the accompanying USGS map. Boundary justification: The bound- ary of one -half acre is set to protect the integrity and the setting of the massacre site. Palmito Ranch Battlefield, Cameron County, Texas, is the site of the final land engagement of the Civil War. Concentrated military action occurred here on May 12- 13,1865, more than a month after Confederate forces under General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court- house, Virginia. The battle, a series of sharp skirmishes, took place across an approximately five -mile area halfway between Brownsville and Brazos Island. Federal troops initially pressed the Confederates as far west as Tulosa Ranch before Confederate reinforcements under the command of Col. John S. (Rip) Ford arrived and drove the Union army back to their base at Brazos Island. The battlefield lies on a windswept plain at the southernmost tip of Texas on sparse land characterized by marsh and chaparral with a few scattered hil- locks. The land's virtually unchanged physical features still convey the battlefield's appearance during the Civil War. National Register bound- anes were organized according to natural topographic features, cultural features, archeological evidence, and reasonable limits based on historical research. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: Refer to the accompanying USGS map for a precise depiction of the boundaries of Palmito Ranch Battlefield. The battlefield is bordered on the north by the Boca Chica Pafmilo Ranch Battlefield, Cameron County, Texas. Map showing the National Register boundaries. 37 75A -489 Highway and on the south by the current course of the Rio Grande River. On the east, the nominated area extends to a point immediately east of Tarpon Bend and immediately west of Stell -Lind Banco No. 128. The western border follows a line from the Loma del Muerto southward to the Rio Grande. Beginning at a point on the United States bank of the Rio Grande immediately south of Loma del Muerto, proceed due north approximately one mile to the inter- section of the Boca Chica Highway and Loma del Muerto. Then proceed east along the Boca Chica Highway, approximately 4.5 miles, to a point on the Rio Grande. Then proceed along the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande approximately 4.5 miles to the point of origin. Boundary justification: Boundaries for Palmito Ranch Battle- field encompass the large expanse of land where the most intense fighting of the conflict took place. Since the battle consisted of a series of moving skirmishes, the battlefield itself covers a large area approximately five miles long. The southern boundary follows the current path of the Rio Grande, since the river formed one border for all fighting. Also, the river . is the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico. The western boundary roughly follows a line extending from the Loma del Muerto southward to the Rio Grande. The line approximates the point at which Confederate reinforcements arrived at the scene of the battle on the afternoon of May 13, 1865, The boundary also approximates the position of "San Martin Ranch," referred to by officers of both armies in written accounts of the battle. The Boca Chica Highway forms the northern boundary of the battlefield. Although some scattered fighting may have taken place north of this line, most of the conflict was concen- trated much closer to the Rio Grande. The placement of the boundary at the highway allows for the inclusion of a broad area north of the river, provid- ing an accurate demarcation of the large area in which the running battle occurred. The battlefield's eastern boundary roughly extends from the westernmost tip of Verdolaga Lake southward to a point on the R o Grande just east of Tarpon Bend and just west of Stell -Lind Banco No. 128, as shown on the accompanying map. This line marks the approximate location of a small levee referred to in written, first hand accounts of the battle as the scene of the final skir- mish, and the place where the Con- federate Army ceased its pursuit of the Union troops on the eve of May 13, 1865. Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County, Kentucky, is the location of an important 1862 Civil War battle. The battle was an important early victory for the Union army. After several Union defeats, victory in Kentucky was strategically and politically important. At the end of the battle, troops under the command of Colonel James Garfield held the battlefield, putting the Union in control of eastern Kentucky. The battlefield is located along a series of ridges that surround the confluence of the Right and Left forks of Middle Creek. The eastern part of the battle- field is a cemetery located on a ridge (north of State Route 114). The western boundary is a ridge above a gorge near the mouth of the Left Fork of Middle Creek. The land occupied by Union troops and the location of the engagement is characterized by steep uplands, over 600 feet above the floodplain of the creek. The ridges are bisected by several drainages. Although there are a few modern intrusions (roads and a power line), the battlefield retains integrity to the extent that a soldier who participated in the battle would recognize the battlefield today. Cultural features (roads), natural features (ridges), and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the point where State Route 114 at intersects with old State Route 114 /West Prestonsburg Road's right -of -way, on the north side of said roads (UTM reference A); proceed northwesterly with Grave Yard Point, approxi- mately 750 meters to a point (UTM reference B); proceed southwesterly approximately 750 meters, across an unnamed hollow to a point (UTM reference C); proceed southeasterly approximately 200 meters to a point (UTM reference D); proceed south- westerly approximately 350 meters, down the ridge to State Route.,114's right -of -way, (UTM reference E); proceed southeasterly across State Route 114's right -of -way, 450 meters to a point (UTM reference F); proceed east across State Route 404 right -of- i %.9 i � v ✓� a , i ..r1 � /�' 4Ayi i�7f�fi� 1 /lam (7�!'. i t�444�� ,�; ((r ��'( {,, •rte �. Z S.S ; ,('`�,`� /� ` :r ,c ,(' �r,!'�v Fk ��i i 1 ,ji A �'�� W ` id �'rr. A[ ] � vial - -i4kd. lLr* '. t�G� r`�✓"„n'�:I �� ' �,'•�' IN 4f *ti 0 sal �i i / /ice ih(hr� `j a ( y( � Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County, Kentucky. Detail of USGS quadrangle showing the National Register boundaries. 75A -490 way, the Left Fork of Middle Creek and the CSX railroad right -of -way, approximately 650 meters to a point (UTM reference G); proceed north approximately 650 meters to a point (UTM reference H); proceed north- easterly across the CSX railroad right - of -way, crossing State Route 114's right -of -way approximately 500 meters to a point (UTM reference I); following State Route 114's right -of- way approximately 100 meters to the point of origin. Boundary justifica- tion: The boundary includes the ridges, stream, and the floodplain of that stream on and around which the Battle of Middle Creek took place. A recent site visit produced no earthworks or artifacts that would help determine the exact site limits. The boundary is based upon historic maps, manuscripts, and other docu- mentation both primary and second- ary. The Sands Family Cemetery, Sands Point, Nassau County, New York includes twelve rows of 18th and 19th century gravestones, situ- ated on a wooded knoll. The cem- etery was established ca. 1711 when John Sands set aside one acre of his estate as a family burying ground. The 86 well- preserved sandstone and marble gravestones include winged death's heads, skull and crossbones, soul effigies, and plain tripartite sandstone tablets of the 18th century and Neoclassical motifs popular during the 19th century. The progres- sion of motifs and epitaphs on the gravestones reflects the changes in religious beliefs and social customs during the period of interments. The cemetery is surrounded by private property. it is flanked on the east by a modern garage, private road and field; to the west is a private paved drive. The nominated property consists of about one acre of land which is an inholding within a parcel whose boundaries are delineated on the boundaries map. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary of the Sands Family Cemetery is shown as the solid black line on the accompany- ing map entitled "The Sands Family Cemetery, Sands Point, Nassau County, New York." Boundary justification: The Sands Family Cemetery is situated on the west side of Sands Point Road on a wooded knoll. The cemetery is surrounded by private property. It is flanked on the east by a modern garage, private ME SAKS PA14= CEMEMERy somas ronvs, HASW cacNW, NEW xuaz MY rc � iI'It Smla n le y..� SANDS PO /N7 ROAO The SFnds Family Conetenj, Nassau County, New York. Plan view showing the National Register boundaries. road, and open field; to the west is a. private paved drive that leads to a house northwest of the burial ground. The cemetery property is irregular in shape: The west side is 108.46 feet; the north side bordered by a fence is 56.52 feet long; east side is 73.09 feet, and it is 67.08 feet, on the south side of the property, according to a 1989 survey of the parcel. The nominated property consists of less than one acre of land. 75A -491 The Sands- Family Ceinetenf, Nassau County, New York. The gravestone of Robert Sands, d. 1735. (G. Wiltiams) 39 BOUNDARIES FOR OBJECTS Objects eligible for listing in the National Register are constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although an object may be movable, an object that is a National Register property is associated with a specific setting or environment. Properties such as sculptures, monuments, boundary markers, statues, and fountains are classified as objects. The boundaries for objects may be limited to the land or water occupied by the resource; however, surroundings may be included when they contribute to the ability of the property to convey its significance. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: OBJECTS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries that encom- pass the entire resource. • The boundaries for objects may be the land or water occupied by the resource without any surroundings. Ebenezer Monument, Mena, Polk County, Arkansas, constructed in 1936 at the rear parking lot of the First Baptist Church, 811 Arthur Street, is a square stone and concrete masonry monument that narrows toward the top and contains a vault designed to hold a time capsule. The monument was erected by the congregation as part of the local effort to expel nearby Commonwealth College, a school with militant socialist and unionist leanings. The monument is signifi- cant as the symbol of the anti -Com- munist sentiment that swept the state after the decision by the administra- tion of Commonwealth College to focus its curriculum exclusively on Marxism and Communism and to advocate militant activism by its students and faculty within the growing southern labor movement. The National Register boundaries are limited to the ground on which the 40 monument sits. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the north- ern corner of the monument's founda- tion (located ten feet south of the southern edge of Church Street and sixteen feet west of the eastern edge of Ninth Street), proceed southwesterly to the monument's western corner; thence southeasterly to the monument's southern corner, thence northeasterly to the monument's eastern corner, thence northwesterly to the monument's northern corner and the point of beginning. Bound- ary justification: This boundary includes all the property historically associated with this resource. Dinosaur Park, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota, is a roadside attraction displaying five concrete and iron pipe sculpted dinosaurs constructed between 1936 and 1938. Skyline Drive bisects the park. The western half includes the five original dinosaur sculptures; the eastern half includes a concession stand, parking lot, and two small dinosaurs constructed after 1938. Designed by Emmit A. Sullivan with assistance from Dr. Barnum Brown of the Smithsonian Institution's Ameri- can Museum of Natural History, the five original dinosaurs were con- structed by WPA workers. The park represents the local residents' grow- ing awareness during the 1930s that the Black Hills had potential as a major tourist attraction. It is one of the most elaborate examples of roadside tourist sculpture in South Dakota and an excellent example of vernacular public art. Operated privately until 1968, Dinosaur Park is now owned by Rapid City. The National Register boundaries are based on cultural features and reason- able limits. Verbal boundary de- scription: The nominated property is bounded by a set of imaginary lines that intersect to form a polygon around the original dinosaur sculp- tures. The eastern boundary line lies along the west edge of Skyline Drive. The southern boundary line extends 270 feet due west from the southern- most point of the retaining wall along Skyline Drive (as shown on the accompanying scaled map of the park). The western boundary line extends 315 feet due north from the western terminus of the southern boundary line. The northern bound- ary line extends from the northern terminus of the western boundary line to the northernmost point of the retaining wall along Skyline Drive. The property is located in the North- west Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 8 East (Black Hills Meridian), in Pennington County, South Dakota. Boundary justification: The boundaries of the nominated property have been set to include the original Dinosaur Park sculptures and to specifically exclude the noncontributing concession building, parking lot, and later sculptures, and any public or private roads. Two different, conflicting plats of the park boundaries are recorded at the Pennington County Register of Deeds Office; therefore, it was not possible to use legal descriptions for the boundaries of the nominated property. Rather, the lines were set using the west edge of Skyline Drive and the retaining wall along Skyline Drive for reference points. Dinosaur Park, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota. Map showing the boundaries of the National Register property. 75A -492 Lincoln Street Electric Streetlights, Twin Falls, Twin Falls County, Idaho, are ten lights on cast - iron posts along the 100 and 200 blocks of Lincoln Street. Located on the east and west sides of the street in a residential neighborhood, the lights are placed close to the curb so that they have not been obscured by landscaping and thus remain an integral part of the streetscape. The lights were installed prior to 1920, before the Blue Lakes Addition was developed, the first subdivision of Twin Falls, and before electricity was available. The lights were part of developers' efforts to make the subdivision attractive. The National Register boundaries are defined by the legal definition of the city right -of- way for two blocks. Verbal boundary description: A rectangular piece of land comprising the city right -of -way for Blocks 1 and 2 of Lincoln Street, bounded by Heyburn Avenue on the north and Addison Avenue on the south as the same appears in the plat of the Blue Lakes Addition to the City of Twin Falls, Book 3 of Plats, page 29, records of the Twin Falls County Recorder. Boundary justification: The parcel is one contiguous parcel owned by the City of Twin Falls, being a platted and dedicated right - of-way for a city street, known as Lincoln Street, and constituting part of the land platted in the Blue Lakes Addition to the City of Twin Falls. It is the parcel historically associated with the subject of this nomination. Lincoln Street Electric Streetlights, Twin Falls, Idaho. Photograph of a representative streetlight and its setting. (Elizabeth Egleston) Mountain Pass Tree, Pacific Northwest [location restricted], is an inscribed mountain hemlock, located at a pass in the mountains. It is situated in a stand of hemlock and subalpine fir, facing an open meadow. The tree is 86 feet tall and 29.5 inches in diameter about 5 feet above the ground. Mountain Pass Tree is associated with early efforts to develop a transportation route across the mountains. It is the only known resource remaining from the 1893 and 1894 exploration, survey, and con- struction of a trail. Reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The area encom- passed by a square 200 feet on each side, centered on the tree and having sides oriented to the cardinal direc- tions. Boundary justification: This property is located within an unsur- veyed area of the public domain, with limited opportunities to establish precise natural or cultural boundaries. The area described includes portions of the adjacent timber and meadow needed to maintain the setting. BOUNDARIES FOR STRUCTURES Structures that may be eligible for listing in the National Register are functional constructions designed for purposes other than human shelter. Structures include bridges, tunnels, roadways, systems of roadways and paths, road grades, canals, boats and ships, railroad locomotives and cars, aircraft, gold dredges, kilns, shot towers, fire towers, turbines, dams, power plants, wind Mills, corn cribs, silos, grain elevators, mounds, cairns, palisade fortifications, earthworks, bandstands, gazebos, and telescopes. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: STRUCTURES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Forn:, p. 56) • The boundaries for structures, such as ships, boats, and railroad cars and locomotives, may be the land or water occupied by the resource without any surroundings. 75A -493 George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, Broome County, New York, is a 1934 carousel in a city park. The carousel was donated to the commu- nity by George Johnson, the major employer in Endicott. The park that includes the carousel, the surround- ing working -class neighborhood, and the factory complex were all devel- oped by the Endicott Johnson Corpo- ration in the 1920s and reflect the company's influence over the history of Broome County. The boundary of the property, a circle with a radius of 28 feet, contains the original 1934 carousel located: within the ca. 1934 housing pavilion. The park, the surrounding residential working -class neighborhood, and the nearby. factory complex are all located within the designated boundaries of the Endicott Urban Cultural Park District and the Endicott Historic District. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated boundary encompasses only the carousel and its housing and the ground upon which they stand. Boundary justification: The nomina- tion boundary was drawn to include only the carousel itself and its hous- ing. Although the park itself may be eligible, it has not yet been evaluated due to the specific focus of this [Broome County Carousals] theme. BERUEHO A.. _ y :fll ReEluEx'uL a Q , R oaL La I I 1 I I� QI RESO6x1�P1 GECRIaE W. J�'N�N I+ee f- SC4LF W fEEi George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, New York. A sketch plan of the park showing the carousel's National Register boundaries. 41 George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, New York. The carousel and its setting. (G. Joseph Socki) Crawford Ditch, El Dorado County, California, was built in 1852 as the second segment of the Jones, Furman & Company ditch system to provide river water to miners of the Mother Lode Gold Rush. The trough- shaped earthen trench averages 5 feet across between the edge of the up -hill bank and the inner face of the retaining berm. The Crawford'Ditch is the last functioning industrial structure in the Pleasant Valley area of El Dorado County. Only the Clear Creek segment of the Crawford Ditch is nominated; the remainder of the ditch has lost its historic integrity. The legal right -of- way of the ditch was used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: A 7.5- mile -long ditch with a 50- foot -wide working right -of -way. It falls in that length from the Clear Creek intake weir (near Pleasant Valley) at the 2,285 -foot contour to the feeder siphon at the northeast side of the intersection of Hanks Exchange Road and Ranch Road (near the Hanks Exchange community at the 2,245 -foot contour). See the accompanying USGS map, Camino Quadrangle, California, 7.5 minute series (topographic), photorevised 1973, the Crawford Ditch. Find the Clear Creek segment per the UTM references noted above, as marked on the map. Boundary Justification: The boundaries encompass the one remain- ing section of the Crawford Ditch that retains sufficient integrity to meet National Register standards. The boundaries encompass the ditch and the right -of -way historically associated with it. 42 Newport Stone Arch Bridge, Newport, Herkimer County, New York, was built in 1853 to join the older core of the village on the cast bank of West Canada Creek with an industrial and residential area on the west bank. The nominated property includes an area of the West Canada Creek and its bank approximately 250 feet in length and 225 feet in width. In addition to the bridge itself, the site includes two contributing stone retaining walls on the west bank of the creek. A concrete dam north of the bridge and a modern power generation facility east of the bridge are excluded from the nominated property. The Newport Stone Arch Bridge is a good example of tradi- tional arched masonry bridge con- struction and represents a significant Crawford Ditch, El Dorado County, California. Detail of a USGS map showing the nominated segment of the ditch. - 75A -494 mid -19th century engineering accom- plishment in the county. Natural and cultural features and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is 250 feet in length, east to west, and 236 feet in width, north to south, encompassing the bridge at the center, and including the stone retaining walls at the west bank of the West Canada Creek. Proceeding clockwise, the boundary follows the east bank of the creek to a point 125 feet south of the bridge, where it turns west to follow a line parallel with the bridge to the west bank of the creek. The boundary turns north at the west bank, where it follows stone retaining walls to a point 75 feet north of the bridge before turning east. The northern segment of the boundary parallels the bridge to the point where it intersects the eastern section of the boundary. Refer to the attached site plan. Boundary justification: The boundary has been established to isolate the bridge, its ancillary retain- ing walls, and its immediate setting from adjacent areas that are not directly associated with the history of the bridge. \ �T rc Newport Stone Arch Bridge, Newport, New York. Sketch plan showing the property's National Register boundaries. Hanford B Reactor, Benton County, Washington, is a plutonium - production reactor that was con- structed during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. Construc- tion of the reactor began in 1943 and the facility produced fissionable material for national defense until its deactivation in 1968. The B Reactor is housed inside the 105 -B reactor containment building in the B/C Area of the Hanford Site. The containment building is surrounded by various support structures that are not included in this nomination. The Hanford B Reactor is significant for its association with nuclear power and the Manhattan Project: this reactor produced the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A cultural feature (the existing fence) was used to define the National Register boundary. Verbal boundary description: The Hanford B Reactor is located in the 1008 /C Area of the Hanford Site, .05 mile south of the Columbia River and 3.5 miles east of the point where Washington High- way 240 crosses the Columbia River at Vernita Bridge. The structure and adjoining land lie within a 650 -foot- square plot, the center point of which is at the above - referenced UTM coordinate. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the structure and space around it as currently defined by fencing. Lusk Water Tower, Lusk, Niobrara County, Wyoming, is a round water tank about 25 feet in diameter and about 25 feet high, supported by a wood column structure. The water tower is significant for its association with the Chicago and Northwestern Rail Line, a line of major importance in Wyoming's settlement. The water tower was originally located in the center of the town of Lusk, near the depot; the water tower was moved to its present location, north of the Chicago and Northwestern Rail Line, in 1919 when the depot was rebuilt in the center of town. The water tower property, enclosed by a chain -link fence, is less than 1/4 acre in size. The property is bordered by a rail line to the south, pasture to the west and east, and a residential rural subdivi- sion to the north. The move has had little effect on the historic integrity of the structure, as its new setting is associated with the rail line and reflects the continued development of the railroad and its function. The 75A -495 legal description of the parcel was used to define the National Register boundary. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: The 1982 Warranty Deed to the Niobrara County Historical Society states that the Lusk Water Tower site consists of 0.2 acres. This tract of land is in the E'/2 of Section 8, Township 32 North, Range 63 West of the 6th P.M. USGS Lusk, Wyoming, Quad- rangle map, described as follows: From the 1/4 section corner on the east section line of Section 8, Township 32 North, Range 63 West of the 6th P.M. along the 1/4 section line a distance of 1,300 feet to point of beginning. Thence north 69 32' west, a distance of 230 feet; thence south 53 02' east, a distance of 173 feet; thence south 69 32' east, a distance of 94.5 feet; thence north 20 28' east, a distance of 50 feet; thence north 69 32' west, a distance of 32.5 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.2 acres, more or less. Boundary justification: The bound. ary ig based on the legally recorded boundary lines that encompass the single parcel of land that is occupied by the water tower and its immediate surroundings. This represents the parcel owned and protected by the Niobrara County Historical Society. Lusk Water Tower, Lusk, Wyoming. (Richard Collier) 43 Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road — Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, is the best pre- served section of the road built by the Minnesota Stage Company in 1859. The property is significant for its association tiAth the transportation history of Minnesota, as defined in the Overland Staging Industry in Minne - sota,1849 -1880, Multiple Property Submission. The property meets the following registration requirements: conforming. to the original route; being unimproved, passable, and distinct from the surrounding land; being long enough to evoke a sense of destination or direction; and retaining the wooded setting of the area's condition during the period of signifi- cance. The land beyond the north- west end of the nominated property, which has been plowed, bears no signs of the road and is therefore excluded from the nomination. Reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The property consists of a six -foot -wide strip of land centering on the line delineated on the accompanying map (USGS 7.5 minute series, West Union, Minnesota, Quadrangle). The line connects the following UTM reference points: A 15 344350 5070710, $15 344120 5070890. Boundary justifica- tion: The property boundaries encompass the visible roadway as determined through field survey by Robert Hybben, 22 May 1990. 44 Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road - Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing location of the National Register property. Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road - Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, The,stage road trace, facing northwest. (Robert Hybben) 75A -496 io-, is LV TA 51 T- /V yr�/I CIO" IIAIIV11115�50r/q_ r,e pp Ulm R<fcr,A,. !o•nt, rr A' 15 3*A35o;so10lto l 010850 CJ °b_„!co 1 I%A` U/J1DN OvFr� f _ k - Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road - Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing location of the National Register property. Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road - Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, The,stage road trace, facing northwest. (Robert Hybben) 75A -496 ITT. REFERENCES Knoerl, John, and Betsy Chittenden. Boundary Analysis of the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Cultural Resources Information Management Series. Washington, D.C.: Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Applications Center, National Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1990. McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990. National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties, Washing- ton, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, D.C: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991, National Register Bulletin: Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, Na- tional Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1977, Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Docu- menting Traditional Cultural Proper- ties. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, Na- tional Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1990. Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeologi- cal Sites and Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993. 75A -497 45 V. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The National Register's standards for evaluating the significance of properties were developed to recog- nize the accomplishments of all people who have made a contribution to our country's history and heritage. The criteria are designed to guide State and local governments, Federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive charac- teristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack indi- vidual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria considerations: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved signifi- cance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architec- ture or artistic distinction or histori- cal importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architec- tural value, or which is the surviv- ing structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or 46 75A -498 c. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design fea- tures, or from association with historic events; or e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. a property primarily commemora- tive in intent if design, age, tradi- tion, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical signifi- cance; or g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. R9 • The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form Researching a Historic Property Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes' Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Contribution of Moved Buildings to Historic Districts; Tax Treatments for Moved Buildings; and Use of Nomination Documentation in the Part I Certification Process Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning' How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites The above publications may be obtained by writing to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Publications marked with an asterisk ( *) are also available in electronic form on the World Wide Web at www.cr.nps.gov /nr, or send your request by e -mail to nr_referenceOnps.gov. 75A -499 47 Edited by: Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John H. Sprinkle, Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS V. REFERENCES .................... ............................... 48 75A -500 ................... .. .......... — ............... I ... I .............. ...... 62 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first version of National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties was edited by National Register Historian Beth L. Savage and released in 1985. The compilation of that bulletin was the result of the work of numerous individuals. Issues relating to the delineation of boundaries for archeological nominations were identified as a National Register Bulletin topic in the early 1980s by a committee of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, led by Valerie A. Talmage, former State Historic Preservation Officer of Massachusetts. Earlier work by Bruce MacDougal and Herbert Brito on boundary delineation for National Register properties served as a framework for the bulletin. Yvonne Stewart, Carol Dubie and John Knoerl played integral roles in the bulletin's completion. Helpful suggestions provided by the staff of the National Register and Planning Branches, Interagency Resources Division, and the insightful comments of many State Historic Preservation Offices contributed to the final publication. Answering an expressed need to provide continuing guidance in the area of delineating boundaries for archeological properties, the National Register reevaluated the usefulness of the original version of Bulletin 12 in 1994. We thank the following for their comments: Carl Barna (BLM), Colorado Historical Society, John Cornelison (NPS Southeast Archeol- ogy Center), Frank R. Finch (Depart- ment of the Army), Leland Gilson (Oregon SHPO), J. Bennett Graham (Tennessee Valley Authority), Richard R. Hoffman (FERC), Diane Holliday (State Historical Society of Wiscon- sin), Elizabeth Horvath (NPS South- east Archeology Center), Judy McDonough (Massachusetts SHPO, Massachusetts Historical Commis- sion), Arleen Pabon (Puerto Rico SHPO), Gary Shaffer, (Maryland Historical Trust), Herschel Shepard (University of Florida), Robert E. Stipe, Lois Thompson (DOE), Western Regional Office, Valerie Talmage (former Massachusetts SHPO) and Richard Guy Wilson (University of Virginia). Several reviewers suggested incorporating National Register Bulle- tin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties into a more broadly applicable boundary bulletin. In 1995, a revised National Register Bulletin: Defining Boundaries for National Register Proper- ties was issued. This current reprint of that bulletin incorporates an updated and streamlined version of National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties as this appendix. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., (Woodward -Clyde Federal Services) wrote most of the new material on site definition and identified new examples. Barbara J. Little (Archeologist, National Register of Historic Places) organized the bulletin into this appendix and deleted redundant examples. Carol D. Shull supervised the revisions. Mary F. McCutchan edited the text and prepared it for publication. Jan Townsend, Antoinette J. Lee, and Beth Savage assisted with various aspects of its preparation. I. INTRODUCTION This appendix defines recom- mended approaches, with illustra- tions where applicable, to delineating boundaries for archeological proper- ties. Section 11 defines the concept of an archeological site. How archeolo- gists define the boundaries of archeo- logical sites is outlined in Section 1I1. Section IV presents case studies which address the delineation of archeologi- cal site boundaries for a variety of both hypothetical and actual National Register properties. The case studies illustrate the necessary details — including background information, boundary description, approaches used, and boundary justification — with acceptable delineated bound- aries which typify situations com- monly encountered in preparing nominations. In each of the examples, the prop- erty has already been determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The cases are chosen to illustrate decisions regarding bound- aries. Reflecting the various types of historical associations retained by cultural resources, many historic properties are eligible for inclusion in the National Register under more than one of the four Criteria, A, B, C, or D. However, the National Register recognizes only one boundary for each historic property. A site that is eligible under Criterion D for the important information contained in its 75A -501 buried remains, may also be eligible under Criterion A for its significance to modern Native American groups as a Traditional Cultural Property. Although the physical boundaries of the archeological site may be rela- tively small, the larger boundaries of the traditional place would be repre- sented in the National Register. Whatever the criteria for eligibility, historic properties should always be delineated by their largest relevant boundary. One continuing issue with historic properties that happen to be archeo- logical sites is the destructive nature of archeological investigation. The National Register does not, as a rule, list archeological sites that have been the subject of complete excavation. The artifacts, field records, photo- graphs, and other data collected through the process of excavation do not retain integrity of location or setting and thus are not eligible for inclusion. Some sites that were the locations of significant milestones in the history of American archeology are listed after excavation as historic sites. However, very few archeological sites are completely excavated in today's world where archeological studies are usually conducted as part of cultural resource management activities. Archeological investigation is by definition a process of sampling the buried record of past lives. At most sites, portions of the site remain unexcavated. In addition, in the framework of data recovery, or Phase III excavations, only a portion of the site, that within the "limits of pro- posed construction" or "area of potential effects" is subject to inten- sive excavations. Often large portions of archeological sites located outside the "mitigated" areas survive the development process. Care should be given, at the completion of data recovery excavations, to evaluate and nominate the significant surviving portions of the "unmitigated" area of such archeological sites. For example, in a recent case from a southeastern state, a large multi component archeological site, dating from the Late Archaic and Contact periods, was subject to data recovery excavations in the area slated for construction of a reservoir dam in the late 1980s. Subsequently in the mid 1990s, another portion of the site underwent Phase III excavations as the result of a second federal under- 49 taking. However, portions of the site located between the two areas of previous data recovery excavations have the potential to contain signifi- cant archeological information. Proposed for preservation in place, this surviving parcel is eligible for the National Register although the site as a whole has endured two previous data recovery operations. Finally, the National Register has long recognized the disproportionate under- representation of archeological sites (approximately 7 %) within its approximately 67,000 listed proper- ties. Clearly, many thousands of historic buildings, structures, and districts contain unrecognized archeo- logical components that are equally eligible for the National Register. The National Register has made amending nominations to include the archeo- logical portions of currently listed historic properties, a relatively simple and straightforward process. Nomina- tions may be quickly prepared or amended using the computer- resident nomination forms available from the National Register. Specific procedures for amending nominations can be found in National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Nomination amendments should be used to increase or decrease the boundaries of a property or district, as well as adding or subtracting criteria and areas of significance. National Register nominations should not be considered static documents. Indeed, as land uses at a site change, or as further information is gathered, it may be desirable to update the nomination to reflect current conditions. Over the years, a National Register nomination may require a certain amount of "informa- tion maintenance" in order to recon- sider the property's description, contributing elements, period of significance, applicable criteria, and of course, boundaries. 50 I1. WHAT IS AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE? The main text of this bulletin (p.30) defines a site as "the location of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or building or structure, (whether standing, ruined, or vanished) where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value' and goes on to note that "the most com- mon types of resources classified as sites are archeological resources." Most archeologists practicing their craft today would agree that together with the artifact and the feature, the "archeological site" is one of the fundamental concepts in our disci- pline. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to find a simple, meaningful definition of what an archeological site is, and what it is not. Archeologists have always recog- nized the site as one of the founda- tions of all research on past cultures. In his 1956 work, A Short Introduction to Archaeology, the British archeologist, V. Gordon Childs described how although "antiquities" could be commonly found either on the surface of the ground or through excavation, "such objects in themselves are only potential archeological data." Arti- facts only become data "when classi- fied in light of their associations, of the contexts in which they have been found" within archeological sites. Thus, for Childs, a "site" was simply the source of archeological informa- tion. Field manuals for archeologists provide common definitions of archeological sites. A site is "a fairly continuous distribution of the remains of a former single unit of settlement" (Dancey 1981:13). An archeological site is usually the scene of past human activity. It may be marked by the scanty remnants of a brief en- campment, or by the abundant remains of a settled village. If a site shows evidence of repeated occupation or use, it is still considered a single site, but various levels or periods of use may be distinguished within it (Hester, Heizer, and Graham 1975:13). 75A -502 Each archeological site is a unique time capsule. Each has its own distinct character and problems. Sites represent a body of data relevant to their setting and their cultural patterning and must be interpreted in relation to both this local setting and to their function as a link between cultures (Joukowsky 1980:35). Outlining the mysteries of archeol- ogy in an effort to protect sites on private property, National Park Service archeologist Susan Henry (1993:6 -7) relates several characteris- tics of sites: The focus of the archeo- logical attentions is the site —a place where human activity occurred. An archeological site has horizontal and vertical dimensions. Few archeo- logical sites are simple and straightforward. Most are complex, containing diverse elements, or components, each of which may represent a different activity. All site compo- nents bear a relationship to one another, and all components, including the buildings and landscapes, need to be studied in order to understand the way of life once carried out at [a site]. Archeologists occasionally have pointed out that the site concept is inadequate because the archeological record often is not clustered. Several researchers have supplemented the site concept with that of "nonsite sites" (for example, Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Lewarch and O'Brien 1981). "Distributional archeology" (Ebert 1992) focuses on surface material rather than sealed sites in order to concentrate on human use of the whole landscape rather than on discrete, rare places. For the purpose of nominating an archeological site to the National Register, there must be clearly defined and justified boundaries. See Cases 15 and 16 for examples of delimiting site bound- aries where the artifact record is continuous. In an attempt to add consistency to the process of cultural resource management, many State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) have offered specific statements on the characteristics of archeological sites. For SHPOs, the definition of archeo- logical site is often tied to the process of completing an archeological site form, which forces the regulators to standardize terms and provide guidance for just what is and what is not a site. For example, Virginia's guidelines for archeological survey provide one definition of a site: In general terms, an archeological site is defined as the physical remains of any area of human activity greater than 50 years of age for which a boundary can be established. Examples of such resources would include the following: domestic /habitation sites, industrial sites, earthworks, mounds, quarries, canals, roads, shipwrecks, etc. Under the general definition, a broad range of site types would qualify as archeological sites without the identifica- tion of any artifacts (VDHR 1996:1). All archeological sites have some form of physical expression, either through the presence of artifacts or other evidence of modification of the natural world through human agents. It is difficult to think of an archeologi- cal site that would have no surviving physical remains. In fact, the Na- tional Register generally does not list archeological sites that have been fully excavated, that is, where no physical remains of the site survive, because of the loss of integrity. The theoretical construct of "site` plays a fundamental role in the ways archeologists view past societies. Concepts regarding archeological sites can be expressed through four phrases: 1. Methodology Mechanics. The methods used by archeologists to look for sites influences the sites that are identified. This concept reinforces the traditional scientific and archeological premise that methods and theory fundamentally influence the nature of the recovered information. Thus, a clear definition of how to define the location and boundaries of sites must be an essential part of every archeologist's theoretical and method- ological tool kit. 2. Artifact Axiom. An archeological site must have some physical evi- dence of occupation, use, or transfor- mation. This evidence is usually in the form of artifacts, but also includes human alterations to the landscape. Without some form of physical presence it is impossible to define boundaries to archeological sites. 3. Density Dilemma. Is the center of the site the place with the most artifacts? The boundary of archeologi- cal sites should not be defined solely on the basis of artifact density re- vealed in an archeological survey. As the remains of past human activities, archeological sites may contain areas where artifact density is relatively low, separating two portions of the same site. In addition, various cultural and natural transformations have fundamentally altered the condition of readily apparent archeo- logical sites. Through time, vegeta- tion may obscure artifacts, plowed areas may blanket subsurface fea- tures, and soil movement by a variety of processes may have buried sites. The definition of a site's boundary must consider the land use history of the site as well as artifact density. 4. Present vs. Past. How certain are the limits of a prehistoric or historic period site? Obviously, the definition of an archeological site's boundaries is a judgment made in the present. It is molded by the archeologist's training, education, and view of the past. Care should be given to consider how the site may have been perceived in the past. Historic boundaries, if they can be defined or modeled, should be given primacy over modern bound- aries. III. DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES While defining boundaries usually requires some limited excavation, it is also often possible to use nondestruc- tive methods prior to archeological fieldwork to identify the location and extent of suspected subsurface features within archeological proper- ties. Over the years, archeologists have adapted a variety of methods from other disciplines to see beneath the earth. Geophysical prospecting techniques most commonly used by archeologists include electrical 75A -503 resistivity and conductivity (including metal detectors), ground - penetrating radar (GPR), and magnetic prospect- ing. Analysis of soil chemistry also has been used successfully to identify sites and activity areas within sites. Aerial photography is a well -known technique used extensively to identify sites. Although some types of remote sensing can be executed by archeolo- gists trained in their use, it is common to hire specialists because the tech- niques and technologies of remote sensing change rapidly. Advantages to geophysical meth- ods are that they are nondestructive (or minimally destructive) and are relatively fast. However, geophysics is an indirect science which detects "anomalies' which then usually require some level of sub - surface testing to verify as archeological resources, Remote sensing is particularly useful in underwater archeological endeavors. In the case of one recently listed shipwreck along the eastern seaboard, the site was identified using a towed -array proton precision magnetometer as part of a state - sponsored survey. The 30- by 40- meter boundary of the site was identified by using metal detector survey as well as test excavations. Clearly, as new technologies and methodologies are adapted to the needs of archeological investigations, these techniques can be used to help define boundaries of National Regis- ter properties. Whether using new technologies or old, the level of effort to define boundaries should be an explicit part of research designs for archeological surveys designed to identify all potentially National Register eligible sites. In addition, the principles for demarcating the limits of archeologi- cal sites should also be explicitly stated in the survey methodology. Once defined, this methodology should be consistently applied to each potential archeological site identified in a survey. National Register boundaries distinguish, from their surrounding environment, archeological sites meeting the National Register criteria for evaluation either individually or as contributing elements in an archeo- logical district. Site boundaries often are reasonable distinctions that may not always reflect the spatial concepts implicit in certain theoretical perspec- tives, notably those of "nonsite" 51 archeology. However, boundary determinations require clear recogni- tion of how physical features and their mutual relationships form a "site." Usually this requires the archeologist to decide the degree of fall off in cultural material density that is no longer acceptable in order for an enclosed area to be considered part of the significant "site." Boundaries for National Register properties are horizontal boundaries that can be clearly marked in two dimensions. Vertical boundaries of a site probably will have been estab- lished or predicted through testing to evaluate the site for significance. Absolute boundary definition is often unachievable. Boundaries usually represent compromises reconciling both theory and field conditions to facilitate communication with agencies and the public about sensitive geographic locations having important concentrations of archeo- logical information. There are several methods for obtaining boundary evidence for archeological sites. These are summa- rized on page 30 in the main text of this bulletin. Examples of each are provided in this appendix or in the main text of this bulletin. Each of the techniques used must be adequately documented in the text of the nomina- tion. The first two, "subsurface testing" and "surface observation," provide direct documentation of archeological resources. Several examples in the main text use these methods. See the discontiguous district of Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District (p. 23) as well as most of the examples under "Archeological Sites and Districts" (pp.30 -36). In this appendix see Case 1 for an example of direct documentation through subsur- face testing and Case 2 for an example of surface observation. The third method, "observation of topographic and other natural fea- tures," often provides logical and defendable boundaries for sites. For examples in the main text, see in particular Rockshelter Petroglyphs (p.31), Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site (p.31), and Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District (p.33). In this appendix see Case 3 for a further example. The fourth technique, "observation of land alterations," includes the documentation of land disturbance that may have destroyed portions of a 52 site, thereby indicating a boundary for the remaining resource. See Case 4 for an example. it may also involve documenting the lack of disturbance to a property as evidence supporting a site's integrity. This latter case is illustrated in Cases 5 and 6. The last technique listed on page 30 is "study of historic or ethnographic documents" This technique often involves the use of maps and legal boundaries. Several examples in the main text illustrate the use of such documents for determining bound- aries. See these contiguous districts in rural settings: The Woodlawn Historic and Archeological District (p.17), Bloomvale Historic District (p.21), Weyerhaueser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic Landscape (p.22). The boundaries for Pecos Archeological District are coterminous with the legal boundaries of Pecos National Histori- cal Park (p.24). Cases 7, 8, and 9 in this appendix provide further ex- amples. In addition to these five techniques is the "property type model," which was defined in earlier editions of this appendix (as Definition of National Boundaries for Archeological Districts). The property type model is based on known site types. For example, a late archaic camp in a swampy area is discovered during a survey and is nominated for the important informa- tion potential of its well- preserved plant remains. However, testing was not done to determine the boundaries of the site. To describe and justify a boundary coterminous with the rise of land overlooking the swamp, a property type model could be used. Such a model would compare this type of site to other known sites in the region, clearly presenting and sup- porting the expected boundary for this type of site. Case 10 provides an example of the property type model. IV. CASE STUDIES It is an archeological truism that "every site is different." The process of determining the boundaries of an individual archeological site depends, to a certain degree, upon the indi- vidual characteristics of that site and its surroundings. The following case studies add to those presented in the main text. It is important to note that in most cases, more than one tech- nique is used to determine bound- aries. 75A -504 Examples for each of the main techniques discussed above are provided first. Following those is Case 11, a district with boundaries based on more than one area and period of significance; Case 12, a site eligible under criteria A and D as both a traditional cultural place and an archeological site; Case 13, a bound- ary reduction; and Cases 14 and 15, examples of delimiting boundaries amid continuous distribution of artifacts. Case 1. Shovel Test Pits delimiting a prehistoric site located within a forest. A multicomponent prehistoric site was located within Federal property in a state in the upper South. The boundaries of the site were defined through the excavation of 46 shovel test pits and limited surface collection of artifacts along a road. Information potential and National Register eligibility was confirmed through the excavation of 15 1 x 1 meter test units. Although some disturbance to the site resulted, previous construction of the road does not appear to have significantly compromised the integrity of this property. In situ materials were found as deep as 50 cm below the present ground surface. The distribu- tion of artifacts at this site conforms to a model of site definition in which the highest density of artifacts is judged to be located at the center of the site, with fewer artifacts found in outlying areas. The edge of the site is defined by the boundary between the presence of artifacts and the absence of artifacts, as revealed in test pits. Boundary Description: The site is located along AAA Road with the extreme northeastern boundary being located approximately 3,000 feet north of the confluence of BBB Branch and CCC Branch, at an elevation of 1500 ft. amsl. From this point the site area follows the road to the west (which coincides with the contour of the ridge top) for an additional 1,000 feet. The site is confined to the north and south by its topographic situation; cultural materials were confined to the level or near level portions of the ridge system. (See Figure 1.) Boundary Justification: The site boundaries were determined by the limits of cultural materials as defined by subsurface shovel testing. A surface collection along the road revealed a continuation of materials outside of the defined boundaries; Figure 1. (Case 1). The site boundaries for this prehistoric archeological site from a state in the upper south were defined by the presence of artifacts recovered during shovel test pit excavation. The map included with the National Register nomination clearly shows the limits of the site with a bold line, illustrates the location of excavation units, and clearly locates the position of the site within a forested environment. Figure 2. (Case 2). located primarily within a plowed field, the bounds of this site were determined through direct documentation. Although no testing occurred within the woods to the north of the fields, the presence of higher artifact densities in this area suggested that the site continued beyond the plowed field. 75A -505 however, it is likely that recent road improvement activities are respon- sible for the current location of these materials. For this reason, the bound- aries as defined by the shovel testing appear to be the most accurate definition of the site's size and extent. Case 2. A Plowed Prehistoric Site Identified through Surface Collec- tion, Natural Topography, and Land Disturbance. The site lies on a rise of land partly in a wooded lot (11.5 acres) and partly in a plowed field (ca.5 acres) entirely within property owned by a state agency. The site was discovered in 1981 when the State agency leased land for farming; the plowed field was surface - collected and artifacts and features were mapped. The site was defined by direct documentation (observation of surface features and surface collec- tion; natural topographic features; and land disturbance.) Boundary Description: The site is bounded on the south by the known extent of cultural materials, on the west by railroad tracks and on the north and east by a contour line defining a terrace overlooking a wetland (See Figure 2.) Boundary Justification: The southern boundary of the site is established by the limit of cultural materials and features and roughly corresponds to a lowering in grade. The highest artifact densities recov- ered during surface collection were noted at the northern and western edges of the plowed field. By ex- trapolation, it is likely that the site extends into the wooded areas to the north and west. The western bound- ary is established by the railroad cut which corresponds roughly to the original terrace edge. The northern and eastern boundaries are set by the contour line marking an abrupt fall to the wetland. Case 3. A Prehistoric Site Defined by Natural Topographic Features: The site was discovered in 1965 and was investigated archeologically between then and 1977 by the State University and the State Archeological Society. Excavations and surveys revealed that the site was occupied from Early Archaic through Woodland times and that a historic, eighteenth - century, English- colonial component is also present. 53 Boundary Description: The boundaries of the site correspond to the edges of an erosional remnant, the 140 -foot contour line on the topo- graphic quad, a ridge. The site is bounded by the creek and swamp on the northwest, and by low -lying floodplain on all other sides (See Figure 3.) Boundary Justification: The boundaries of the site correspond to those of the landform on which it lies. Archeological investigations have revealed artifacts only in those areas above the 140 -foot contour of the valley floor in all sampled areas of the ridge. The site's maximum length northeast to southwest is 2,500 feet, and its maximum width is 800 feet. The low -lying nature of the swamps and floodplain surrounding this erosional upland remnant presumably made this ridge the only habitable portion of the area, implying strongly that topography constituted a behav- ioral boundary here. Case 4. Documented Land Distur- bance of a Riverine Site Defined by Natural Features and Modem Land Uses: A Woodland period prehistoric archeological site was identified by avocabonal archeologists and re- ported to the SHFO. The 50 -acre site comprises surface finds along a floodplain adjacent to a meandering river course. No scientific excavations have been conducted at the site. Boundary Description: The site is bounded by natural topographic features and manmade alterations to the landscape. The 600 -foot contour line defines the northern, western, and eastern boundaries of the site. The southern portion of the site is defined by a railroad right -of -way which was constructed at the toe of a steep slope marking a topographic boundary as well as a manmade one (See Figure 4.) Boundary justification: The river forms a naturally occurring boundary to nearly three sides of the site. The area contained within the inside bend of the curve of the river had bearing on the living space which was avail- able to prehistoric people. Surface collections have yielded prehistoric cultural materials over most of the dry land area to within a few feet of the present shore and as far south as the railroad easement. The marshy area lying between the 600 -foot contour and the river was not in- cluded because interpretations of the 54 Figure 3. (Case 3). The boundary of this site was primarily determined by topographic features and contains the ridge area encompassed by the 144 -foot contour line. Archaic and Woodland prehistoric components, in addition to an eighteenth - century historic occupation, are constrained by a creek, swannps, and flood -plain settings. Figure 4. (Case 4.) The river and associated swarnp form a natural boundary for this prehistoric site on its west, north, and east sides. The southern boundary was truncated by construction of a railroad seated at the base of a topographic rise. environmental history of the site indicate that the area has been sub- jected to river scouring daring various meander episodes, leading to little expectation of the existence of cultural remains. The railroad easement that defines the southern boundary represents a corridor of highly disturbed land from which archeological resources cannot be expected to have survived. 75A -506 The right -of -way also serves to mark a sharp break in slope, delineating the well- drained alluvial terrace which lies on the inside bend of the river from the steep (greater than 15 %), rocky, till covered northerly facing slope. The topographic characteristics beyond the easement would have rendered this area unattractive for occupation. Case 5. Documents and Lack of Land Disturbance of a Historical Archeological Site in an Urban Setting: An eighteenth - century house in a Colonial -era town has been nominated. The townhouse is located on a deep lot maintained as lawn and gardens. Historical research confirms that the current property lines were established in the original plat of the block in the 1700s and that substantial construction has never occurred. Archeological investigation of other houses in the urban area has revealed the presence of associated buried privies and trash deposits. Discussion: Historic documenta- tion of legal boundaries would be the most appropriate in this case where the documentation confirms that current property lines represent the historic property lines. In addition, the lack of interior block disturbance is documented, leading to an expecta- tion of buried feature remains such as privies. This expectation may be confirmed by surface observation of site features and materials. Subsurface testing would not be necessary for boundary definition in this case. Modern legal boundaries should be used in concert with historic docu- mentation which confirms that the current legal boundaries are histori- cally the legal boundaries of the site. Case 6. Documents and Lack of Land Disturbance for a Multiple Property Nomination for Charcoal Iron Furnaces: Numerous charcoal iron furnace complexes and associ- ated communities have been identi- fied. All known examples of this class of property are included. Although predominantly subsurface in nature, a few aboveground resources are present. Archival research and intensive restoration of one of the furnace complexes have established a description of the types and functions of the resources represented, their time range, their physical characteris- tics, and the probable classes of important research data represented. Original plats for individual furnace complexes and communities as well as historic photographs are available. Limited archeological surveys have confirmed the presence of historically documented features at several of the furnace sites and associated commu- nities. Typically, the iron furnaces and associated communities have not been developed following their abandonment. Boundary Description: For each furnace complex and associated community, the boundary is defined by the historical limits of the resource as illustrated in historic plat maps and verified as undisturbed based on field inspection (See Figure 5.) Boundary justification: Given that all members of this class of resources have been identified; that the original plat are available to establish bound- aries; that archival research, restora- tion, and limited archeological research have established the types and functions of the various resources represented; and that the furnace sites are located in a region of the State that has experienced little development, it is appropriate to use historic docu- ments (plats) to determine the bound- aries of each property included in the nomination. Subsurface testing is not necessary for boundary justification, because enough is known about the site functions and features to accu- rately predict locations of activity loci and expected data classes. Limited surface reconnaissance on several properties and restoration of one furnace and auxiliary building have confirmed the presence of expected features, based on historic documen- tation. Visible signature features, such as furnace stack remnants, earthen ramps, slag dumps, ore pits, and building foundations in conjunc- tion with plats, historic photographs, and standing buildings have been useful in locating specific features, i.e., stacks are Iocated near streams TYPICAL CHARCOAL IRON FURNACE LAYOUT (2025 ACRES) FURNACE STACK, BUILDING^ REMNANTS AND SOME EQUIPMENT REMAIN /® FESTORAGE SHEDS BRIDGE HOUSE STACK PURNAC / / / / / /BLUFF tENGINE FOUNDRY HOUSE AST SHED 0 M MANAGER'S WORKERS' a HOUSE HOUSING ❑ N COMPANY Q STORE & OFFICE ROAD Figure 5, (Case 6). This figure shows atypical charcoal iron furnace dating from the nineteenth century. As part of a multiple property nomination, the boundary of each complex was estimated based upon historical cartographic documentation and confirmed using limited field investigations. 75A -507 6%1 and sandstone banks, but are gener- ally not useful in establishing bound- aries. Later land alterations are virtually nonexistent or have had minimal impact on the properties in question. In sum, use of historic documentation (plats), in conjunction with visits to each of the sites to confirm expectations regarding integrity, is considered appropriate to define boundaries for each of the properties included in the multiple property nomination. Case 7. Use of Legal Boundary for a Site Divided by Modern Property Lines: A prelustoric site has been discovered as the result of a cultural resource survey in preparation for a construction project on part of parcel A. It is clear that the site extends beyond the construction project limits onto parcel B. The developers in- volved and their archeological con- tractors have been unable to gain the adjacent private owner's consent to survey parcel B in the area of the site for the purpose of boundary defini- tion. Investigations of the site area within parcel A establish that the site, as it exists within parcel A, meets National Register criteria. The SHPO or other nomination sponsor would be expected to make every effort to identify the totality of the property prior to nomination, so that the nomination reflects the entire resource. However, if examination of the part of the site on parcel B has been legally prohibited, and if there is no other basis for a well - justified estimation of the boundaries of the entire site, and, what is most impor- tant, if the portion of the site within parcel A was clearly eligible on its own, then the known portion of the site could be nominated. Discussion: Where direct docu- mentation of boundaries is not possible, and natural and topographic conditions do not help demarcate a site, legal boundaries may be used to define boundaries. In this case, the lot line shared by parcels A and B will form the defined eastern boundary. (See Figure 6.) Case 8. Use of Documents for a Partially Inundated Historic Fortifi- cation: Archeological investigations were conducted at an early nine- teenth- century coastal fortification along the eastern United States. Although the aboveground elements of the fort were determined not to 56 meet National Register criteria due to renovations in the twentieth - century, the subsurface remains of the facility contained unique deposits represent- ing the military occupation of the site. Significantly, deep testing confirmed that a portion of the "old tabialsic.j barracks and magazine' had been buried by up to nine feet of sand. Other tabby foundations (tabby is a cement -like construction material) were observed eroding out of the adjacent beach area. These discover- ies reinforced historical and carto- graphic research that suggested portions of the early nineteenth - century fort remained buried within periodically inundated areas of the coastline. Discussion: The northern, western, and eastern boundaries of the prop- erty were defined as the current legal bounds of the military property. The area surrounding the fort that may have contained archeological remains has been heavily disturbed through subsequent residential development. The southern boundary along the coastline was interpreted from historical maps as extending approxi- mately 150 feet into the adjacent river. These boundaries contain the docu- mented extent of the fortifications. PARCEL A Case 9. The Use of Documents for the Site of an Eighteenth- Century Settlement: The irregularly shaped site marks the remains of an eigh- teenth- century settlement situated on a high bluff on the west bank of a river. This area is presently in planted pines, mixed forest, and abandoned pecan orchards. The site was located on the basis of documentary and map information as well as by archeologi- cal data obtained in sampling excava- tions carried out there in 1974 and 1977 by the State University. Boundary Description: The site is bounded on the west side by a railway line for a distance of about 1500 feet. The north and south boundaries turn eastward from either end of this boundary line. The northern boundary runs eastward 700 feet, turns southward for 450 feet, and continues 2,700 feet eastward to the western edge of the river. The southern boundary runs eastward 1,300 feet, turns northward 450 feet, and continues eastward roughly 2,100 feet to the western edge of the river. A line along the western edge of the river forms the eastern boundary of the site. Boundary Justification: The boundaries of the settlement were 1 N / l PROBABLE EASTERN / LIMIT OF SITE ARBITRARY BOUNDARY PARCEL B: PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR NO ACCESS FOR SURVEY OR NOMINATION TESTING Figure 6. (Case 7). In this example, the eastern boundary of this prehistoric site was estimated, because access was denied to this portion of the property. The figure illustrates the polygons used to calculate the UTM coordinates for the nomination, while the actual boundaries are shown on the west side of the parcel. 75A -508 defined by comparing the configura- tion of modern roads with those shown on early maps of the region. Based on this information, archeologi- cal sampling was conducted to ascertain the location and spatial limits of the past settlement. The results of these excavations were employed to extrapolate the overall distributions of structural and special- ized activity artifacts. These distribu- tions revealed that the early settle. ment lay along both sides of an abandoned road running westward from the river landing and along either side of a north -south road intersecting it about 1,000 feet from the riverbank. These distributions reflect the linear layout of the site indicated in comparative documents relating to contemporary settlements of similar function and corroborate the scanty documentation for the settlement of the site itself. The western, northern, and south- ern boundaries of the site are defined by the gradual thinning out of arti- facts in the area. The western bound- ary is also demarcated by the railroad, the construction of which destroyed archeological evidence in its immedi- ate vicinity. The northern and south- ern boundaries of the site near the river are also defined by the presence of two deep gullies and a slough; the steep slopes of which mark the end of the occupied area. A road cut through the bluff indicates the actual landing site on the river. Presently, the western edge of the river was chosen as the eastern boundary due to the absence of underwater archeological investigation. Underwater compo- nents are commonly found in associa- tion with land sites situated along rivers in the State and the presence of such a component here is likely. If, as the result of an underwater survey, underwater components are discov- ered, the eastern boundary may be expanded. Case 10. Property Type Model for a Deeply Buried Site: Prehistoric cultural material is discovered deeply buried in a floodplain. The materials have come from a depth of approxi- mately 20 feet. Sufficient cultural material has been recovered through soil core testing to allow identification of the site's cultural /temporal affilia- tion. This appears to be an important multiuse site, and eligibility under the National Register criteria is firmly established. Discussion: Subsurface testing is the preferred approach, but it is considered infeasible in this case for technological reasons. Natural topo- graphic features may be used to define the site limits, however, completely different topography may have existed when the buried level was the ground surface. The effort required to test a site at such depth exceeds the technology commonly available in a survey program. Therefore, the site was listed with reasonable boundaries. The basis of the property type model (i.e., analogy to a known site, etc.) should be thoroughly explained in the nomina- tion. The implications of using such a method include the probable inclu- sion of areas lacking significant site remains, as well as the exclusion of actual site areas. Where accurate boundaries cannot be confirmed, a property type model should be used to outline a reasonable boundary believed big enough to include the entire site. Case 11, A Large National Register District: The 650 -acre district is a multicomponent locality displaying at least two discrete occupations. The earlier occupation is represented by a series of Pueblo Il (ca. 10th-11th century, A.D.) residential sites and associated special -use localities (field houses, lithic quarries). The later occupation (early 20th century) is Figure 7. (Case 11). The border of this nndticomponent district was established based on the distribution of known archeological sites. 75A -509 57 centered around a limestone quarry and kiln at the southwest corner of the district. Associated with this limekiln is a concentration of Navajo hogans, probably occupied by work- ers at the mine. The sites are scattered around the periphery of the valley floor used for agricultural purposes by the Puebloan occupants. Boundary Description: Starting at a point (area of Point A) on the 35 -36 section line, 1,500 feet south of the marked corner of sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, the boundary trends east about 200 feet, then south for a chord distance of approximately 2,700 feet, crossing an unimproved road, to the area of Point B. From there, the boundary trends southwest, following the edge of the canyon, approximately 9,200 feet (chord distance) to where the boundary intersects the section 10- 11 line, in the area of Point C. From there, the boundary trends west - southwest for approximately 1,500 feet (area of Point D), then north and northeast approximately 3,000 feet to Point E (crossing the canyon and two unimproved roads). From Point E, the boundary trends northeast, again following the edge of the canyon for about 4,400 feet to the area of Point F. From there, the boundary continues northeast, with a southeastward curve, for a chord distance of 5,600 feet to the point of beginning (area of Point A -See Figure 7.) Boundary Justification: The external boundary is based on the known distribution of individual cultural properties. The boundary includes all culturally and behavior- ally related sites associated with the Pueblo Il and early twentieth - century limekiln settlements located within the geographically defined canyon. The two separate areas of significance are considered as one district because the property distributions overlap in the southwestern area of the district, with the additional acreage necessary to include the entire limekiln complex being minimal compared to the overall district size. Within the boundary is the alluvial valley used for agricultural purposes by the Puebloan occupants. The valley floor has been included because it contains the agricultural land that made settlement here possible. Although surface inspection revealed few visible cultural resources, aerial surveys may reveal buried agricul- tural features in this valley. In this particular case, the valley floor is 58 included within the district without evidence of archeological materials due to the small scale of the district and the dispersal of sites within the district around the valley. However, for larger districts, evidence of agricultural use, such as the presence of vegetable pollen, would be necessary to justify the inclusion of the valley floor within the bound- aries of the district. In the absence of such evidence, the boundaries would be drawn to exclude the valley floor from the center of the district or become a discontiguous one. Case 12. Archeological Site and Traditional Cultural Property. This nomination describes three archeo- logical sites found within a. cultural landscape important to a Native American group in a western state. The property includes about 5 acres of an adjacent river, which was used in traditional subsistence practices. Archeological components include a village midden area with a depth of about 2 feet, while the landscape features include rocks, a grove of trees, and a waterfall. Within this site there is significant linkage be- tween archeological record and traditional cultural features. The site was determined eligible under criteria A and D. The limits of the archeological sites and cultural landscape were defined using a combination of direct docu- mentation (ethnographic and archeo- logical studies) with topographic setting. The boundaries for this site were documented both by a series of maps and an aerial photograph, each showing the limits of the property Boundary Description: The boundary is indicated on the map accompany- ing the nomination. (See Figure 8.) Boundary Justification: The property is situated on a 40 -acre river terrace and that portion of the river directly adjacent to the terrace. The property is bounded on the north by the mountainous slope rising from the terrace. The river channel which loops around the terrace forms the eastern and southern boundary. The western boundary is defined by a relatively steep slope rising up from the terrace. The boundaries encompass the resources and their immediate setting. Figure 8. (Case 12), This rumination from a western state included aerial photographs to illustrate site boundaries. A transparency with the site boundary indicated was. overlaid on the photo to show the extent of this site. The site also included elements of a traditional cultural property. The boundaries of this site were determined through archeological and ethnographic survey. 75A -510 Case 13. Boundary Reduction of a Large National Register District. Listed on the National Register in the early 1970s, a large district in a northwestern state contained over 400 archeological sites across more than 400,000 acres. Sites within the district represented all periods of human occupation in North America, from Paleoindian through the early twenti- eth century. Only 10 percent of the entire district had been the subject of archeological investigations at any level. Site distribution in the district appears to have been influenced by a variety of environmental factors, including topographic and hydrologi- cal setting. Most of the recorded sites are wholly on the ground surface or are shallowly buried, while many of the sites are threatened by natural forces (wind and water erosion) and degradation by human activities. Discussion: After 20 years of archeological studies, the district's boundaries were reduced in the early 1990s by 50 percent in order to more accurately reflect the distribution of known sites and areas with high probability to contain additional important sites. A very few of the previously identified sites were excluded from the revised bound- aries, now totaling over 200,000 acres. Excluded from the district were areas with the highest elevations and slopes greater than 20 percent that were unlikely to contain any archeological sites. Revision of the boundaries also removed unnecessary "buffer' areas from the district. Because of the large size of the district and the amount of new archeological information, a completely new nomination was prepared rather than a simple amend- ment to the existing nomination. Case 14. Continuous Artifact Distri- bution: Multiple Prehistoric Sites Located on a Flood Plain: The flood plain of the river is a broad, flat plain with little topographic relief. The known distribution of prehistoric sites located in the floodplain derives principally from the mapping of numerous artifact collecting areas, representing the past 30 years of surface collection activities by numer- ous individuals. To date, there has been no systematic subsurface testing survey of the floodplain, chiefly due to the presence of deep alluvium deposits which prohibit cost - effective testing. Many of the artifact collecting areas overlap and indicate an almost continuous pattern of prehistoric land use on the homogeneous floodplain (See Figure 9.) Assignment of a polygonal bound- ary is appropriate in this case, since it encompasses the area of a known Late Woodland - Contact Period Settlement within a broad, featureless expanse generally known for its almost continuous distribution of prehistoric cultural remains. The polygonal area may be replaced by more precise site boundaries as site formation pro- cesses and improvements in archeo- logical methodology provide further data regarding the floodplain's prehistoric land use. Boundary Description: The boundaries of the site are defined by a polygon. The polygon is square, measuring 500 meters on a side, covering 25 hectares. The boundaries of the site are defined by UTM coordinates which mark a polygon's corners. The unit includes land in private ownership on a bend of broad floodplain of the river in an area known for its very high density of Figure 9. (Case 14). Numerous circles on this figure illustrate the location of recorded archeological sites located on this broad floodplain area. The National Register property is shown by the rectangle, which encompasses four known sites. A reasonable boundary was assigned to this property. 75A -511 1 59 «ai�e3r� N 30841 30 12 SU 59 J00 16 30815 x 3084 ium308.2 2 OB 2 30 T.. yy 30 &2 'iJrr 3082 300 4 \ 30861'! .. • . \.. : 3pe..30e•u�t ,15 25 Z 0 &33 308(12 08.71 \` d3 c6.�tu l .mll I , 308 31 41E;y`L�t fy; 'wwpp ° 3085 3p891 yT4xCf+`ri NIIIIJI11IIIIIIl VALUES BUT LESS LITHICSIq0m GREATER THAN THE 75th PERC EN THE _ VALUES FOR LITHICSIgcm GREATER THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LITHICS PRESENCE OF THE FIRE CRACKED ROCK SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FCR �VYi�IIu— THE 75Eh PERCENTILE MEDIAN BUT LESS THAN VALUES FOR GRAMS OF TOTAL SHELLIgcm _ GREATER THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHELL REMAINS KEY EXCAVATION UNIT- - - - - -- SHOVEL TEST PIT-- - - - - -- ABANDONED ROAD —_ ____ FOOTPATH ------- - -- CONCENTRATION----- l =! SITE BOUNDRY - - - - -- t® 0 50 100 METERS Figure 10. (Case 15). The boundary of this archeological site was determined by the density of artifacts found through extensive testing of the area. Although numerous concentrations of artifacts (lithics, shell remains, and fire- cracked rock) are shown across the hillside overlooking a marsh and cove, the National Register boundary for this site includes the largest area of artifact distribution. 60 75A -512 "'I'' - N 30811 14 ' SU 5 C ) 16 `�,• yllnI 308.15 )308'.13 \ L Jp821b ,, &2708 . '308.25 308. 2 . 0 300 34 - �� 309 filYI��0230 30 &3 • 309 h ./• ' 00843 31 "fy 0 0843 l ..., `L aOa siT C r �n� '+o ' < 1��j.�k1�r}?•�rA�`% Q 30es �VYi�IIu— THE 75Eh PERCENTILE MEDIAN BUT LESS THAN VALUES FOR GRAMS OF TOTAL SHELLIgcm _ GREATER THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHELL REMAINS KEY EXCAVATION UNIT- - - - - -- SHOVEL TEST PIT-- - - - - -- ABANDONED ROAD —_ ____ FOOTPATH ------- - -- CONCENTRATION----- l =! SITE BOUNDRY - - - - -- t® 0 50 100 METERS Figure 10. (Case 15). The boundary of this archeological site was determined by the density of artifacts found through extensive testing of the area. Although numerous concentrations of artifacts (lithics, shell remains, and fire- cracked rock) are shown across the hillside overlooking a marsh and cove, the National Register boundary for this site includes the largest area of artifact distribution. 60 75A -512 sites, as evidenced by overlapping artifact areas. Boundary justification: The nominated area (geographic) of the floodplain includes the majority of four known collecting areas. The artifacts and features within the polygonal area demonstrate the presence of Late Woodland and Contact Period occupations, on which the statement of significance is based. Through a series of fortunate events surrounding a recent flooding episode of the river, the archeological remains of a large Late Woodland - Contact Period village were exposed in this area of the floodplain. The exposed domestic features and artifact concen- trations were carefully recorded by amateur archeologists, but only within the areas fortuitously stripped of alluvium by the flood. Subse- quently, the property owner inten- tionally refilled this area, thus recreat- ing a deep, featureless plain. Without intensive archeological testing below the 1 -3 meters of alluvium and fill above the prehistoric occupation zone, it is impossible to define the site boundaries on the basis of presence or absence of cultural materials. In fact, by comparison to the east bank of the river, which has been more inten- sively surface collected, it appears that the distribution of prehistoric cultural materials is almost continu- ous across miles of land. Case 15. Continuous Artifact Distri- bution: Prehistoric Camp Site Over- looking an Estuary: The site is located on a prominent hill on the western side of the mouth of a cove overlook- ing the southern half of a marsh. Concentrations were delimited all along the base of the hill (the base is at approximately the same location as the abandoned road shown as a dashed line on Figure 10). Concentra- tions also occur on its eastern and northeastern slopes, both of which include sizable areas that are nearly level. The site is in mainly open fields at present with thick shrubs in wet areas, scattered evergreens, and broad leafed forest undergrowth vegetation. Two kinds of test units — shovel tests and excavation units —were used to define the site boundary and concentrations within the site. The density per .25 cubic meters of the number of lithics, grams of shell, and fire - cracked rock were calculated for each unit and mapped. Density contour lines using the median and 75th percentile values were drawn on large scale maps for each of the site areas. These lines were used as 75A -513 boundaries between site and non -site areas and among concentrations within the site. Boundary Description: The site is bounded by the marsh on the south and east, and by the density of artifact distributions (boundary established at the 75th percentile isopleth) on the north and the west. Boundary justification: An essential step for analyzing archeo- logical remains on a regional basis is the careful identification of compa- rable units. This example establishes such units by using an explicit defini- tion of two concepts —the site and the concentration. "Site" as used here refers to a bounded area within which artifact concentrations occur. Site boundaries were set along contour lines of artifact density, interpolated from shovel test and excavation unit data. In this context, sites are areas that contained concentration of artifact deposits. These concentra- tions represent areas bounded by contour lines representing a certain density within the site of one or more kinds of archeological materials e.g., lithics, shell or fire - cracked rock remains. The size, structure, shape, and contents, as well as other charac- teristics of each concentration, can then be investigated. V. REFERENCES Childe, V. Gordon 1956 A Short Introduction to Archaeology. Collier Books, New York. Dancey, William S. 1981 Archaeological Field Methods: An Introduction. Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Delaware State Historic Preservation Office 1992 Guidelines for Architec- tural and Archaeological Surveys in Delaware. Dover, Delaware. Dunnell, R. and W. Dancey 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theony, Vol. S. Edited by M. B. Schiffer. pp. 267 -287. Academic Press, New York. Ebert, James 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 62 Henry, Susan L. 1993 Protecting Archeological Sites on Private Lands. National Park Service, Washington, DC. Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Lewarch, Dennis E. and Michael J. O'Brien 1981 The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Ar- chaeological Research. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4. Edited by M. B. Schiffer. pp. 297 -342. Academic Press, New York. Seifert, Donna J. 1995 National Register Bulletin: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties. Na- tional Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. 75A -514 Shaffer, Gary D. and Elizabeth J. Cole 1994 Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Technical Report Number 2. Annapolis, Maryland. Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeologi- cal Sites and Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993. Virginia Department of Historic Resources 1996 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia: Additional Guidance for Implementation of the Federal Standards Entitled, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Richmond, Virginia. Wiley, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, 1958. Organization of the Guidelines / Cultural Landscape Guidelines Page 1 of 2 INTRODUCTION! PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes Organization of the Guidelines Overview .. ..... ... ... Preservation Planning t �4f Factors to Consider •' � Y � � Special Reqwremen( Using the. Standard a +Guidelines Organization of the Guidelines t: � rr 7 r a k I Terminology Blbliagraphy . Acknowledgments Cultural landscapes are composed of a collection of features which are organized inspaee.They include small-scale features such as individual Two aerial photographs I top left add fountains or statuary, as well as patterns of fields and forest which define the right) of the changing geographical spatial character of the landscape. context at Rancho Los Alamitos taken a half century apart, from expansive term Individual features in the landscape should never be viewed in isolation, but in relationship to the lands to suburban subdivision— is landscape as a whole. Each situation may vary, and some features may often be more important than eminently clear, This dramatic change to others, For example, circulation may be an important historic element in one landscape, while in the property's context will have an effect another It may have little if any significance. on future planning and treatment Overall, it Is the arrangement and the interrelationship of these character- defining features as they recommendations. (Rancho Las existed during the period of significance that is most critical to consider prior to treatment. As such, Alamitos Foundation) landscape features should always be assessed as they relate to the property as a whole. Thus, spatial organization and land patterns are always listed first in each section of the Guidelines. Organizational Elements of the Landscape F.� 3 Spatial Organization and Land Patterns refers to the three - dimensional organization and patterns of spaces in a landscape, like the arrangement of rooms in a house. Spatial '.:,�:�1 organization is created by the landscape's cultural and natural features. Some form visual Lv.W links or barriers (such as fences and hedgerpws); others create spaces and visual connections in the landscape (such as topography and open water), The organization of such features defines and creates spaces in the landscape and often is closely related to lard use. Both the functional and visual relationship between spaces is integral to the historic characterof a property. In addition, it is important to recognize that spatial relationships may change over time due to a variety of factors, including environmental impacts (fi drought, flood), plant growth and succession, and changes in land use or technology. Character - Defining Features of the Landscape There are many character-defining features that collectively contribute to the historic character of a cultural landscape. These are as follows: Topography, the shape of the ground plane and its height or depth, is a charac;er- -j w.4r defining feature of the landscape. Topography may occur naturally or as a result of Rf ;u human manipulation. For example, topographic features may contribute to the creation of -14Ia outdoor spaces, serve a functional purpose, or provide visual interest. -- Vegetation features may be individual plants, as in the case of a specimen tree, or groups of plants such as a hedge, allee, agricultural field, planting bed, or a naturally - occurring plant community or habitat. Vegetation includes evergreen or deciduous Trees, shrubs, and ground covers, and both woody and herbaceous plants, Vegetation may derive its significance from historical associations, horticultural or genetic value, or aesthetic or functional qualities. It is a primary dynamic component of the landscape's character; therefore, the treatment of cultural landscapes must recognize the continual process of germination, hthn / /.., ;tanxr nnc onv /tnc /ctan rlar(Ic /l nrlr- trE'atm/1 rt�p71►Y�]�z1n�?lli del i nes /orLyanlzatlon.htm 2/28/2014 Organization of the Guidelines / Cultural Landscape Guidelines Page 2 of 2 growth, seasonal change, aging, decay, and death of plants. The character of individual plants is derived from habit, form, color, texture, bloom, fruit, fragrance, scale and context. Circulation features may include, roads, parkways, drives, trails, walks, paths, parking areas, and canals. Such features may occur individually or be linked to form networks or systems, The character of circulation features is defined by factors such as alignment, "-- width, surface and edge treatment, grade, materials, and infrastructure, Water features may be aesthetic as well as functional components of the landscape. They may be linked to the natural hydrologic system or may be fed artficially; their associated water supply, drainage, and mechanical systems are important components. Water features include fountains, pools, cascades, irrigation systems, ponds, lakes, streams, and aqueducts. The characteristics of water features and reflective qualities; and associated plant and animal life, as well as water quality. Special consideration may be required due to the seasonal changes in water such as variations in water table, precipitation, and freezing. M Structures, site furnishings, and objects may contribute to a landscape's significance and historic character. Structures are non- habitable, constructed features, unlike buildings which have walls and roofs and are generally habitable. Structures may be significant individually or they may simply contribute to the historic character of the landscape. They may include walls, terraces, arbors. gazebos, follies, tennis courts, playground equipment, greenhouses, cold frames, steps, bridges, and dams. The placement and arrangement of buildings and structures are important to the character of the landscape; these guidelines emphasize the relationship between buildings, structures, and other features which comprise the historic landscape. For additional and specific guidance related to the treatment of historic buildings, please consult the Guidelines for Preserving Rehabilitating. Restoring and RecDnsLlCrina Historic 8uildinas. Site furnishings and objects generally are small -scale e'ements in the landscape that may be functional, decorative, or both. They can include benches, lights, signs, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, fences, tree grates, clocks, flagpoles, sculpture, monuments, memorials, planters, and urns. They may be movable, used seasonally, or permanently installed. Site furnishings and objects occur as singular items, in groups of similar or identical features. or as part of a system (e.g. signage). They may be designed or built fora specific site, available though a catalog, or created as vernacular pieces associated with a particular region or cultural group, They may be significant in their own right, for example, as works of art or as the work of an important designer. Landscape Guidelines Home hrfrr / /tivww nns.prty /tns /stanclards/ four- treatfir3tAat`&t6- guidel lies /oraanization.hhn 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 1 of 11 Technical Preservation Services tage,atNol,San„. U.s. oepmtmem of the lntow, Home P How to Preserve > Pre52rVatipj_I _Bh! > 36 Cultural Landscapes Some of the web versions of the Preservation Brie's differ somewhat from the printed versions. Many Illustrations are new and in color; Captions are simplified and some complex charts are omitted. To order hard copies of the Briefs, see Printed Putrlicationv0. PRESERVATION BRIEFS M Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA Develepina a Strateav and Seeking Assistance Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes Historic Preservation Approach and T eatment Plan Preservation Maintenance plan and Imo lementatipn Strategy Recording Work and Future Research Recommendations Summary and References Reading List onw NOad the PDFSI Taro neidS In Hanalei, Hatvell. Photo: N?5 files. Cultural landscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural tracts of land to a small homestead with a front yard of less than one acre. Like historic buildings and districts, these special places reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their form and features and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving relationship •withthe natural world. POLOams on the land have teen preserved through the mntinoaton of traditional uses, such as the grape fields at the Sterling Vineyards In Callstoga, California. Photo: NP5 N. A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area,including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. These are defined below. Historic landscapes Include residential gardens and community parks, scenic highways, rural communities, institutional grounds, cemeteries, battlefields and zoological gardens. They are composed of a number of character - defining features which, individually or collectively contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include water features, such as ponds, streams, and fountains; circulation features, such as roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and sculptural objects. Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is integral to the significance of the resource. Imagine a residential district without sidewalks, lawns and trees or a plantation with buildings but no adjacent lands. A historic httn: / /w - ,v.nDs.eov /tusl how -to- preserve /brie /SAi4l- ]7indscaues.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, "Treatment and Manage... Page 2 of l l ' property consistsof all its cultural resources — landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections. In some cultural landscapes, there may be a total absence of buildings. This Preservation Brief provides preservation professionals, cultural resource managers, and historic property owners a step -by -step process for preserving historic designed and vernacular landscapes, two types of cultural landscapes. While this process Is ideally applied to an entire landscape, it can address a single feature, such as a perennial garden, family burial plot, or a sentinel oak In an open meadow. This Brief provides a framework and guidance for undertaking projects to ensure a successful balance between historic preservation and change, Definitions Historic Designed Landscape —a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles,or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event In landscape architecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates. Historic Vernacular Landscape —a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape, Through social or cultural attitudes ofan individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection of properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples Include rural villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes. Historic Site —a landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples include battlefields and president's house properties. Ethnographic Landscape —a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, religious sacred sites and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components. Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance Nearly all designed and vernacular landscapes evolve from, or are often dependent on, natural resources. It Is these Interconnected systems of land, air and water, vegetation and wildlife which have dynamic qualities that differentiate cultural landscapes from other cultural resources, such as historic structures. Thus, their documentation, treatment, and ongoing management require a comprehensive, mu lti•d iscipl mary approach. Another example of a very different landscape feature Is this tree planting detail for Jefferson flamonal Park, St. LOUIS, MISSOari. Photo: Courtesy, Dan Kiley. Today, those involved in preservation planning and management of cultural landscapes represent a broad array of The "Soot Fence," near D.H. Lawrence Ranch, Questa, oily Mexico, is an example of a academic backgrounds, training, and related character- dennning landscape feature. Photo: project experience Professionals may have Courtesy, Cheryl Wagner. expertise in landscape architecture, history, landscape archeology, forestry, agriculture, horticulture, porrology, pollen analysis, planning, architecture, engineering (civil, structural, mechanical, traffic), cultural geography, wildlife, ecology, ethnography, Interpretation, material and object conservation, landscape maintenanceand management. Historians and historic preservation professionals can bring expertise in the history of the landscape, architecture, art , industry, agriculture, society and other subjects. Landscape preservation teams, including on -site management teams and independent consultants, are often directed by a landscape architect with specific expertise in landscape preservation. It is highly recommended that disciplines relevant to the landscapes' Inherent features be represented as well. Additional guidance may be obtained from State Historic Preservation Offices, local preservation commissions, the National Park Service, local and state park agencies, national and state chapters oftee American Society of Landscape Architects, the Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, the National Association of Olmsted Parks, and the Catalog of Landscape Records in the United states at Wave Hill, among others. A range of issues may need to be addressed when considering hoar a particular cultural landscape should be treated. This may include the In -kind replacement of declining vegetation, reproduction of furnishings, rehabilitation of structures, httn / /mrww.nns _ aov /tnsJhow -to- preserve /bri7,SAul i114, dscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 3 of 11 accessibility provisions for people with disabilities, or the treatment of industrial properties that are rehabilitated for new uses. Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes Careful planning prior to undertaking work can help prevent irrevocable damage to a cultural landscape. Professional techniques for identifying, documenting, evaluating and preserving cultural landscapes have advanced during the past 25 years and are continually being refined. Preservation planning generally involves the following steps: historical research; inventory and documentation of existing conditions; site analysis and evaluation of Integrity and significance; development of a cultural landscape preservation approach and treatment plan; development of a cultural landscape management plan and management philosophy; the development of a strategy for ongoing maintenance; and preparation of a record of treatment and future research recommendations. The steps in this process are not independent of each other, nor are they always sequential. In fact, Information gathered in one step may lead to a re- examination or refinement of previous steps. For example, field inventory and historical research are likely to occur simultaneously, and may reveal unnoticed cultural resources that should be protected. The treatment and management of cultural landscape should also be considered in concert with the management of an entire historic property. As a result, many other studies may be relevant. They include management plans, interpretive plans, exhibit design, historic structures reports, and other. These steps can result in several products including a Cultural Landscape Report (also known as a Historic Landscape Report), statements for management, interpretive guide, maintenance guideand maintenance records. Cultural Landscape Reports A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the primary report that documents the history, significance and treatment of a cultural landscape. A CLR evaluates the history and integrity of the landscape including any changes to its geographical context, features, materials,and use. CLRs are often prepared when a change (e.g. a new visitor's center or parking area to a landscape) is proposed. In such instances, a CLR can be a useful tool to protect the landscape's character - defining features from undue wear, alteration or loss. A CLR can provide managers, curators and others with information needed to make management decisions. A CLR will often yield new Information about a landscape's historic significance and integrity, even for those already listed on theNational Register. Where appropriate, National Register files should be amended to reflect the new findings. Historical Research Research Is essential before undertaking any treatment. Findings will help identify a landscape's historic perlod(s) of ownership, occupancy and development, and bring greater understanding of the associations and characteristics that make the landscape or history significant. Research findings provide a foundation to make educated decisions for work, and can also facilitate ongoing maintenance and management operations, interpretation and eventual compliance requirements. A variety of primary and secondary sources may be consulted. Primary archival sources can include historic plans, surveys, plats, tax maps, atlases, U. S. Geological Survey maps, soil profiles, aerial photographs, photographs, stereoscopic views, glass lantern slides, postcards, engravings, paintings, newspapers, journals, construction drawings, specifications, plant lists, nursery catalogs, household records, account books and personal correspondence. Secondary sources Include monographs, published histories, theses, National Register forms, survey data, local preservation plans, state contexts and scholarly articles. Contemporary documentary resources should also be consulted. This may include recent studies, plans, surveys, aerial and infrared photographs, Soil Conservation Service soil maps, inventories, investigations and interviews. Oral histories of residents, managers,and maintenance personnel with a long tenure or historical association can be valuable sources of information about changes to a landscape over many years. For properties listed in the National Register, nomination forms should be consulted. Preparing Period Plans In the case of designed landscapes, even though a historic design plan exists, It does not necessarily mean that it was realized fully, or even in part. Based on a review of the archival resources outlined above, and the extant landscape today, an as -built period plan may be delineated. For all successive tenures of ownership, occupancy and landscape change, period plans should be generated. Period plans can document to the greatest extent possible the historic appearance during a particular period of ownership, occupancy, or development. Period plans should be based on primary archival sources and should avoid conjecture. Features that are based on secondary or less accurate sources should be graphically differentiated. Ideally, all referenced archival sources should be annotated and footnoted directly on period plans. littn: / /www.ni)s.2ov /tos/ how -to- preserve /briees6AWr3llgmdscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 4 of 11 Where historical data is missing, period plans should reflect any gaps In the CLR narrative text and these limitations conslderedin future treatment decisions. Inventorying and Documenting Existing Conditions Both physical evidence in the landscape and historic documentation guide the historic preservation plan and treatments. To document existing conditions, intensive field investigation and reconnaissance should be conducted at the same time that documentary researchis being gathered. Information should be exchanged among preservation professionals, historians, technicians, local residents, managers and visitors. To assist In the survey process, National Register Bulletins have been published by the National Park Service to aid In identifying, nominating and evaluating designed and rural historic landscapes. Additionally, Bulletins are available for specific landscape types such as battlefields, mining sites, and cemeteries. Although there are several ways to inventory and document a landscape,the goal is to create a baseline from a detailed record of the landscape and Its features as they exist at the present (considering seasonal variations). Each landscape inventory should address issues of boundary delineation, documentation methodologies and techniques, the limitations of the Inventory, and the scope of inventory efforts. These are most often influenced by the timetable, budget, project scope, and the purpose of the inventory and, depending on the physical qualities of the property, its scale, detail, and the inter- Understanding the geographic ronteat Should be part of che inventory process. This aerial photograph at Rancho Los Alamitos, Long beach, CA, was taken In less. (see, below.) Photo: Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation. relationship between natural and cultural resources. For example, inventory objectives to develop a treatment plan may differ considerably compared to those needed to develop an ongoing maintenance plan. Once the criteria for a landscape inventory are developed and tested, the methodology should be explained. This present- day v'eW Of Rancho LOS preparing Existing Condition Plans Alamitos shwas pres'eno-day encraarnments and adjacent dew,coneats Inventory and documentation may be recorded in plans, sections, photographs, aerial that will affect the future treatment of photographs, axonometric perspectives, narratives, video-or any combination or visual and spatial relationships. Photo: Rancho Los Alamitos roundation. techniques. Existing conditions should generally be documented to scale, drawn by hand or generated by computer. The scale of the drawings is often determined by the size and complexity of the landscape. Some landscapes may require documentation at more than one scale. For example, a large estate may be documented at a small scale to depict Its spatial and visual relationships, while the discrete area around an estate mansionmay require a larger scale to illustrate individual plant materials, pavement patterns and other details. The same may apply to an entire rural historic district and a fenced vegetable garden contained within. When landscapes are documented In photographs, registration points can be set to indicate the precise location and orientation of features. Registration points should correspond to significant forms, features and spatial relationships within the landscape and its surrounds. The points may also correspond to historic views to illustrate the change in the landscape todate. These locations may also be used as a management tool todocument the landscape's evolution, and to ensure that its character - defining features are preserved over time through informed maintenance operations and later treatment and management decisions. All features that contribute to the landscape's historic character should be recorded. These include the physical features described above (e.g. topography, circulation), and the visual and spatial relationships that are character defining. The identification of existing plants, should be specific, including genus, species, common name, age (If known) and size. The woody, and if appropriate, herbaceous plant material should be accurately located on the existing conditions map. To ensure full representation of successional herbaceous plants, care should be taken to document the landscape in different seasons, if possible. Treating living plant materials as a curatorial collection has also been undertaken at some cultural landscapes. This process, either done manually or by computer, can track the condition and maintenance operations on individual plants. Some sites, suchas the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, in Brookline, Massachusetts have developed a field investigation numbering system to track all woody plants. Due to concern for the preservation of genetic diversity and the need to replace significant plant materials, a number of properties are beginning to propagate historically important rare plants that are no longer commercially available, unique, or possess significant historic associations, Such herbarium collections become a part of a site's natural history collection, h fn- / /www "inns. gnv /tns/ how- to- nreserve /bri7- SAL&C,20ndscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 5 of 11 Once the research and the documentation of existing conditions have been completed, a foundation is in place to analyze the landscape's continuity and change, determine its significance, assess Its Integrity, and place it within the historic context of similar landscapes. Reading the Landscape A noted geographer, Pierce Lewis, stated, "The attempt to derive meaning from landscapes possesses overwhelming virtue. It keeps us constantly alert to the world around us, demanding that we pay attention not just to some of the things around us but to all of them —the whole visible world in all of its rich, glorious, messy, confusing, ugly, and beautiful complexity." Landscapes can be read on many levels — landscape as nature, habitat, artifact, system, problem, wealth, ideology, history, place and aesthetic, when developing a strategy to document a cultural landscape, it is important to attempt to read the landscape In its context of place and time. Reading the landscape, like engaging in archival research, requires a knowledge of the resource and subject area as well as a willingness to be skeptical, As with archival research, it may Involve serendipitous discoveries. Evidence gained from reading the landscape may confirm or contradict other findings and may encourage the observer and the historian to re- visit both primary and secondary sources with a fresh outlook. Landscape investigation may also stimulate other forms of research and survey, such as oral histories or archeological investigations, to supplement what appeared on -site. There are many ways to read a landscape- whatever approach is taken should provide a broad overview. This may be achieved by combining on- the - ground observations with a bird's -eye perspective. To begin this process, aerial photographs should be reviewed to gain an orientation to the landscape and its setting. Aerial photographs come in different sizes and scales, and can thus portray different levels of detail in the landscape. Aerial photographs taken at a high altitude, for example, may help to reveal remnant field patterns or traces of an abandoned circulation system; or, portions of axial relationships that were part of the original design, since obscured by encroaching woodland areas. Low altitude aerial photographs can point out individual features such as the arrangement of shrub and herbaceous borders, and the exact locations of furnishings, lighting, and fence alignments. This knowledge can prove beneficial before an on -site visit. Aerial photographs provide clues that can help orient the viewer to the landscape. The next step may be to view the landscape from a high point such as a knoll or an upper floor window. Such a vantage point may provide an excellent transition before physically entering the cultural landscape. on ground, evidence should then be studied, Including character - defining features, visual and spatial relationships. By reviewing supporting materials from historic research, individual features can be understood in a systematic fashion that show the continuum that exists on the ground today. By classifying these features and relationships, the landscape can be understood as an artifact, possessing evidence of evolving natural systems and human interventions over time. For example, the on -site investigation of an abandoned turn-of- the - century farm complex reveals the remnant of a native oak and pine forest which was cut and burned in the mid- nineteenth century. This previous use is confirmed by a small stand of mature oaks and the presence of these plants in the emerging secondary woodland growth that is overtaking this farm complex in decline. A ring count of the trees can establish a more accurate age. By reading other character- defining features, such as the traces of old roads, remnant hedgerows, ornamental trees along boundary roads, foundation plantings, the terracing of grades and remnant fences —the visual, spatial and contextual relationships of the property as it existed a century ago may be understood and its present condition and integrity evaluated. The findings of on -site reconnaissance, such as materials uncovered during archival research, may be considered primary data. These findings make it possible to inventory and evaluate the landscape's features In the context of the property's current condition. Character - defining features are located in situ, In relationship to each other and the greater cultural and geographic contexts. Historic Plant Inventory Within cultural landscapes, plants may have historical or botanical significance. A plant may have been associated with a historic figure or event or be part of a notable landscape design. A plant may be an uncommon cultivar, exceptional in size, age, rare and commercially /unavallable. If such plants are lost, there would be a loss of historic integrity and biological diversity of the cultural landscape. To ensure that significant plants are preserved, an inventory of historic plants is being conducted at the North Atlantic Region of the National Park Service. Historical landscape architects work with landscape managers and historians to gather oral and documented history on the plant's origin and potential significance. Each plant is then examined in the field by an expert horticulturist who records its name, condition, age, size, distribution, and any notable botanic characteristics. Plants that are difficult to identify or are of potential historical significance are further examined in the laboratory by a plant taxonomist who compares leaf, fruit, and flower characteristics with herbarium specimens for named species, cultivars and llttD: / /w'�wv.Ims.r>ov /tos/ how -to -i) reserve /brie7ss&ek62- tndscapes.htm 2 /28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 6 of 11 varieties. For plants species with many cultivars, such as apples, roses, and grapes, specimens may be sent to specialists for identification. IF a plant cannot be identified, is dying or in decline, and unavailable from commercial nurseries, it may be propagated. Propagation ensures that when rare and significant plants decline, they can be replaced with genetically - identical plants. Cuttings are propagated and grown to replacement size in a North Atlantic Region Historic Plant Nursery. Site Analysis: Evaluating Integrity and Significance By analyzing the landscape, Its change over time can be understood. This may be accomplished by overlaying the various period plans with the existing conditions plan. Based on these findings, individual features may be attributed to the particular period when they were introduced, and the various periods when they were present. It is during this step that the historic significance of the landscape component of a historic property and its integrity are determined. Historic significance is the recognized importance a property displays when it has been evaluated, including when it has been found to meet National Register Criteria. A landscape may have several areas of historical significance. An understanding of the landscape as a continuum through history is critical in assessing Its cultural and historic value. In order for the landscape to have integrity, these character - defining features or qualities that contribute to its significance must be present. While National Register nominations document the significance and integrity of historic properties, in general, they may not acknowledge the significance of the landscape's design or historic land uses, and may not contain an inventory of landscape features or characteristics. Additional research is often necessary to provide the detailed information about a landscape's evolution and significance useful in making decision for the treatment and maintenance of a historic landscape. Existing National Register forms may be amended to recognize additional areas of significance and to include more complete descriptions of historic properties that have significant land areas and landscape features. Integrity is a property's historic identity evidenced by the survival of physical The landscape or Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, New York characteristics from the property's historic or pre- historic period. The seven Is slgmocant In American CdlWre and warn of qualities of Integrity are location, setting, 9 master gardener. Ferdinand Mangold. Photo: q 9 Y g, feeling, association, design, NaUrrai Trust for Hi>tonc Preservaaon, workmanship and materials. When evaluating these qualities, care should be taken to consider change itself. For example, when a second- generation woodland overtakes an open pasture In a battlefield landscape, or a woodland edge encloses a scenic vista. For situations such as these, the reversibility and /or compatibility of those features should be considered, both individually, and In the context of the overall landscape. Together, evaluations of significance and integrity, when combined with historic research, documentation of existing conditions, and analysis findings, influence later treatment and interpretation decisions. Developing a Historic Preservation Approach and Treatment Plan Treatment may be defined as work carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal —it cannot be considered in a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical factors that may influence the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include the relative historic value of the property, the level of historic documentation, existing physical conditions, Its historic significance and Integrity, historic and proposed use (e.g. educational, interpretive, passive, active public, institutional or private), long -and short-term objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and costs for anticipated capital improvement, staffing and maintenance. The value of any significant archeological and natural resources should also be considered in the decision - making process. Therefore, a cultural landscape's preservation plan and the treatment selected will consider a broad array of dynamic and inter - related considerations. It will often take the form of a plan with detailed guidelines or specifications. Adopting such a plan, in concert with a preservation maintenance plan, acknowledges a cultural landscape's ever - changing existence and the Inter - relationship of treatment and ongoing maintenance. Performance standards, scheduling and record keeping of maintenance activities on a day -to -day or month -to -month basis, may then be planned for. Treatment, management, and maintenance proposals can be developed by a broad range of professionals and with expertise in such fields as landscape preservation, horticulture, ecology, and landscape maintenance. The selection of a primary treatment for the landscape, utilizing The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of!-listoric Properties , establishes an overall hrtnr / /www.tins.Pov /tns/ how -to- preserve /bri76,A.* 2y &indscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 7 of 11 historic preservation approach, as well as a philosophical framework from which to operate. Selecting a treatment is based on many factors. They include management and interpretation objectives for the property as a whole, the period(s) of significance, integrity, and condition of Individual landscape features. For all treatments, the landscape's existing conditions and its ability to convey historic significance should be carefully considered. For example, the life work, design philosophy and extant legacy of an individual designer should all be understood for a designed landscape, such as an estate, prior to treatment selection. For a vernacular landscape, such as a battlefield containing a largely Intact mid- nineteenth century family farm, the uniqueness of that agrarian complex within a local, regional, state, and national context should be considered In selecting a treatment. When the American Elm was plagued with Dutch Elm Disease, many historic Properties relled on the Jauanese Ux,'a a' b tl t ., a so s to e Plant (see below), Photo: The overall historic preservation approach and treatment approach can ensure the lops files. proper retention, care, and repair of landscapes and their inherent features. In short, the Standards act as a preservation and management tool for cultural landscapes. The four potential treatments are described. Treatments for Cultural Landscapes Prior to undertaking work on a landscape, a treatment plan or similar document should be developed. The four primary treatments identified in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, are: Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, Integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, Including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code - required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations,and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical or cultural values. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in Its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code - required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non - surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Compared to the American Bin (above nght),itIs Radity appamnt Ghat the !n,m and scale or this tree Is reahy quite different, and world be au Inapprorwiate ,U-0t A2 plant material Landscape treatments can range from simple, inexpensive preservation actions, to complex major restoration or reconstruction projects. I he progressive framework is inverse in proportion to the retention of historic features and materials. Generally, preservation involves the least change, and is the most respectful of historic materials. It maintains the form and material of the existing landscape. Rehabilitation usually accommodates contemporary alterations or additions without altering significant historic features or materials, with successful projects involving minor to major change. Restoration or reconstruction attempts to recapture the appearance of a property,or an Individual feature at a particular point in time, as confirmed by detailed historic documentation. These last two treatments most often require the greatest degree of intervention and thus,the highest level of documentation. In all cases, treatment should be executed at the appropriate level, reflecting the condition of the landscape, with repair work identifiable upon close Inspection and /or indicated in supplemental interpretative information. When repairing or replacing a feature, every effort should be made to achieve visual and physical compatibility. Historic materials should be matched in design, scale, color and texture- hHn Hwwtv.nns.gov /tos/ Crow -to- preserve /brie ? /5AlT adscanes,htin 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultttral Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 8 of 11 within a restoration or A landscape with a high level of integrity and authenticity may suggest preservation as the primary reaonsr+uctlon phdret. photo: N's file•:. treatment. Such a treatment may emphasize protection, stabllizatlon, cyclical maintenance,and repair of character - defining landscape features. Changes over time that are part of the landscape's continuum and are significant in their own right may be retained, while changes that are not significant, yet do not encroach upon or erode character may also be maintained. Preservation entails the essential operations to safeguard existing resources. Rehabilitation is often selected In response to a contemporary use or need — ideally such an approach is compatible with the landscape's historic character and historic use. Rehabilitation may preserve existing fabric along with introducing some compatible changes, new additions and alterations. Rehabilitation may be desirable at a private residence in a historic district where the homeowner's goal is to develop an appropriate landscape treatment for a front yard, or in a public park where a support area is needed for its maintenance operations. When the most important goal Is to portray a landscape at an exact period of time, restoration is selected as the primary treatment. Unlike preservation and rehabilitation, interpreting the landscape's continuum or evolution is not the objective. Restoration may include the removal of features from other periods and /or the construction of missing or lost features and materials from the reconstruction period. In all cases, treatment should be substantiated by the historic research findings and existing conditions documentation. Restoration and re- construction treatment work should avoid the creation of a landscape whose features did not exist historically. For example, if features from an earlier period did not co -exist with extant features from a later period that are being retained, their restoration would not be appropriate. In rare cases, when evidence is sufficient to avoid conjecture, and no other property exists that can adequately explain a certain period of history, reconstruction may be utilized to depict a The historic birch alley at Stan Mywet Hall, Akron, Ohio, which had sdUered rmm borer Infestation and leaf nlinel', was preserved through a series of car arkly exemted steps that took 15 years to reailxe. Photo: Child associates. vanished landscape. The accuracy of this work is critical. In cases where topography and the sub - surface of soil have not been disturbed, research and existing conditions findings may be confirmed by thorough archeological investigations. Here too, those features that are intact should be repaired as necessary, retaining the original historic features to the greatest extent possible. The greatest danger in reconstruction is creating a false picture of history. False historicism in every treatment should be avoided. This applies to Individual features as well as the entire landscape. Examples of inappropriate work include the introduction of historic- looking benches that are actually a new design, a fanciful gazebo placed In what was once an open meadow, executing an unrealized historic design, or designing a historic - looking landscape for a relocated historic structure within "restoration." Landscape Interpretation Landscape interpretation is the process of providing the visitor with tools to experience the landscape as it existed during its period of significance, or as it evolved to its present state. These tools may vary widely, from a focus on existing features to the addition of Interpretive elements. These could Include exhibits, self- guided brochures, or a new representation of a lost feature. The nature of the cultural landscape, especially its level of significance, integrity, and the type of visitation anticipated may frame the interpretive approach. Landscape interpretation may be closely linked to the integrity and condition of the landscape, and therefore, its ability to convey the historic character and character - defining features of the past. If a landscape has high Integrity, the interpretive approach may be to direct visitors to surviving historic features without introducing obtrusive interpretive devices, such as free - standing signs. For landscapes with a diminished Integrity, where limited or no fabric remains, the Interpretive emphasis may be on using extant features and visual aids (e.g., markers, photographs, etc.) to help visitors visualize the resourceas it existed in the past. The primary goal in these situations is to educate the visitor about the landscape's historic themes, associations and lost character- defining features or broader historical, social and physical landscape contexts. Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan and Implementation Strategy Throughout the preservation planning process, it is important to ensure that existing landscape features are retained. Preservation maintenance is the practice of monitoring and controlling change in the landscape to ensure that Its historic integrity is not altered and features are not lost. This is particularly important during the research and long -term treatment planning process. To be effective, the maintenance program must have a gulding philosophy, approach or strategy; an understanding of preservation maintenance techniques; and a system for documenting changes in the landscape. The philosophical approach to maintenance should coincide with the landscape's current stage in the preservation planning process. A Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment htto: / /www,nDS.90V /tns/ how- to- DrCserve [bri7ZAw624ndscat)es.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 9 of 11 Central Park has developed an in -house historic preservation creex to undertake small projeCls, A spedahzed how has been trained to repair and rebuild rulild rprnl$hIn JS. Photo' Central Park Conservancy. Plan can take several years to complete, yet during this time managers and property owners will likely need to address immediate Issues related to the decline, wear, decay, or damage of landscape features. Therefore, initial maintenance operations may focus on the stabilization and protection of all landscape features to provide temporary, often emergency measures to prevent deterioration, failure, or loss, without altering the site's existing character, After a Treatment Plan is implemented, the approach to preservation maintenance may be modified to reflect the objectives defined by this plan. The detailed specifications prepared in the Treatment Plan relating to the retention, repair, removal, or replacement of features in the landscape should guide and Inform a comprehensive preservation maintenance program. This would include schedules for monitoring and routine maintenance, appropriate preservation maintenance procedures, as well as ongoing record keeping of work performed. For vegetation, the preservation maintenance program would also Include thresholds for growth or change In character, appropriate pruning methods, propagation and replacement procedures. To facilitate operations, a property may be divided into discrete management zones. These zones are sometimes defined during the Cultural Landscape Report process and are typically based on historically defined areas. Alternatively, zones created for maintenance practices and priorities could be used. Examples of maintenance zones would Include woodlands, lawns, meadow, specimen trees, and hedges. Training of maintenance staff in preservation maintenance skills is essential. Preservation maintenance practices differ from standard maintenance practices because of the focus on perpetuating the historic character or use of the landscape rather than beautification. For example, introducing new varieties of turf, roses or trees Is likely to be Inappropriate. Substantial earth moving (or movement of soil) may be inappropriate where there are potential archeological resources. An old hedge or shrub should be rejuvenated, or propagated, rather than removed and replaced. A mature specimen tree may require cabling and careful monitoring to ensure that it is not a threat to visitor safety. Through training programs and with the assistance of preservation maintenance specialists, each property could develop maintenance specifications for the care of landscape features. Because landscapes change through the seasons, specifications for ongoing preservation maintenance should be organized in a calendar format. During each season or month, the calendar can be referenced to determine when, where, and how preservation maintenance is needed. For example, for some trees structural pruning Is best done in the late winter while other trees are best pruned in the late summer. Serious pests are monitored at specific times of the year, In certain stages of their life cycle. This detailed calendar will, In turn, identify staff needs and work priorities. Depending on the level of sophistication desired, one approach to documenting maintenance data and recording change over time is to use a computerized geographical or visual information system. Such a system would have the capability to include plans and photographs that would focus on a site's landscape features, If a computer is not available, a manual or notebook can be developed to organize and store Important information. This approach allows managers to start at any level of detail and to begin to collect and organize information about landscape features. The value of these maintenance records cannot be overstated. These records will be used in the future by historians to understand how the landscape has evolved with the ongoing care of the maintenance staff. Recording Treatment Work and Future Research Recommendations The last and ongoing step in the preservation planning process records the treatment work as carried out. It may Include a series of as-built drawings, supporting photographic materials, specifications and a summary assessment. New technologies that have been successfully used should be highlighted. Ideally, this Information should be shared with interested national organizations for further dissemination and evaluation. The need for further research or additional activities should also be documented. This may Include site - specific or contextual historical research, archeological Investigations, pollen analysis, search for rare or unusual plant materials, or, material testing for future applications. Finally, In consultation with a conservator or archivist -to maximize the benefit of project work and to minimize the potential of data loss —all primary documents should be organized and preserved as archival materials. This may include field notes, maps, drawings, photographs, material samples, oral histories and other relevant information. Developing a Preservation Maintenance Guide hma: / /wtvw.nr)s.fzov /tus/ how- to- r)reservc /bri7s5Aaifi25ndscaues.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 10 of 11 In the past, there was rarely adequate record- keeping to fully understand the ways a landscape was maintained. This creates gaps in our research findings. Today, we recognize that planning for ongoing maintenance and onsite applications should be documented —both routinely and comprehensively. An annual work program or calendar records the frequency of maintenance work on built or natural landscape features. It can also monitor the age, health and vigor of vegetation. For example, onsite assessments may document the presence of weeds, pests, dead leaves, pale color, wilting, soil compaction —all of which signal particular maintenance needs. For built elements, the deterioration of paving or drainage systems may be noted and the need for repair or replacement indicated before hazards develop. An overall maintenance program can assist In routine and cyclic maintenance of the landscape and can also guide long term treatment projects. To help structure a comprehensive maintenance operation that is responsive to staff, budget, and maintenance priorities, the National Park Service has developed two computer- driven programs for its own landscape resources. A lvaintenance Management Program (MM)is designed to assist maintenance managers in their efforts toplan, organize, and direct the park maintenance system. An Inventory and Condition Assessment Program (ICAP) is designed to complement MM by providing a system for Inventorying, assessing conditions, and for providing corrective work recommendations for all site features. Another approach to documenting maintenance and recording changes over time is to develop a manual or computerized graphic information system. Such a system should have the capability to include plans and photographs that would record a site's living collection of plant materials. (Also see discussion of the use of photography under Preparing Existing Conditions Plans) This may be achieved using a computer -aided drafting program along with an integrated database management system. To guide immediate and ongoing maintenance, a systematic and flexible approach has been developed by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Working with National Park Service landscape managers and maintenance specialists, staff assemble information and make recommendations for the care of individual landscape features. Each landscape feature Is inspected in the field to document existing conditions and identify field work needed. Recommendations include maintenance procedures that are sensitive to the Integrity of the landscape. Summary and References The planning, treatment, and maintenance of cultural landscapes requires a multi - disciplinary approach. In landscapes, such as parks and playgrounds, battlefields, cemeteries, village greens, and agricultural land preserves more than any other type of historic resource— communities rightly presume a sense of stewardship. It Is often this grass roots commitment that has been a catalyst for current research and planning initiatives. Individual residential properties often do not require the same level of public outreach, yet a systematic planning process will assist In making educated treatment, management and maintenance decisions. Wise stewardship protects the character, and or spirit of a place by recognizing history as change over time. Often, this also involves our own respectful changes through treatment. The potential benefits from the preservation of cultural landscapes are enormous. Landscapes provide scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational and educational opportunities that help us understand ourselves as individuals, communities and as a nation. 'their ongoing preservation can yield an improved quality of life for all, and, above all, a sense of place or identity for future generations. Acknowledgements The author, Charles A. Birnbaum, Coordinator, Historic Landscape Initiative, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service would like to acknowledge the assistance of H. Ward landl and Kay Weeks. The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation at the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site Including Margie Coffin, Lauren Meier, Nora Mitchell, and Charlie Pepper provided invaluable support. In particular, the proposed rewrite on Preservation Maintenance and historic plant materials was written by Margie Coffin. Significant contributions were also made by Patricia M. O'Donnell, Linda McClelland, Ellen Lipsey, Christine Capella Peters, Robert Page, Ian Firth and Robert Melnick. Useful comments and technical assistance were provided by regional NPS staff (Mary Hughes, Lucy Lawilss, rill Cowley, Sherda Williams, Michael Crowe, Robbyn lackson) and staff at the Preservation Assistance Division (Cheryl Wagner, Michael Auer and Anne E. Grimmer). This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. September 1994 httn_ / /w,vW.nDs.L,ov /tDs/ flow- to- ureserve/bri76AiA ji2&ndscaiDes.latm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 11 of 11 Reading List Birnbaum, Charles A., guest editor. Preservation Forum. "Focus on Landscape Preservation ", Washington, D.C.: National Trustfor Historic Preservation, Volume 7, No. 3, May /June 1992, Buggey Susan, guest editor. APT Bulletin. Special Issue: Conserving Historic Landscapes. Fredericksburg, VA: Association for PreservationTechnology International, Volume XXIV, No. 3 -4, 1992. Burns, John A, and the Staff of HAGS /HAER. Recording Historic Structures. American Institute of Architects Press, 1989.(Inciudes chapter on the documentation of Meridian Hill Park,pp. 206 -219.) Diehl, Janet and Thomas S. Barrett, at al. The Conservation Easement Handbook. Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs, The Land Trust Exchange (now Alliance) and the Trust for Public Land, 1988, International Committee of Historic Gardens and Sites, ICOMOS- IFLA.Jardins et Sites Historiques, Scientific Journal. ICOMOS1993. Compilation of papers on the subject, in both English and French. Kelso, William M., and Rachel Most. Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology. Charlottesville, VA. University Press of Virginia, 1990. Stokes, Samuel, N., et al. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1989, Tishler, William, editor. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press, 1989. Tnps.gov T' EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA° hNn / /wwwrin.q Qov/fi).q/liow-to-nresci-ve/l)rie7/SAtS,217nclseines.htm 2/28/2014 75A -528 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 4:37 PM Cc: Cavazos, David, Carvalho, Sonia R., Haluza, Karen; Fregoso, Vince Subject: Correspondence re: Sexlinger project Attachments: Sexlinger Orchard.docx Categories: DONE, Important The letter attached was received today. A complete packet of letter received on this matter will be available at the dais tomorrow. From: Josh McIntosh / DJ Gummo mailto•.d'igummo t oo.coml Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:17 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: City Council Meeting Tomorrow Ms. Huizar, in case I am not able to attend tomorrow night's city council meeting, please make sure that the council members receive this letter. I would also appreciate a response to let me now that you have received it. Sincerely, Joshua Z McIntosh 714 - 537 -2205 home 714 -458 -8669 cell dj ummo & ahoo.com 1 75A -529 3/4/2014 4:07 PM 4:07 PM 8 March 3, 2014 Maria Huizar City Clerk City of Santa Ana Subject: Sexlinger Orchard mhuizar@santa-ana.org Dear Ms. Huizar, I am writing this letter in regards to the fate of the Sexlinger Orchard at 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave. in Santa Ana. I would like the Santa Ana city council to know that as a resident of Orange County, I am deeply concerned about the fate of one of our last remaining orange groves, which can remain in tact for future generations to appreciate or become yet another high density residential property. While I understand that the property owners have the right to eliminate one of the very last orange groves, which are the namesake of our county, I find it morally wrong to erase our local history. The city council has the power to right this potential wrong on Tuesday night, March the 4" 2014. They can go down in history as the group of people who had the foresight to protect an endangered and important species. I would like the council to consider a compromise. I would like the council to preserve the entire orchard as public green space and offer the property owners an alternate location in the city to build new homes on. The city owns land which can be transferred to the owners in exchange for the orchard. Place it under the parks and recreations department and preserve this orchard for the good of my generation and our future generations. We do not need another housing complex nearly as much as we need green space and a cultural heritage landmark. We don't need the toxic exhaust from more and more vehicles where we had oxygen generating plants in place. This is a rare opportunity to save a piece of history and it only takes an understanding city council who is willing to pursue another avenue in order to satisfy the property developer and the people of Orange County who care about hanging on to one of the last remaining orchards. Too much of our county has been bulldozed and erased to squeeze in more homes, which creates more overcrowding in schools, traffic on our streets and lack of opportunity for employment. There are fewer and fewer places where we can enjoy an inexpensive family outing, especially one that includes educational, historical and cultural values. Preserving this Sexlinger Orchard is the right thing to do and I hope that this council will vote to protect Orange County history, not erase it. Sincerely, Josh McIntosh Orange County Historical Society Santa Ana Historical Society Garden Grove Historical Society Anaheim Historical Society 75A -530 Mar 04',2014 8:03PM KANE IIA114 75A-531 858 454 7180 P.1 f7,z., u FI/V 7/ SD I Mar 04 2014 6:03PM KANE Diane f3. Xane, P! 7711 Cookout Dri la JoCCa, CaCifornia March 4, 2014 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse EIR Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: 858 454 7180 p.2 ,.D. ve 12 037 rr iJ "L7 I am veteran architectural historian with over 40 years o experience, almost two decades of which were as the cultural resource specialist for Caltrans in Los Angeles. In field surveying agricultural lands for new freeway alignment throughout Southern California as part of environmental review, I have had substantial experience in documenting and evaluating historic landscapes. I had the pleasure of vi iting the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse historic site on Sunday March 2, 2014. This modest 5 -acre orchard and farmhouse was once a common occurrence in Orange County. But with the rapid and almost complete land us conversion from agricultural to urbanized uses over the past half - century in Orange Co ty, it is now a rare composite resource that both documents and explains the 200' cen ury citrus industry in Southern California. The farmhouse tangibly represents the Sexlin�er family's middle class status, as well as its long relationship with the property, a small- lricale orange grove. Without its associated citrus landscape, also known as its "setting, ' the farmhouse would just be another Craftsman bungalow. With the associated orang grove, it becomes an economic unit, one of many other small -scale agricultural units that comprised Orange County's agricultural underpinnings in the early 2001 century. Although recognized by the City of Santa Ana with its designation of the property, this wider context is surprisingly underdeveloped in the environmental record's cultural analysis of the property. More specifically, the orange grove's size and location i dicate a wider land use pattern in this part of Santa Ana that has all but disappeared under tract developments. Its Valencia orange trees, and their regular organization in evenly spaced rows, explain how the growing portion of the orange industry functioned. Tres were uniformly spaced and mrefuily pruned into even heights for easier maintenance. This included spraying for pest control, smudging to prevent frost, fertilization, irrigatio and harvest. Patterns in the land that note this activity include old irrigation equipment, depressed channels for water and smudge pot remnants. Clear] t�a3e en j (a s�l,�e is needed to explain the property's meaning. A few representative Oran 6 t to a typica] Craftsman bungalow are insufficient to convey its historical significance. Although some of the orange trees are Mar 04 2014 6:03PM KRNE 858 454 7180 p.3 clearly stressed due to poor maintenance, replacing th unstressed trees is a viable, feasible and well- respec restoring the contributing vegetation and rehabilitating Without a clear understanding of what the Sexlinger discussion of various project alternatives, or their impa I would recommend taking a closer look at the w farmhouse and its orchard prior to developing a ran meaning within the Orange County agricultural landse exist, such as the 2012 Hybrid Alternative that pr association of the landscape than the current proposal. In fact, when historic resources are at risk, a ran , considered. These ideally provide decision makers wit about the trade offs between resource loss or diminishm other desirable project benefits. The current range of and appears to justify a project not well suited to the res Although resource loss or substantial diminishment is an an appropriate level of mitigation should be forthco techniques do not seem adequate for the identified lc mitigate the proposed project's impacts to below a level re- design of the current proposal, I would urge the measures might be taken along with project re- design th impacts. Diane Kane, Ph.D. Architectural Historian 75A -533 in kind with grafted stock from cultural landscape strategy for orchard. chard property represents, any on the property, are premature. ;r agricultural context for the of alternatives that respect its Surely more sensitive options rves more of the feeling and of alternatives is commonly both choice and full disclosure t and economic development or tematives is woefully deficient utcome of the current proposal, ing, Standard documentation 1. Even if it is not feasible to 'significance with a substantial 'ouncil to explore what other would further reduce identified 75A -534 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011 -01 (SCH# 2008041172); ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; APPROVING VARIANCE NOS. 2012 -04(A) AND 2012 -04(B) AS CONDITIONED; AND, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2012 -02 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17231) AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project ( "Project ", "proposed Project ", or "Historic Preservation Alternative ") consists of the development and construction of 23 new single - family residences on approximately five acres located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue within the City of Santa Ana ( "City "); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project also includes the removal of orange grove trees and the widening and improvement of the southern portion of East Santa Clara Avenue; and WHEREAS, development of the Project requires approval of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the property, approval of one variance for reduced street frontage for one lot, and approval of another variance for setbacks on the rehabilitated Farmhouse; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project would serve to meet a portion of the regional housing needs assessment target assigned to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments; and WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is consistent with the City's current General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site of Low Density Residential ( "LR -7 ") and the City's zoning designation for the Project site of Single Family Residential ( "R -1 "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15051, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.; "CEQA "), and the State CEQA Guidelines the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") should be prepared pursuant Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -535 Page 1 of 11 to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on or about May 3, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") on a draft EIR, and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a) and 15375; and WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from potential responsible and trustee agencies and members of the public; and WHEREAS, on or about June 1, 2011, the City held a public scoping meeting to gather public comments on the proposed Project and its potential impacts on the physical environment; and WHEREAS, the City received 26 written and electronic comments in response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on or about July 2011, a draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment; and WHEREAS, on or about August 22, 2011, a Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on or about September 2, 2011, an extension of the Draft EIR public review period was granted; and WHEREAS, on or about June 4, 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and approved a resolution to list the Project site on the City of Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties as a "Key" property; and WHEREAS, on or about June 11, 2012, the owners of the Project site filed a Notice of Intent to Demolish, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of on -site structures and the orange grove, and required the Historic Resources Commission to investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was revised to reflect additional information regarding cultural impacts; and WHEREAS, on or about October 31, 2012, the City initiated another 45 -day public review period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research, publishing the Notice of Availability within the Orange County Register, and releasing a revised Draft EIR for public review and comment; and Resolution 75A -536 No. age 2 of 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45 -day comment period, which ran through December 17, 2012; and WHEREAS, during the 45 -day public review period, the City held a regularly scheduled public hearing on November 13, 2012, to receive comments regarding the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City received 26 written comment letters during the second public review period for the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of comments received during both 45 -day public review and comment periods on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer to the Draft EIR, including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR's errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, including all of the technical studies, attachments and appendices to the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2014, and voted to recommend that the City Council: (1) Adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 and approve the mitigation monitoring program for the proposed Project; (2) Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(a) for the Project as conditioned; (3) Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow a reduction in the minimum lot frontage as conditioned; and (4) Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned; and WHEREAS, on or about March 4, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral, and approved Resolution No. 2014 -009, certifying the EIR and approving the Project; and WHEREAS, the findings of fact attached to this resolution reflect the addition of an alternative analysis, the Historic Preservation Analysis, to reflect the City Council's adoption of this alternative as the environmentally superior preferred alternative; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana held another duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2014, to consider this updated Resolution certifying the FEIR (which attaches and incorporates by reference the findings), and the re- adoption of the underlying resolution for the entitlements for the proposed Project, i.e., the approval of two variances and approving a vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2014, the City Council considered all testimony, written and oral, submitted on the proposed Project and this Resolution; and Resolution 75A -537 No. age 3 of 11 WHEREAS, Findings of Fact with respect to environmental impacts, including environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City finds can be substantially lessened through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, are described in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring Program sets forth the mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with this Project and is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the Final EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR prepared in connection with the proposed Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to the City Council as whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under Public Resources Code sections 21166 and 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution Page 4 of 11 75A -538 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact. Section 2. Review Period. The City provided two 45 -day public review periods for the Draft EIR, which exceeds the minimum requirements under CEQA Guidelines sections 15073 and 15105; and Section 3. Certification. The City hereby certifies that (1) the EIR has been prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; (2) the EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to considering adoption of the Project, and (3) the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council and is deemed adequate for the purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project. Section 4. CEQA Findings. The City hereby adopts the CEQA Findings, which were prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code section 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 5. Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City finds that Mitigation Monitoring Program is designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and any other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Section 6. Findings for Variance No. 2012- 04(a). Development of the proposed Project requires approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(a) to allow the Sexlinger Farmhouse to remain at its current location in the Single Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41 -234 requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet. SAMC section 41- 239(g) requires the garage to be a minimum of five feet from the residence. SAMC section 41- 1320(b) requires the residence to provide a two -car garage. Reductions in each of these standards is required to keep the historic Farmhouse in its current location. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41 -638 in order to grant a variance, have been established: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. Resolution Page 5 of 11 75A -539 The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The approval of the variance for the Sexlinger Farmhouse will result in the residence and garage retaining and preserving the historic character of the property. Further, the approval of the variance will avoid the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the setback, separation and parking standards would result in the loss of a resource that is listed on the City's Register of Historical Properties as the structure would have to be relocated. The granting of the variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owner's right to develop their property. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the residence and garage are proposed to be used as it was historically, with little or no changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The project has been designed in compliance with all other applicable development standards for an R -1 project. D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of the property into a single - family residence that will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Further, the variance is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, including Land Use Element Goal 4 to protect and enhance development sites which are unique community assets, Land Use Element Policy 4.2 to encourage the retention and reuse of historical buildings and sites, and Housing Element Policy HE -1.7 to support preservation and enhancement of residential structures and properties that are considered local historic or cultural resources. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -540 Page 6 of 11 Section 7. Findings for Variance No. 2012- 04(b). Development of the proposed Project requires approval of Variance No. 2012 -04(b) to allow one new lot in the development with less than 50 feet of street frontage in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district. Section 41- 237(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires lots in the Single - Family Residence (R -1) zoning district to have at least 50 feet of street frontage, as measured from the back of the setback, while the applicant is proposing to reduce the street frontage to 41 feet for Lot No. 12, The City Council determines that the following findings which must be established, pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41 -638, in order to grant a variance, have been established: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter. The project site has a special circumstance related to its size, shape and location. The subject site is a five -acre rectangular shaped parcel that will be constrained by the application of a County street standard to the project. In order to provide a larger street area for trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to maneuver, a County's standard for the design of "knuckles" was imposed on this project. The County standard required the taking of more land than proposed, which impacted the applicant's ability to meet the minimum street standard for an R -1 project. Therefore, applying the strict letter of the Code would, in this particular case, deprive the subject property of a use that is otherwise allowed by right in the zone and would deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Compliance with the street frontage standard could result in the loss of residential units, which would reduce the feasibility of the proposed use of the property, which impacts the property rights of the owners. Further, the granting of the street frontage variance will preserve the property owners right to develop the property with a use that is allowed by right in the R -1 zoning district and is consistent with the general plan. The new use will allow the development of a vacant property which will preserve the property owners right to develop their property. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -541 Page 7 of 11 The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties as the project and individual residential lots is proposed to be in compliance with all applicable development standards for an R -1 project except for the street frontage requirement. Further, the street design will allow trash trucks and similar sized vehicles to safely maneuver on the public streets. D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Finally, the project will not adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed use will result in the improvement of a vacant parcel from the property into a single - family development that will accommodate move up housing in the City. Further, the variance is consistent with several policies of the general plan, including Policy 1.4 to support development of single - family residential lots on a minimum area of at least 6,000 square feet, Policy 1.9 to coordinate street and parkway designs that are attractive, functional and compatible with adjacent on -site development, Policy 3.5 which encourages new development that are compatible in scale and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood, and Policy 5.10 to support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. Section 8. Findings for Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231). Development of the Project requires approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) to allow the subdivision of the five (5) acre parcel into 23 lots for the residential project. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must be established pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474, have been established: A. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the District Center designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is consistent with the low density residential land use designation and density (seven units per acre) prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. The development is consistent with the single - family residences surrounding the project on three sides. B. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) is in keeping with the provisions of site plan review (DP No. 2010 -47) and Resolution P 75A -542 age 8 of 11 Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. Although two lots will not meet the street frontage standard, a variance (Variance No. 2012 -04) is proposed for the project due to the unique design of the street. C. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The vesting tentative tract map is proposed for a five -acre parcel of land within an area that is zoned for single - family residences (R -1). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project as the proposed density of five units per acre is less than the allowed seven units per acre. D. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact to fish or wildlife that may be associated with this project. E. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Also, a County standard applicable to a "knuckle" design, which exceeds the City's standard, will be implemented on this project to ensure trash trucks and similar sized vehicles safely travel the streets. Additionally, traffic calming devises are proposed at the north and south end of Lyon Street, which will reduce speed along the streets and improve the safety of the residences. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious impacts resulting from this project. F. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of the vesting tentative tract map will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site as the streets will be public streets. Resolution 75A -543 No. age 9 of 11 Section 9. Indemnification. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the Project, including, without limitation, any CEQA review or approval, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Section 10. Wildlife Resources. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 735.5(c)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed Project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed Project exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 711.2 and Title XIV, CCR § 735.5, the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 11. Approvals. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented, the CEQA Findings, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, all attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Santa Anan hereby: A. Adopts the CEQA findings, certifies Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -01 (SCH# 2008041172), and approves the mitigation monitoring program for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. B. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(a) as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. Approves Variance No. 2012 -04(b) as conditioned in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein. D. Approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) as conditioned in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated September 2, 2014, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 12. Judicial Review. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. Section 13. Location of Documents and Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the CEQA Findings in Resolution 75A -544 P ge o0 of 11 Exhibit A of this Resolution have been based are located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana. The custodian for these records is the Santa Ana Clerk of the Council. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. Section 14. The City Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Orange within five (5) working days of final Project approval. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney In Ryan 0. Hodge Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 2014 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution 75A -545 age 11 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2014 -XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolutionage 12 of 11 75A -546 P California Environmental Quality Act Findings Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project EXHIBIT "A" CEQA FINDINGS FOR THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1.0 Summary of Findings CEQA Findings At a public hearing held on September 2, 2014, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, all environmental impacts associated with the project as currently proposed ( "proposed project' or "the Historic Preservation Alternative ") are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures. These CEQA Findings for the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project fully account for all impacts analyzed in the EIR, each of which have been determined to have a less than significant impact on the environment with mitigation incorporated. 2.0 Environmental Review Process Project Background The proposed project site is located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in the northeastern portion of the City. The site is approximately five acres and bounded by East Santa Clara Avenue to the north, Portola Park to the east, East Avalon to the south, and Concord Street on the west. The site is located approximately one mile west of State Route 55 (SR -55), approximately one mile south of State Route 22 (SR -22), and approximately 1.2 miles east of Interstate 5 (I -5). The project site is also located approximately 500 feet southwest of Fairhaven Memorial Park, approximately a half mile from Sierra Intermediate School located at 2021 North Grand Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet from John Muir Fundamental Elementary School located at 1951 North Mabury Street, and adjacent to single family residences. As originally proposed, the project would have developed 24 new single family residences, and demolished the existing vacant residential structure located on the parcel. The Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project determined that, as originally proposed, the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, related to the demolition of the existing residential structure, even after all feasible mitigation was incorporated. (EIR, pp. 2 -3 through 2 -6, 5 -20 through 5 -43; EIR Fig. 3.) During the environmental review and comment process, the project applicant changed the proposed Project to include only 22 new single family residential units, and preserve in place the existing residential structure and garage located on an approximately 10,044 square foot lot on the northwest corner of the project site. ( Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Attachment to the Environmental Impact Report Featuring the Additional Analysis & Response to Comments (January 2014) [ "January 2014 EIR Attachment "], pp. 1 -2.) The exterior of the residential structure and garage would be rehabilitated to Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, 75A!548 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings and the home and garage would be returned to single family residential use per building code requirements for habitable structures. (January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 1 -2.) Subsequently, the home would be available for sale for residential use. Approximately ten orange trees currently exist in this portion of the property. Additional orange trees would be planted in order to fill out the orchard, and any dead trees would be removed and be replaced with new orange trees. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 2.) In January 2014 an Attachment to the Environmental Impact Report was released, describing what was termed the "Historic Preservation Alternative" and describing the potential impacts of the Historic Preservation Alternative. The 22 new single family residences now proposed would be developed on the remaining areas of the property, each with a lot size ranging from 6,000 square feet to 8,611 square feet. Average lot size would be approximately 6,609 square feet, slightly larger than average lot sizes under the original 24 -unit proposed Project. The Historic Preservation Alternative would involve a roadway dedication of approximately eight feet along Santa Clara Avenue which would reduce the setback to five feet for the residential structure that is being preserved. A connection with Lyon Street to the south and Santa Clara Avenue to the north is also included in this alternative. This alternative includes a variance for a lot frontage less than the required minimum width on Lot 12. In addition, a variance for a front yard setback less than the required 20 foot setback would be required for the Sexlinger Orchard structure. No other variances are proposed. The Alternative would require the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) to subdivide the site into 23 residential lots. The population of the City of Santa Ana has grown significantly in the past decade, and is expected to continue increasing in future years creating demand for new housing. The City of Santa Ana is required to plan for this increased housing demand by the State of California. Through this process the City is assigned a target goal for housing production by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). This target goal is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). While the City itself is not responsible for constructing this housing, it is required to identify sites within the City that would be suitable for housing development and to remove barriers to such construction. The City's RHNA target for 2006 through 2014 is 3,393 units. Of this number, 1,461 units must be constructed for families with incomes above the Orange County median. The proposed project will serve to meet a portion of this target and is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element. The project application has been submitted by and with written consent from the current property owner, as allowed by the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the current General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LR -7) and the zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R -1). The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for the EIR and determined that the EIR is required for the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines to assess the potential impacts resulting from approval of the project and other discretionary actions necessary for its implementation. To implement the project, the City may consider various actions, permits, and /or approvals. The following City of Santa Ana approvals are anticipated to be required for the proposed project: • Vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the property; • Variance to reduce street frontage for Lot 12 and the existing Sexlinger structure; and 75AZ549 - Exhibit A" Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings • Certification of the FIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Draft Environmental Impact Report Initial Study and Notice of Preparation Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City circulated an NOP to public agencies, and members of the public for a 30 -day review period beginning on May 3, 2011 and ending on June 10, 2011. The purpose of the NOP was to formally announce that the City is preparing a Draft EIR for the proposed project, and was soliciting input regarding the scope and content of the information to be included in the EIR. The Initial Study was circulated with the NOP and was made available at the Santa Ana Public Library throughout the 30 -day review period. The NOP, Initial Study, and responses to the NOP are provided in the Appendix A of the DEIR. During the NOP circulation period, the City advertised a public scoping meeting. The meeting was held on June 1, 2011 and was intended to facilitate public input on the proposed project. The meeting was held with the intent of affording interested parties and public agencies a forum in which to orally present input directly to the Lead Agency to assist in further refining the scope and focus of the EIR. Furthermore, neighborhood meetings were held on December 2010 and March 2011 by City Staff and residences to discuss and review the project with the Portola Park and Meredith Parkwood Neighborhood Associations. hi addition, a City Planning Commission sub - committee meeting was held on June 8, 2011 with City Staff. Finally, a study session before the Planning Commission was held on June 13, 2011, which was noticed by email, City website, and Commission agenda. Draft EIR As a brief background, the City has taken many steps to maximize participation opportunities during the environmental process. As mentioned, this included the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP), and Public Scoping Meeting held on June 1, 2011, circulation of the DEIR in July 2011, a Public Hearing in August 2011, an extension of the DEIR public review period in October 2011, the preparation of a supplemental cultural resources technical memorandum in December 2011, public review period in January 2012, and City Council Hearings held on May 7, 2012 and June 4, 2012. Subsequently, the DEIR was revised in October 2012, circulation of the revised DEIR occurred from November 1, 2012 to December 17, 2012 with a Public Hearing occurring on November 13, 2012. Comments received on the DEIR included written comments, including those sent via mail and email, and oral comments provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, which took place on November 13, 2012. Comments received are included as a part of the FEIR. Responses to Comments The City evaluated the comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in these comments. As required by CEQA, the City has provided to each public agency that commented on the DEIR, responses to the comments received from that agency at least ten days prior to the certification of the FEIR. The FEIR provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. 75A3550 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Additional Analysis for Response to Comments As stated above, the DEIR was made available for public comment for a 45 -day public review period, beginning on November 1, 2012, and ending on December 17, 2012. After comments were received and their responses were prepared, the City prepared a FEIR in January, 2013. This FIR had originally considered seven different project alternatives, with project proponents supporting the proposed Project alternative, which would build 24 new single family residences, and demolish the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. However, the City Council did not take final action on this proposal and did not certify the FEIR. To address cultural impacts associated with the development at the orchard, a variant of the Hybrid Alternative, entitled the Historic Preservation Alternative, was analyzed in a document entitled Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on a Draft FIR (Additional Analysis). Further, analysis regarding carbon sequestration was also provided in the Additional Analysis. The Additional Analysis was prepared in response to public comments and provided additional information and analyses that merely clarified or amplified or made insignificant modifications to the DEIR after it was circulated for public comment in December, 2012. Recirculation was not required pursuant to Section 15088.5 subd. (b) of the CEQA Guidelines; however, the information was provided for the benefit of public review and disclosure. The Additional Analysis was available for public review from December 19, 2013 to January 17, 2014. The City of Santa Ana requested that reviewers limit their comments to the information provided in the Additional Analyses document only. Prior to the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant changed the proposed Project from the original 24 -unit residential development to the Historic Preservation Alternative which is now the applicant's final proposed Project and the Preferred Alternative as well as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. It is the Project approved by the City. Responses to Comments The City evaluated the comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Additional Analysis. hi accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised in these comments. As required by CEQA, the City has provided to each public agency that commented on the DEIR, responses to the comments received from that agency at least ten days prior to the certification of the MR. The FEIR provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. Final Environmental Impact Report The City has prepared a FEIR for the proposed project. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR consists of: • The DEIR or revision of the DEIR; • The Additional Analysis; • Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR and Additional Analysis; • List of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR and Additional Analysis; 75A4551 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings • The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; • Any other information added by the Lead Agency. 3.0 Proposed Project: "Historic Preservation Alternative" The project as currently proposed, and as described in the Draft EIR as "the Historic Preservation Alternative ", would keep in place the existing residential structure and garage located on an approximately 10,044 square foot lot on the northwest corner of the project site. The exterior of the residential structure and garage would be rehabilitated to Secretary of the Interior historic preservation standards, and the home and garage would be returned to single family residential use per building code requirements for habitable structures. Subsequently, the home would be available for sale for residential use. Approximately ten orange trees currently exist in this portion of the property. Additional orange trees would be planted in order to fill out the orchard, and any dead trees would be removed and replaced with new orange trees. Twenty -two new single family residences would be developed on the remaining areas of the property, each with a lot size ranging from 6,000 square feet to 8,611 square feet. Average lot size would be approximately 6,609 square feet. The project would involve a roadway dedication of approximately eight feet along Santa Clara Avenue which would reduce the setback to five feet for the residential structure that is being preserved. A connection with Lyon Street to the south and Santa Clara Avenue to the north is also included. This project would result in no significant and unavoidable impacts. This is the applicant's final proposed project, and the subject of these CEQA Findings. 4.0 Findings Regarding Resource Areas Where It Can Be Seen With Certainty There Is No Potential For Environmental Impacts Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that there is no possibility that the Project would have any impact to the following resource areas: A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts: Will the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agricultural use? Will the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Contract? 75A5552 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Will the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Will the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Will the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Finding: No Impact. (FIR, pp. 4 -1, 4 -2.) Analysis: According to the Santa Ana General Plan and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Project, the City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project site is classified as being located in an urbanized area and therefore will not adversely affect these classes of farmland. Given that the City contains no important farmland, no Williamson Act Contract can be applicable to the project site. Furthermore, the project site is zoned and designated in the General Plan for residential use, and therefore the project cannot conflict with existing zoning for forestland or timberlands. Nor would the project convert forest land to any other use. As a result, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project will have no impact on agricultural resources. (EIR, pp. 4 -1, 4 -2.) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts: Will the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community? Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -2.) Analysis: Given that the project site is located in a developed area of the City of Santa Ana and contains no sensitive habitat, the project will not have any direct impact on sensitive species. The site is developed with a residential structure and an orange grove, and there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the project site. No federally protected wetlands are present. As a result, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project will have no impact on biological resources. (EIR, p. 4 -2.) Further, approximately 10 orange grove trees would remain within Lot 1 of the project. (January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 4.) 75A6553 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS CEQA Findings 1. Impact: Will the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -2.) Analysis: Sewer access is available in the project area. (EIR, p. 4 -2.) D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Impacts: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) Analysis: The nearest public airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 12 miles southwest. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consequently the project would not result in a safety hazard related to any airport. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) 2. Impact: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) Analysis: The project site is located in a developed area, surrounded by developed parcels. As a result, the vicinity of the project does not contain any areas susceptible to wildland fires. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Impacts: Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood plain, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Would the project place housing or structures within a 100 -year floodplain such that they would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) 75A 2554 "Exhibit A° Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Analysis: According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is not within a 100 -year flood zone, Therefore the project would also not place structures within the 100 -year floodplain. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) 2. Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiehe, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) Analysis: There are no large bodies of open water on or near the project site that could result in these hazards. (EIR, p. 4 -3.) F. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Impact: Would the project divide an established community? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) Analysis: The project is located within an area of residential uses, and the project proposes additional residential uses similar to the surrounding area. The project will provide a street connection to the existing neighborhood. In addition, the existing vacant residential structure located on the northern portion of the project would remain in place, further providing continuity between the existing, established community, and the new structures proposed. Therefore, the project would not divide an established community. (EIR, p. 4 -4; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 7.) 2. Impact: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) Analysis: The project is located in an urbanized area, not within the boundaries of any applicable habitat plan. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) G. MINERAL RESOURCES Impacts: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) Analysis: Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the City General Plan, there are no areas in the City designated as Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas or existent oil 75A2555 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project H. NOISE CEQA Findings fields. As the City is a built -out and developed urban community, there are no mineral resources zones within the project site or general vicinity. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) 1. Impacts: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) Analysis: The project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (EIR, p. 4 -4.) L POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Impacts: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) Analysis: The proposed project would not displace housing or people. The existing structure is unoccupied, and the project would result in the development of 22 new residential units. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) J. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. Impact: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) Analysis: The project site is not near a public airport or private airstrip, and the size and residential nature of the project is not substantial enough to result in an increase in air traffic patterns. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) 2. Impact: Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) 75A9556 "Exhibit A" Sextinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Analysis: The project would be required to provide parking as required under the City Zoning Code: one two - vehicle garage and a driveway for tandem parking for each single family residence. Therefore the project would provide the off - street parking capacity needed by the proposed development. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) 3. Impact: Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation? Finding: No Impact. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) Analysis: The project would not conflict with any applicable policies and there is no Orange County Transportation Authority bus service provided along East Santa Clara Avenue. (EIR, p. 4 -5.) 5.0 Findings Regarding Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an FIR analyzes and identifies as a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all environmental categories, including environmental categories that were analyzed in the EIR and determined to have a less than significant impact on the environment. The City Council hereby finds that the Project will have a less than significant impact in the following resource areas: A. AESTHETICS 1. Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant. (EIR, p. 5 -4.) Analysis: The project site is located in an area of existing urban development, and is surrounded by developed parcels. The surrounding urban development indicates that development of the project site would not impact views or scenic vistas from large nearby freeways, including I -5, SR -55, or SR -22. (EIR, p. 5 -2, 5 -3, 5 -4.) Further, the existing residential structure, and approximately 10 existing orange grove trees would remain in place, providing a continuity of views from before and after the project. The existing structure would be rehabilitated in a manner that maintains the existing architectural character of the site. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) 2. Impact: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Less than Significant. (EIR, p. 5 -.) Analysis: No designated scenic highways pass through the City of Santa Ana. The Scenic Corridors Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan identifies several primary and secondary City corridors, however none are located near the project site. Therefore, the project site is not visually accessible to or from any scenic corridors of regional or local significance. The surrounding urban development indicates that 75.1$57 Exhibit A° SeAnger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings development of the project site would not impact views from large nearby freeways, including I -5, SR -55, or SR -22. (EIR, p. 5 -2, 5 -3, 5 -4.) Further, the existing residential structure, and approximately 10 existing orange grove trees would remain in place, providing a continuity of views from before and after the project. The existing structure would be rehabilitated in a manner that maintains the existing architectural character of the site. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) B. AIR QUALITY Impact: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, p. 5 -10, Table 5 -2.) Analysis: SCAQMD has established thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, PM2.5 and CO2. (EIR, p. 5 -10.) Construction of the proposed project would not violate the regional significance thresholds for these pollutants. (EIR, Table 5 -2.) While the Draft EIR analyzed a project consisting of 24 new single family residences, the project as approved would consist of only 22 new single family residences. As the Draft EIR found no significant impact, it stands to reason that the reduced intensity from 24 to 22 new residential units would also have less than significant impacts. As a result, this impact is less than significant. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) 2. Impact: Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, p. 5 -12, 5 -13.) Analysis: The project proposes residential uses. The project does not propose any use that is typically associated with odors. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -12, 5 -13.) C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, and by the City of Santa Ana requirements? Finding: Less Than Significant. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) Analysis: The project site is listed in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Places as of June 4, 2012, and therefore is considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 5.) Development of the project, as now proposed, would preserve in place the existing residence, garage, and a number of orange grove trees located on Lot 1. However, the project would cause the extant landscape to undergo a substantial change as the majority of the orange trees of the project site would be removed. While dead or dying trees would be removed from Lot 1 if required, these 75A1155Q "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings would be replaced with trees matching the existing type, arrangement, pattern, and shape of the orchard within Lot 1. This would retain the feeling, appearance, and character of the historical resource in this portion of the project site. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 5.) However, while the project would preserve the residence, garage, and portion of the orange trees, the property would be transformed from a historic single family residence and orchard to a suburban development with a small orchard and 22 new single - family residences. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 5 -6.) However, because the property would retain many of its major elements and still convey the significance of a property type once common in the City, and because the historic structures will be surrounded by compatible low density residential use, the property's location, feeling, and overall character will be maintained. Therefore the project will meet Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, reducing any potential for impacts to less than significant. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 5 -6; Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, URS (November 2013).) D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -44, 5 -45; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) Analysis: According to the California Department of Water Resources, the depth to groundwater in the project area is more than 50 feet. Liquefaction potential is considered negligible due to the relatively cohesive and dense nature of the underlying materials and lack of a shallow groundwater table. No evidence of past landslides or slope instabilities has been observed. Liquefaction is not generally considered to be a hazard if the water table is deeper than 50 feet. Thus, there is low probability for liquefaction, subsidence and landslides. Due to the site's elevation and distance from any open bodies of water, potential for seiche is also negligible. Therefore, any impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 4 -44, 4 -45; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) 2. Impact: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property ?? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -44, 5 -45; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) Analysis: The project site consists of Quaternary -age alluvium consisting of silty sand and sandy silt materials which at depth change to dense gravelly sand. Based on laboratory testing with similar soils, the materials on the project site possess a very low expansion potential. Thus, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 4 -44, 4 -45; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 6.) 75A12559 °Ex "' ".t A„ Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CEQA Findings Impact: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -48, 5 -49; January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 6 -7.) Analysis: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommends a screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of GHG emissions per year for residential and commercial developments. The proposed project's maximum annual emissions are 507 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents from project operations. This accounts for 0.0001 percent of California's GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction of the project would peak at approximately 2,371 pounds per day, with emissions for the whole construction period totaling 247.4 metric tons. An analysis of impacts to existing carbon sequestration resulting from the removal of the majority of the site's orange tree orchard was completed. This analysis determined that up to 1,300 metric tons of GHGs could be sequestered by the existing orchard. When the project's estimated GHG emissions are combined with the loss of sequestration, the overall project impact increases to 1,807 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. This amount is well below the significance threshold established by SCAQMD and therefore impacts are considered less than significant. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 9 -10, Table 1.) 2. Impact: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -48, 5 -49; January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 6 -7.) Analysis: California Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375 are polices adopted for the overall reduction of GHG emissions statewide. The proposed project's maximum annual emissions are 507 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents from project operations. This accounts for 0.0001 percent of California's GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction of the project would peak at approximately 2,371 pounds per day, with emissions for the whole construction period totaling 247.4 metric tons. These amounts are so small that they do not conflict with, or impede implementation of, AB 32, SB 375, or any other plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 4 -48, 4 -49.) Further, an analysis of impacts to existing carbon sequestration resulting from the removal of the majority of the site's orange tree orchard was completed. This analysis determined that up to 1,300 metric tons of GHGs could be sequestered by the existing orchard. When the project's estimated GHG emissions are combined with the loss of sequestration, the overall project impact increases to 1,807 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. (January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 9 -10, Table 1.) However, the analysis also determined that this increased total is still insignificant when compared against the State 75A11560 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings of California's emissions as a whole. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 10.) As a result, impacts are less than significant. F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: Construction of the project would only involve the use of materials typical for resident construction and all materials would be transported, utilized, and stored in a manner consistent with applicable regulations. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) 2. Impact: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: The project site is located within a quarter mile of Sierra Intermediate School and Muir Elementary School, but it is not expected to impact the school due to the site's lack of handling or generating hazardous materials or wastes. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) 3. Impact: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.3. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the project, which found leaking underground storage tanks within one -half mile of the site. However, these tanks were found to be in excess of one - quarter mile of the site and/or have been closed to further action by regulatory agencies. Given the distance and the local geologic setting, these are not considered of environmental concern to the project. This is a less than significant impact. (EIR, pp. 5- 51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Impact: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) 75A14561 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Analysis: The project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site, resulting in a 25 year runoff of approximately 4.7 cfs and 7.8 cfs, at different locations. A hydrology technical report was completed for the project, and concluded that the flows from the proposed project as compared with the existing conditions at the site are minor and would not exceed the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility downstream of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) 2. Impact: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: The project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site, resulting in a 25 year runoff of approximately 4.7 cfs and 7.8 cfs, at different locations. A hydrology technical report was completed for the project, and concluded that the flows from the proposed project as compared with the existing conditions at the site is minor and would not exceed the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility downstream of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) 3. Impact: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less Than Significant. (FIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: The project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site, resulting in a 25 year runoff of approximately 4.7 cfs and 7.8 cfs, at different locations. A hydrology technical report was completed for the project, and concluded that the flows from the proposed project as compared with the existing conditions at the site is minor and would not exceed the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility downstream of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) 1. Impact: Would the project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environment effect? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -55, 5 -56; January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 7 -8) 75A15 562 -Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project I. NOISE CEQA Findings Analysis: The project is currently designated single family residential and low density residential on City plans. While the site would require a variance for reduced street frontages for Lot 7 (from 50 feet to 38 feet) and for Lot 8 (from 50 feet to 45 feet), variances do not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations as they are allowed by the City Zoning Code. The project would also comply with the City's General Plan goal supporting development of single family residential lots of minimum areas of at least 6,000 square feet. As a result, this impact is less than significant. Because the project would maintain the existing historic structure located on the property, the project would also be consistent with any goals and policies supporting the preservation of historic resources within the City. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 7 -8.) 1. Impact: Would the project expose persons or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8) Analysis: Long -term operational activities associated with noise are the vehicular traffic going into and out of the residential community. Typical automobile traffic does not generate vibration levels that can be felt within adjacent residential dwellings, therefore operational activities would not generate excessive vibrations and this impact is less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -59; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8.) Any groundborne vibration associated with construction would be temporary in nature and therefore would also be a less than significant impact. (FIR, p. 5 -58.) 2. Impact: Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8) Analysis: Long -term operational activities associated with the project would be the vehicular traffic going into and out of the residential community. The greatest number of vehicles that would travel any of the roadways near the project site is along East Santa Clara Avenue. There would be a maximum of 138 project -added vehicle trips on this roadway each day. At a posted speed of 40 miles an hour, this would generate a noise exposure level of less than 47 dBA CNEL 50 feet from the roadway centerline and would not exceed exterior noise level standards set by the City of Santa Ana. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -50.) J. POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? 7MU563 "Exhibit A" Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -60, 5 -61, 5 -62; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8.) Analysis: The project would introduce 22 new single family residences and preserve in place one historic single family residence. According to the General Plan Housing Element the average size of households in the City is 4.7 persons. The Southern California Association of Governments has established a target goal for the City of new housing. While the City is not responsible for constructing this housing, it is required to identify sites within the City that would be suitable for housing development and to remove barriers to such construction. The project's residential units would serve to help the City meet its target for housing, however, when compared to the overall population of the City, the project would not induce substantial growth in population. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -61; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8.) K. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -62, 5 -63; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8.) Analysis: The increase of 22 new residences and the rehabilitation of an existing vacant residence will not increase demand for fire or police protection. The project would be required to contribute to the impacted school district with development impact fees for the proposed new residences. However, with compliance with existing regulations, no significant impacts on schools are anticipated. While the project will increase demand and use of Portola Park, this is not anticipated to be substantial enough to adversely impact the park. Therefore, these impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -63; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8.) L. RECREATION 1. Impact: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -63, 5 -64; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8.) Analysis: The project would result in an increased demand for recreation services and facilities, specifically in Portola Park, adjacent to the project site. However, the increase in demand resulting from 22 new residences is not anticipated to result in significant 75A17564 Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings impacts or lead to substantial physical deterioration of park facilities. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -63, 5 -64; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8) 2. Impact: Would the project require construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -63, 5 -64; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8.) Analysis: The project would result in an increased demand for recreation services and facilities, specifically in Portola Park, adjacent to the project site. However, the increase in demand resulting from 22 new residences is not anticipated to result in the need to construct new facilities. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -63, 5- 64; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8.) M. TRAFFIC 1. Impact: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -98; January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9.) Analysis: The project does not propose any design features that would pose a hazards to traffic. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -96, 5 -97.) N. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: Orange County Sanitation District ( "OCSD ") is the service agency providing wastewater treatment for the City. The OCSD treatment plant has capacity to serve the project's projected wastewater generation, which is 7,440 gallons per day or less. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 2. Impact: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: OCSD is the service agency providing wastewater treatment for the City. The OCSD treatment plant has capacity to serve the project's projected wastewater generation, which is 7,440 gallons per day or less. The City is served by its own municipal water system, with the majority of the water supply obtained from groundwater and the remainder purchased from imported sources. The project would 75A18565 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings increase demand on the local water system, however the net increase would not be significant. Therefore, no water or wastewater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, would be required and impacts are less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) 3. Impact: Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: The project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site, resulting in a 25 year runoff of approximately 4.7 cfs and 7.8 cfs, at different locations. A hydrology technical report was completed for the project, and concluded that the flows from the proposed project as compared with the existing conditions at the site is minor and would not exceed the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility downstream of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (FIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) 4. Impact: Would the project result in insufficient water supplies being available to service the project from existing entitlements and resources? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) The City is served by its own municipal water system, with the majority of the water supply obtained from groundwater and the remainder purchased from imported sources. The project would increase demand on the local water system, however the net increase would not be significant. Therefore, no water or wastewater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, would be required and impacts are less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 9.) 5. Impact: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which services or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: OCSD is the service agency providing wastewater treatment for the City. The OCSD treatment plant has capacity to serve the project's projected wastewater generation, which is 7,440 gallons per day or less. Therefore, impact would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 75A1S566 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings 6. Impact: Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: The project would result in solid waste during the construction phase and long- term operational waste disposal. However, the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill has capacity to serve the project. In addition local jurisdictions are required by state law to divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated, the City has numerous recycling programs in place to fulfill this mandate. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 7. Impact: Would the project not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less Than Significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -99 through 5 -101; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 9.) Analysis: While local jurisdictions are required by state law to divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated, the City has numerous recycling programs in place to fulfill this mandate, including for waste generated at the project site. Therefore, no violation of federal, state, and local statutes relating to solid waste are anticipated and impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 6.0 Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant The City Council finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures which would reduce them to a less than significant level are set out in the EIR and are summarized as follows: A. AESTHETICS 1. Impact: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (EIR, p. 5 -4.) Analysis: Short term construction impacts would temporarily alter the visual appearance of the project area by exposing surfaces, grading land, stockpiling of construction materials and debris, etc. In addition, development of the project site with new residences and landscaping would permanently alter the nature and appearance of the project site from its existing setting. However, the existing single family residence located on the site, and approximately 10 orange trees will be located on the site after development. The 22 new single family residences will be designed to be similar to surrounding uses 75Az0567 Exhibit A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings on adjacent parcels in character and density, and the rehabilitation of the existing structure will be done in manner that maintains the existing character of the building. Therefore, long term impacts will be less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -4, 5 -5; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) Short term construction impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure AES -1: AES -1: The following standard construction practices will be implemented to minimize potential aesthetic impacts: • Construction areas shall receive appropriate routine maintenance to reduce unnecessary debris piles; • Construction areas shall have appropriate erosion and dust control programs in place; • Appropriate screening will be used to buffer views of construction equipment and material, where feasible. Implementation of AES -1 will reduce the presence of debris piles, which would, in the short term, alter the visual appearance of the project area. The use of screens will block some views from adjacent parcels of the construction site, including stockpiled materials and debris, graded and exposed areas, and construction equipment. As a result, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts will be reduced to less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -4, 5 -5, 5 -6.) 2. Impact: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (EIR, p. 5 -5, 5 -6.) Analysis: The proposed project will create light and glare impacts that may affect adjacent residential communities and introduce new sources of light. These sources include new streetlights, interior lighting from residences, light from vehicles, and landscape lighting. (EIR, p. 5 -5, 5 -6.) These sources are similar to the types of light sources that are already present in the vicinity of the project site. (EIR, p. 5 -2.) However, with the implementation of mitigation measure AES -2, these potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant: AES -2: To ensure that the project's exterior lighting does not spill over onto adjacent uses, all exterior lighting, including street lighting and landscape fighting, shall be shielded or directed away from adjoining uses pursuant to all applicable lighting standards and requirements of the City Municipal Codes and Zoning Codes. (EIR, p. 5- 6.) 75A21568 "Exhibit A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Implementation of AES -2 will require consistency with lighting standards that will ensure the project's light sources will be similar to those already existing in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and therefore will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -6, 5 -2.) B. AIR QUALITY Impact: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (EIR, p. 5 -10 through 5 13.) Analysis: The applicable air quality management plan is the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ( "SCAQMD ") 2007 Air Quality Management Plan ( "AQMP "). This Plan proposes attainment of federal PM2.5 standards. (EIR, p. 5 -7.) Short-term, unmitigated daily construction impacts will result in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed the AQMP thresholds for particulate matter. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, particulate matter emissions will be reduced to less than significant: AIR -1: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during project construction, nontoxic soil stabilizers or comparable dust suppressant shall be applied to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for five consecutive days or more). Chemical soil stabilizers, if used, shall be applied according to manufacturer's specifications. AIR -2: hi order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, exposed surfaces shall be watered three times a day. AIR -4: hi order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, speeds on unpaved roads will not exceed 15 miles per hour. The incorporation of these measures will reduce PM2.5 emissions and bring the project within the standards set by SCAQMD and the 2007 AQMP. This is because chemical stabilizers will reduce dust pick up from inactive graded areas, spraying exposed dirt with water will reduce fugitive dust emissions, and reducing the speed of trucks on unpaved areas will reduce dust kick -up. In total, these measures are expected to reduce PM2.5 emissions from 5.17 pounds per day to 1.55 pounds per day. (EIR, Table 5 -3, compared to Table 5 -5.) As the PM2.5 threshold is 4 pounds per day, PM2.5 would be reduced to a level of less than significant, with incorporation of the above mitigation measures. Similarly, emissions of PM10 would be reduced from 21.08 pounds per day, to 3.74 pounds per day. As the PM10 threshold is 6 pounds per day, PM10 would be reduced to a level of less than significant with incorporation of the above mitigation measures. (EIR, Table 5 -3, compared to Table 5 -5.) Given that the project proposal analyzed in the Draft FIR included development of 24 new single family residences, and the project as approved will include development of only 22 new single family residences, it stands to 75A22569 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings reason that with the reduced intensity of the project, impacts will still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) 2. Impact: Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (EIR, p. 5 -10 through 5 13.) Analysis: SCAQMD has established daily emissions thresholds for several criteria pollutants. While the proposed project will result in unmitigated daily construction emissions below all thresholds for regional significance (EIR, Table 5 -1), and for NOX and CO thresholds for local significance (EIR, Table 5 -3), the proposed project would exceed daily construction thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Short-term, unmitigated daily construction impacts will result in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that exceed the AQMP thresholds for particulate matter. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, particulate matter emissions will be reduced to less than significant: AIR -1: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during project construction, nontoxic soil stabilizers or comparable dust suppressant shall be applied to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for five consecutive days or more). Chemical soil stabilizers, if used, shall be applied according to manufacturer's specifications. AIR -2: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, exposed surfaces shall be watered three times a day. AIR -4: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, speeds on unpaved roads will not exceed 15 miles per hour. The incorporation of these measures will reduce PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. This is because chemical stabilizers will reduce dust pick up from inactive graded areas, spraying exposed dirt with water will reduce fugitive dust emissions, and reducing the speed of trucks on unpaved areas will reduce dust kick -up. In total, these measures are expected to reduce PM2.5 emissions from 5.17 pounds per day to 1.55 pounds per day. (EIR, Table 5 -3, compared to Table 5 -5.) As the PM2.5 threshold is 4 pounds per day, PM2.5 would be reduced to a level of less than significant, with incorporation of the above mitigation measures. Similarly, emissions of PM10 would be reduced from 21.08 pounds per day, to 3.74 pounds per day. As the PM10 threshold is 6 pounds per day, PM10 would be reduced to a level of less than significant with incorporation of the above mitigation measures. (EIR, Table 5 -3, compared to Table 5 -5.) Given that the project proposal analyzed in the Draft FIR included development of 24 new single family residences, and the project as approved will include development of only 22 new single family residences, it stands to reason that with the reduced intensity of the project, 75A23570 "Exhibit A' Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings impacts will still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) 3. Impact: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (FIR, p. 5 -10 through 5- 13.) Analysis: The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are residential communities located immediately adjacent to the project site to the north, south, and west. To calculate localized significance, a worst -case, maximum construction disturbance area of two acres per day was assumed. The closest residences were determined to be 25 meters away. At this distance, it was determined that sensitive receptors may be exposed to particulate matter in excess of SCAQMD's thresholds. (EIR, p. 10, 5 -11, Table 5 -3.) As a result, this impact was considered potentially significant. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to less than significant: AIR -1: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during project construction, nontoxic soil stabilizers or comparable dust suppressant shall be applied to all inactive constriction areas (previously graded areas inactive for five consecutive days or more). Chemical soil stabilizers, if used, shall be applied according to manufacturer's specifications. AIR -2: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, exposed surfaces shall be watered three times a day. AIR -3: In order to reduce localized impacts to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity during construction, equipment staging areas will be positioned at least 300 feet away from the sensitive receptors. AIR -4: In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, speeds on unpaved roads will not exceed 15 miles per hour. The incorporation of these measures will reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to particulate matter. AIR -1, AIR -2, and AIR -4 will all reduce the amount of particulate matter that enters into the air, while AIR -3 will ensure that areas with a higher propensity to emit particulate matter are positioned a substantial distance away from sensitive receptors. As a result, this impact is reduced to less than significant. (EIR, Table 5 -3, compared to Table 5 -5.) Given that the project proposal analyzed in the Draft FIR included development of 24 new single family residences, and the project as approved will include development of only 22 new single family residences, it stands to reason that with the reduced intensity of the project, impacts will still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 4.) C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7M_571 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Impact: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (EIR, p. 5 -18 through 5- 20.) Analysis: Nesting and migratory birds, raptors, and bats may find marginal habitat within the project site, and construction activities may impact them. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. However, with implementation of the following mitigation measures, this impact will be reduced to less than significant: BI0-1: In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant sections of the California Fish and Game Code (e.g., 3500 et seq.), any vegetation clearing should take place outside of the typical avian nesting season (i.e, February 15 — August 31), to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, prior to ground disturbing activities a qualified biologist should conduct a pre - construction nesting bird survey. If active nests are observed, a minimum buffer zone from occupied nests is recommended to the maximum extent practicable. Once nesting has ended, the buffer may be removed. BI0-2: Limits of grading and construction activities within the biological study area should be clearly delineated with temporary staking, flagging, or similar materials. BI0-3: The project footprint should be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and access to it should be via pre - existing/maintained access routes to the greatest extent possible. BI0-4: To avoid attracting predators and nuisance species, the project footprint shall be clear of debris, where possible. All food related trash items should be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the project footprint. The incorporation of these mitigation measures will ensure that any existing nests of migratory birds are found and protected prior to commencement of construction. Delineation of grading and construction activity areas will further ensure that undiscovered nests are not disturbed. (EIR, pp. 5 -19, 5 -20.) Further, some orange trees located on the site will be preserved in place, and any trees removed as a result of them being dead or dying will be replaced to fill in the orchard area on Lot 1. This will reduce the amount of ground disturbed by project construction, and further reduce impacts to habitat and species to less than significant and maintain nesting opportunities. Given that the original project proposal analyzed in the Draft FIR included development of 24 new single family residences, and the project as approved will include development of only 22 new single family residences, it stands to reason that with the reduced intensity of the project, impacts will still be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 4.) D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 75A25572 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings 1. Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (January 2014 E1R Attachment, p. 6; EIR pp. 5 -41.) Analysis: There is no evidence of landscape related archaeological sites such as road traces, ruins, or complex irrigation systems located within the portions of the site that will be developed with new residences. (FIR, p. 5 -38.) A field survey conducted for the proposed project found no archaeological resources within the project site. The field survey found little evidence of past activities except for one remaining standpipe and gate valve, which are typical of orange groves, and one concrete pad located south of the garage. Past plowing of the site limited the visibility of the original ground surface, and no early trash deposits were noted by the field survey. (FIR, p. 5 -41.) However the project includes ground disturbing activities and therefore there is a potential for impacts to unknown archaeological resources. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a level of less than significant: CULT -1: An Orange County certified Archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade and at the tree removal meetings to discuss the monitoring, collecting and safety procedures for the project. The archaeologist should review the construction plans and schedule. CULT -2: An Orange County certified Archaeologist shall be retained to monitor grading activities, to observe and retrieve any buried prehistoric and historic artifacts or features that may be uncovered. CULT -4: If prehistoric or historic artifacts or deposits are uncovered, the Orange County certified Archaeologist shall temporarily halt construction activities for the immediate area until the archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. The archaeologist would immediately contact the field manager and project personnel. Implementation of a recovery program would follow, if the artifacts are determined potentially eligible for the California Register. CULT -5: Any recovered artifacts shall be properly collected with photographs, field notes, and locations plotted on a USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Artifacts will be identified and catalogued, and stabilized for curation. Any recovered artifacts shall be offered, on a first right-of-refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. CULT -6: A final monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data, shall be sent to the Lead Agency as well as copies of the reports to the South Central Coastal Information Center at the California State University at Fullerton. Implementation of the above measures will ensure that any unknown and unexpected archaeological resources discovered during construction activities are properly retrieved, 75Az '573 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings preserved, and recorded. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -41, 5 -42.) 2. Impact: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6; EIR pp. 5 -42, 5 -43.) Analysis: A paleontological records review was conducted at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and indicated that no fossil localities have been previously recorded for the site. (EIR, p. 4 -14.) Therefore, there is no expected disturbance of paleontological resources. However the project includes ground disturbing activities and therefore there is a potential for impacts to unknown paleontological resources. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a level of less than significant: CULT -4: If prehistoric or historic artifacts or deposits are uncovered, the Orange County certified Archaeologist shall temporarily halt construction activities for the immediate area until the archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. The archaeologist would immediately contact the field manager and project personnel. Implementation of a recovery program would follow, if the artifacts are determined potentially eligible for the California Register. PALEO -1: During grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to conduct part time monitoring to observe and retrieve any significant specimen that may be uncovered in the older Quaternary sediments. PALED -2: If vertebrate fossils or buried deposits are uncovered, the paleontological monitor shall temporarily halt construction activities for the immediate area until the monitor can evaluate the significance of the find. The monitor would immediately contact the field manager and project personnel.. Implementation of a recovery program would follow, if the fossils are determined significant. PALEO -3: Any recovered fossils shall be properly collected with photographs, field notes, and locations plotted on a USGS topographic quadrangle map. Fossils will be identified and catalogued, and stabilized for curation. Any recovered fossils shall be offered, in a first right of refusal basis to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials. PALEO -4: A final monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data, shall be sent to the Lead Agency as well as copies of the report to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and to the Orange County Curation Facility in Santa Ana. Implementation of the above measures will ensure that any unknown and unexpected paleontological resources discovered during construction activities are properly retrieved, 75A27574 "Exhibit A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings preserved, and recorded. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -41, 5 -42, 5 -43.) 3. Impact: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6; FIR pp. 5 -41.) Analysis: There are no known formal cemeteries on the project site and no human remains were discovered during field surveys. However, the project may involve ground disturbing activities such as grading for construction and excavation. As such, the project has the potential to disturb or destroy undocumented, undiscovered remains. With the following mitigation measure, this impact is considered less than significant: CULT -3: If human remains are found during the excavation, the Native American Graves Protection Act Guidelines and State law require that constriction personnel halt the work in the immediate area, leave the remains in place, and contact the manager, project personnel, and the Orange County Coroner. If the Coroner determined the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendent from the Native American community will be informed. As a result of CULT -3, unknown and undocumented human remains will be protected and preserved, and this impact will be mitigated to less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -41 through 5 -43.) E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; (ii) strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) landslides? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, p. 5 -44, 5-45.) Analysis: As with all areas in Southern California, the project site is subject to seismically inducted ground movements, and nearby fault zones include the San Andreas, Elsinore, and San Jacinto Fault zones. However, the project site does not include active or potentially active faults. Due to the fact that groundwater depth is not shallow, impacts posed by liquefaction and landslides are negligible. However, because there may be seismic ground shaking at the project site, the following mitigation measure will reduce the potential for impact to less than significant: GEO -1: The project shall comply with all applicable standard engineering practices, grading ordinances of the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and applicable federal state, and regional regulations, including the California Building Code. 28575 °Ex "' ".t 75A Sex linger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Incorporation of GEO -1 will ensure that proposed structures and the rehabilitation of the existing structure, will be done to reduce impacts posed by earthquakes to less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -45; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) 2. Impact: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, p. 5 -44, 5 -45.) Analysis: Clearing and grading for construction may expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. Implementation of erosion control measures as required by the City and adherence to all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities would ensure that any such impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -45; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 6.) As such, the following mitigation measure would apply: GEO -1: The project shall comply with all applicable standard engineering practices, grading ordinances of the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange and applicable federal state, and regional regulations, including the California Building Code. Incorporation of GEO -1 will ensure that all required measures to reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil during the construction phases are adhered to and impacts are reduced to less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -45; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 6.) F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Impact: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: Construction activities, including grading, may expose surface or subsurface hazardous materials. In addition, the rehabilitation of the existing structures on the project site may result in the handling of lead based paint and asbestos containing materials. This, this is a potentially significant impact. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, this impact is reduced a level of less than significant: HAZ-1: An asbestos and lead containing materials survey will be performed by a qualified environmental professional before any demolition permit is issued. The survey will adhere to federal, state, and local regulations and will be sent to the City for approval. If the survey finds asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the structures, then those materials containing ACMs will be removed and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. HAZ-2: If lead -based paint is discovered during on -site investigation, all building materials containing lead based paint will be removed, transported, and disposed of at 75A?V6 "Exhibit N' Sextinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. Demolition and removal shall be performed in conformance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to lead -based paint. HAZ-3: As the property was in agricultural (orange grove) use in the past, residual concentrations of insecticides, pesticides, or herbicides in near surface soil may be present. Shallow soil sampling and analysis will be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit. Incorporation of the above mitigation measures will ensure than any hazardous materials present on the project site, either as part of the existing structures, or as part of the orange orchard, are removed, handled, and disposed of consistent with best practices and applicable regulations. As such, the impact is reduced to a level of less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) 2. Impact: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 FIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: A Traffic Management Plan would be implemented as part of the project to ensure construction does not interfere with any emergency response or emergency evaluation plans. (EIR, pp. 5 -51, 5 -52; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) The following mitigation measure will ensure that impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant: TRF -1: Prior to grading permit issuance, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Santa Ana. Such plan shall consist of prior notices, adequate sign posting, and detours. The TMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City Police and Fire Departments so that construction does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. (EIR, p. 5 -98.) Implementation of TRF -1 will ensure review, approval, and implementation of a TMP that will take into account emergency access and evacuation plans. As such, impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Impact: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) Analysis: The project would result in site runoff contributing to typical roadway pollutants to existing drainage facilities. These pollutants include oil, grease, and other petroleum derivatives. The State Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements in the project area, and consistency with permit requirements will obligate the project to implement 75A30577 "Exhibit A„ Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project H. NOISE CEQA Findings structural and non - structural BMPs. Thus with the incorporation of the following water quality mitigation measures, the impacts of the project related to water quality will be reduced to less than significant: WQ -1: As part of the design of the proposed project, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared and implemented. The WQMP will include structural and non - structural BMPs, which will avoid or minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the water quality impact associated with the project site. WQ -2: The proposed project will require a NPDES permit and will require the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating BMPs to reduce stormwater impacts during construction. Implementation of the above measures will ensure that BMPs limit urban pollutants to the greatest extent practicable, while a SWPP will assist in reducing short-term construction impacts. As a result, this impact is reduced to less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -53, 5 -54; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 7.) Impact: Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards established by other agencies? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8) Analysis: Construction noise levels will likely be heard at the nearest noise sensitive land uses. However, the City of Santa Ana has construction regulations in place that prohibit construction noise during certain hours. Incorporation of the following mitigation measure will ensure consistency with City requirements and mitigate this impact to less than significant: N0I -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the contractor shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Santa Ana that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, including Saturdays, and prohibited any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Incorporation of NOI -1 will ensure that construction noise complies with applicable local noise regulations. This impact is less than significant. (FIR, pp. 5 -58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8) 2. Impact: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 FIR Attachment, p. 8) 75A3157° "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Analysis: Construction noise levels will likely be heard at the nearest noise sensitive land uses. However, construction will be temporary in nature and with the following mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant: N0I -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the contractor shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Santa Ana that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, including Saturdays, and prohibited any time on Sundays or federal holidays. N0I -2: During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise - sensitive receptors. N0I -3: Construction contractor shall incorporate muffling features into all construction vehicles and equipment and maintain all vehicles and equipment in efficient operating condition according to the manufacturer's specifications. Incorporation of these mitigation measures will ensure that construction noise complies with Santa Ana noise regulations, and that temporary ambient construction noise is reduced. With these mitigation measures, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5- 58, 5 -59, 5 -60; January 2014 EIR Attachment, p. 8) I. TRAFFIC 1. Impact: Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (FIR, pp. 5 -72 through 5 -98; January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9) Analysis: The City of Santa General Plan establishes Level of Service ( "LOS ") D as the threshold for acceptable service level outside of major development areas. Future traffic conditions were forecast based on discussions with City staff and OCTAM 3.2 traffic modeling. (EIR, p. 5 -73.) Traffic modeling indicated that for the six intersections and 10 roadway segments within the project site's study area, all would operate at acceptable level of service in the year 2013, both with and without the project. (EIR, p. 5 -83 [Table 5 -22].) However, potential impact to one intersection in the 2035 future condition was identified. (EIR, p. 5 -88; Table 5 -24; p. 5 -95, Table 5 -29.) The intersection of Santa Clara Avenue /Wright Street is expected to be impacted in the PM peak hour, as a result of the project. (EIR, p. 5 -95.) However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, this impact will be reduced to less than significant: TRF -2: Implementation of a traffic signal is recommended at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street. The project will be subject to fair -share improvements, and the project applicant will be required to finance the improvements required on a pro - rata fair -share basis. 75A3z57e "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Requiring the project applicant to pay its fair share of this improvement will ensure that funds are available for that portion of the improvement attributable to the project. As a result, this impact is reduced to less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -95, 5 -98; January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9.) 2. Impact: Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (EIR, pp. 5 -72 through 5 -98; January 2014 FIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9) Analysis: The City of Santa General Plan establishes Level of Service ( "LOS ") D as the threshold for acceptable service level outside of major development areas. These criteria are either more stringent than or meet Congestion Management Plan criteria which designates LOS E as the minimum acceptable level of service. (EIR, p. 5 -72.) Future traffic conditions were forecast based on discussions with City staff and OCTAM 3.2 traffic modeling. (EIR, p. 5 -73.) Traffic modeling indicated that for the six intersections and 10 roadway segments within the project site's study area, all would operate at acceptable level of service in the year 2013, both with and without the project. (EIR, p. 5 -83 [Table 5 -22].) However, potential impact to one intersection in the 2035 future condition was identified. (EIR, p. 5 -88; Table 5 -24; p. 5 -95, Table 5 -29.) The intersection of Santa Clara Avenue/Wright Street is expected to be impacted in the PM peak hour, as a result of the project. (EIR, p. 5 -95.) However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, this impact will be reduced to less than significant: TRF -2: Implementation of a traffic signal is recommended at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street. The project will be subject to fair -share improvements, and the project applicant will be required to finance the improvements required on a pro - rata fair -share basis. Requiring the project applicant to pay its fair share of this improvement will ensure that funds are available for that portion of the improvement attributable to the project. As a result, this impact is reduced to less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -95, 5 -98; January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9.) Impact: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less Than Significant, With Mitigation. (FIR, pp. 5 -72, 73, 98; January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 8 -9) Analysis: A Traffic Management Plan would be implemented as part of the project to ensure construction does not interfere with any emergency response or emergency evaluation plans. The following mitigation measure will ensure that impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant: (EIR, pp. 5 -72, 73; January 2014 EIR Attachment, 7.) 75A33580 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings TRF -1: Prior to grading permit issuance, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Santa Ana. Such plan shall consist of prior notices, adequate sign posting, and detours. The TMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City Police and Fire Departments so that construction does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. (EIR, p. 5 -98.) Implementation of TRF -1 will ensure review, approval, and implementation of a TMP that will take into account emergency access and evacuation plans. As such, impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. 7.0 Findings Regarding Growth Inducement Pursuant to sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss the ways a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. This project involves the development of 22 new single family residences and the preservation in place of one additional single family residence. The Project site is located in an area surrounded by developed land, and is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The project's new residences are anticipated to generate less than 106 persons, based on Santa Ana's average household size of between 4 and 5 persons. (EIR, p. 6 -4.) This growth represents less than a 0.1 percent increase of the City's population in 2012 and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant — the project would not foster growth inducing impacts. (EIR, pp. 6 -1 through 6 -4.) In addition, these units are within the population forecasts and housing target assigned to the City by the South Coast Association of Governments. (EIR, p. 5 -61.) 8.0 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a project shall be discussed when they are "cumulatively considerable," as defined in section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable "means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15065(a)(3).) The EIR assessed cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental resource area, within the section of the EIR dedicated to that environmental issue. No cumulatively considerable impacts were identified. A. CUMULATIVE AESTHETICS IMPACTS Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the vicinity of the project site would contribute to aesthetics impacts, however the City of Santa Ana is already largely developed. Because the project would be comparable to surrounding, existing, developed areas in terms of scale, character and use, cumulative aesthetics impacts of the project are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -5.) B. CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The Southern California Association of Governments is responsible for preparing housing construction needs goals for each city. The proposed project is consistent with and helps the City obtain its assigned housing goals. Because regional air quality plans consider these housing goals, it can be assumed that emissions from this project were considered in concert with other cumulative projects. In addition, the 75A3458 � "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings relatively small size and scope of the project (22 new single family residences and one preserved in place residence) further support the conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -12.) C. CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The City of Santa Ana is built -up, developed, and urban and therefore cumulative development in the vicinity of the project, like the project, has little potential to result in significant biological impacts. In addition, planned projects in the vicinity are mitigated on a project -by- project basis and in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations relating to sensitive species and wildlife. Therefore, cumulative biological impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -19.) D. CUMULATIVE CULTURAL IMPACTS The project as now proposed retains the historic structures located on the project site, as well as a number of existing orange grove trees. As a result, the property would retain many of its major cultural and historic elements. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 4 -7.) Impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would be minimized due to each projects' requirement to meet local, state, and federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, and handling of resources. (EIR, p. 5 -41.) As a result, cumulative impacts to cultural resources are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -41.) E. CUMULATIVE GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACTS The project will meet all building code requirements, as will other cumulative projects in the area. This will reduce the potential for cumulative impacts due to seismic events. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to geology and soils are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -45.) F. CUMULATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS Greenhouse gas impacts and their attendant climate change effects are inherently cumulative in nature. Greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed project are below SCAQMD's threshold, even when the lost carbon sequestration of the existing orange trees is taken into account. (January 2014 EIR Attachment, pp. 9 -10, Table 1.) G. CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS The project will meet all local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, as will all cumulative projects in the vicinity. No cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur regarding hazards and hazardous materials. (EIR, p. 5 -52.) H. CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS No long -term operational hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated as part of this project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur as well. Therefore, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (EIR, p. 54.) I. CUMULATIVE LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS 75A35582 "Exhibit A" Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings The project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, will not increase urbanization as the City is already built -out, developed, and urban in nature. Land use compatibility impacts are a function of the relationship between a project and the immediate environment. Here, the parcels adjacent to the project are existing residential uses and will be similar in character, scope and use as those developed on the project site. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -56.) J. CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS Short-term construction noise will be localized and temporary. Noise at the project site as well as at cumulative project sites in the vicinity must adhere to the City's construction noise ordinance which prohibits construction noise in the evenings on weekdays and all day on Sundays and federal holidays. Therefore construction- related impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -59.) Long -term noise impacts of the project will be generated by traffic along existing streets. Such ambient noise will not exceed the City's noise level standard of 65 dBA CNEL or the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -60.) K. CUMULATIVE POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS Implementation of the project and other planned projects in the area would result in the increase of population within the City. However, it can be reasonably assumed that population growth has been taken into account in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element. Further, the project would support the City's share of the regional housing need. Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5 -61, 62.) L. CUMULATIVE PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS The project, in conjunction with other planned projects, would result in the increase of population within the City and an attendant increase in demand on public services. However, each project would be required to comply with regulations including development impact fees and fair share contribution fees to mitigate cumulative impacts. As such, impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -63.) M. CUMULATIVE RECREATION IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for recreation services and facilities, specifically at Portola Park. However, each project would be required to comply with regulations including development impact fees and fair share fees, on a project -by- project basis. As a result, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -64.) N. CUMULATIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS The proposed project will contribute to a cumulative (future scenario) traffic impact at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Wright Street. However, mitigation measure TRF -2 will ensure that the project provides funding for its share of mitigating this cumulative impact with a traffic signal. Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -98.) O. CUMULATIVE UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS IMPACTS 75A315Q 3 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings The proposed project's demand for wastewater treatment, water service, and solid waste disposal are all within the capacity of the entities providing these services. As a result, cumulative impacts are less than significant. (EIR, p. 5 -100.) 9.0 Findings Regarding Alternatives A. BACKGROUND An EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA and section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines must describe and comparatively evaluate a range of project alternatives. Analysis of every possible alternative or options or combination of options would overburden the EIR with an unnecessary amount of detail that would be redundant and would, as a result, fail to provide meaningful information for the City to consider in its review of the project. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 -403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) Here, the project, as now proposed and as adopted by the City, has no significant impacts, as all potential significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures. Regardless, the following findings provide evidence supporting the rejection of other project alternatives, and the project as it was originally proposed by the project applicant. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Each alternative considered by the City was compared against the project's objectives. The objectives of the proposed project are: i Provide for the current and future "move -up" housing needs for the City of Santa Ana. • Provide land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning designation of LR -7 and R -1, respectively. • Provide land uses that are similar to surrounding uses in character and visually cohesive with the area. 75A37 "Exhibit 584 A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings • Prevent further dilapidation of the site, discourage vandalism, break -ins, and unauthorized use of the site. C. REJECTION OF ALTERNATIVES In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, a number of possible alternatives were considered and rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either they could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project, would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, or were considered infeasible. The specific findings relating to the rejection of the considered alternatives are provided below. 1. No Build (No Project) Alternative Description: With no development, the site would continue to have impacts currently experienced on the site including vector infestation, vandalism, and safety issues including break -ins and fires from unauthorized uses. However, the project site would continue to have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (LR -7) and zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R -1). The site would potentially be developed in accordance with the City's current land use and zoning on the property at some point in the future. (EIR, p. 7 -1.) Impacts: The No Build (No Project) Alternative would not result in any of the less than significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project. Maintaining the project in its existing condition would avoid the less than significant aesthetics impacts, short-term construction air - quality and noise impacts, long -term future traffic impacts, and any impacts to presently unknown archaeological and paleontological artifacts onsite of the project as currently proposed. (EIR, p. 7 -1.) Objectives: The No Build (No Project) Alternative would fail to meet any of the four project objectives. It would fail to meet any existing or future housing need in the City. It would fail to provide new land uses that are consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations of low density residential. It would not provide land uses similar to surrounding uses, and the site may continue to experience vector infestation, vandalism, break -ins, and fires from unauthorized users. (EIR, p. 7 -1.) Finding: The City Council hereby rejects the No Build (No Project) Alternative on the basis it fails to meet any of the four Project objectives. (EIR, p. 7 -1.) 2. Original Project (Prior to Additional Analysis) Description: The original proposed project consisted of the development and construction of 24 new single - family residences on approximately five acres and demolition of the historic farmhouse and orchard. The original project would also have widened and improved the southern portion of East Santa Clara Avenue within the project frontage and provide a connection from Lyon Street south of the project site, north to East Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant has since changed the project from this proposed 24 -unit residential project to the currently proposed 23- unit (including one preserved in place unit) "Historic Preservation Alternative" prior to the final Planning Commission and City Council meetings. 75A38585 "Exhibit A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Impacts: The project as originally proposed resulted in the significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural and historic resources. The project proposed to demolish the existing residential structures on the project site, and all of the existing orange grove trees. After all feasible mitigation measures were implemented, these impacts would have remained significant and unavoidable. Separate from the cultural resources impacts, the original project would have had similar, or slightly greater, impacts associated with all other resource areas. This is because the project originally proposed the construction of 24 new single family residences. The current project proposes construction of only 22 new single family residences. As a result, the project as originally proposed would have had slightly greater traffic impacts, slightly more impervious surface area and therefore slightly greater hydrology and water quality impacts, and slightly greater short-term construction noise and air quality impacts. In addition, as all of the orange grove trees would have been removed, the project as originally proposed would have had slightly higher greenhouse gas emissions impacts, as there would be a greater reduction in carbon sequestration. The project as originally proposed would have also had slightly greater aesthetic impacts, as it would have removed the existing structures and all of the orange grove trees. In contrast, the project as currently proposed will keep more of the original features of the site in place. Objectives: The project as originally proposed met all of the four project objectives, as it would have provided new "move -up" housing, provided new land uses consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code designations, provided uses that were compatible with surrounding uses, and would have reduced further dilapidation of the project site. Finding: The City Council hereby rejects the Original Project on the basis that (1) it has significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts, even with all feasible mitigation measures incorporated, while the project as currently proposed has none; and (2) it would have slightly increased the magnitude of the project's less than significant impacts. 3. Alternate Location of Project Description: New housing projects on other location(s) within the City, including: Alternative Site Location 1 (17th Street and Tustin Avenue); Location 2 (Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive); Location 3 (First Street and Cabrillo Park Drive); and Location 4 (City Place at Memory Land and Lawson Way). (EIR, p. 7 -2.) Impacts: Unknown. Objectives: None of the alternative locations would meet three of the four project objectives. Location I is within the County of Orange and therefore would not provide move -up housing within the City of Santa Ana. None of the four alternative locations are zoned for LR -7 and R -1. While each parcel may be developed with uses that are compatible with surrounding uses, alternative locations would not meet the objective of preventing further dilapidation of the project site. (EIR, p. 7 -3) 75A3�Q6 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Findings: The City Council hereby rejects the Alternate Location alternative on the basis that (1) none of the locations are feasible for a single family residential development of more than one unit; and (2) this Alternative fails to meet three of the four project objectives. 4. Park Expansion Alternative Description: This alternative would remove all existing uses on the site and replace them with public uses consistent with the expansion of Portola Park. This alternative would require the rezoning of the project site to Open Space (0) designation. (EIR, p. 7 -3.) Impacts: This alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, associated with the demolition and removal of the existing residential structures. However, this alternative would reduce long term operational impacts related to traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and hydrology and water quality impacts associated with impervious surfaces, (EIR, pp. 7 -3 through 7 -6.) Remaining impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project. Obiectives: This alternative would not provide for the current and future "move -up" housing needs in the City, or provide land uses that are consistent with the LR -7 and R -1 land use designations. However, this alternative would meet the project objectives related to providing land uses that are visually cohesive and that would prevent further dilapidation of the project site. Finding: The City Council hereby rejects this alternative on grounds that: (1) it would result in significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts; and (2) it would meet only two of the project's four objectives. 5. Urban Garden Alternative Description: This alternative would develop the project site with an urban garden, museum, and education facility with an orange grove on five acres of the project site. Impacts: This alternative has the potential to result in increased impacts related to land use and planning, as a museum and education facility use would be inconsistent with the project site's current residential zoning designation. (EIR, p. 7 -8.) This alternative may also result in the potential for increased operational noise impacts, related to visitors using the project's facilities, which would be located next to residential uses. Similarly, traffic and parking impacts may be increased, due to the need to provide visitor parking at the site, and visitor traffic. (EIR, pp. 7 -8, 9.) Depending on the scope of renovations made to the historic structures on the project site, there could be increased impacts to cultural resources. (EIR, p. 7 -7.) Objectives: This alternative would not meet the objectives of the project to provide move -up housing in the City, or land uses that are consistent with the existing residential zoning. In addition, a museum and educational facility is not compatible with adjacent residential uses. However, the alternative would be the fourth project objective, of preventing further dilapidation of the project site. (EIR, p. 7 -9, 7 -10.) 75A40587 "Exhibit A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Finding: The City Council hereby rejects this alternative on grounds that (1) it meets only one of the project's four objectives, and (2) it may result in increased impacts relating to noise, land use compatibility, and traffic and parking. 6. Alternative Project Design /Cul De Sac Alternative Description: This alternative proposes development of approximately 23 single family residences and eliminates the through - connection of the project with the south leg of Lyon Street. Impacts: This alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, due to the demolition of the residential structures on the property. This alternative may also result in increased impacts relating to transportation and traffic. With implementation of a cul de sac, access will be limited for emergency vehicles including police and fire services through the prej ect site. Further, the alternative would not satisfy the City's turning radius for cul de sac roads, which may result in impacts related to a hazardous design feature. (EIR, p. 7 -12.) This alternative may also result in land use and planning impacts, given that currently, Lyon Street is a dead end road with a stub -out for a planning future connection. Lyon Street was planned to be a connection by the City of Santa Ana. Objectives: This project would meet each of the four project objectives, given that it would provide "move -up" housing within the City, develop the project site with residential uses consistent with the zoning and land use designations, would develop the site with uses compatible with the surrounding area, and would prevent further dilapidation of the project site. Finding: The City Council hereby rejects this alternative on grounds that (1) it results in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, and (2) increases impacts relating to traffic and land use planning. 7. Lower Density Alternative Description: This alternative would develop the project site with fewer than 24 single - family residences, and result in larger lot subdivisions and larger estate type houses. Impacts: This alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources due to the demolition of the existing historic structures. However, this alternative may reduce other less than significant impacts, due to the fact that fewer units will be constructed. However, the project as currently proposed includes only 22 new single - family residences. To reduce the less than significant impacts of the project as currently proposed, this alternative would need to develop fewer than 22 new residences. Objectives: This alternative would meet project objectives for providing "move -up" housing within the City, and for developing the site with residential uses consistent with the current land uses designation. This alternative would also meet the project objective of preventing further dilapidation onsite. However, this alternative would only partially meet the objective of developing the site with uses that are compatible with the surrounding uses. This alternative would not be compatible with existing surrounding uses of non- estate type housing. (EIR, pp. 7- 13 through 7 -15.) 75A41588 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on grounds that it would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. 8. Hybrid Development Alternative Description: This alternative involves the relocation of the existing residential structure and outbuilding to the northeast corner of the property. The existing orange trees, approximately 20 to 30 trees, in the northeast portion of the property would be kept as an orchard area. Twenty -one single family residences would be developed on the remaining areas of the property. As the site is a locally listed historical site, modifications, changes to the orientation, improvements or structural changes to the existing residential structure, and outbuilding would potentially result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the historic resource. Imp This alternative would have greater impacts to cultural resources than the project as currently proposed due to the fact that it would move the historic structures from their existing location, and place them elsewhere on the project site. Objectives: This alternative would meet all of the four project objectives. Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative because it would result is slightly increased impacts to cultural resources. 10.0 Environmentally Superior Alternative The project as currently proposed is the environmentally superior alternative. It would not result in significant impacts after mitigation, would meet each of the project's four objectives, and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Based on the reasons above, the project as currently proposed (referred to as the Historic Preservation Alternative in the administrative record for this action) is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 11.0 Record of Proceedings Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings on which the City of Santa Ana bases it Findings and decision contained herein. All documents related to this project are located at the City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Department, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, 92702. 12.0 Summary 1. Based on the foregoing Findings and information contained in the record, the City of Santa Ana has made the following findings pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Statutes with respect to the significant adverse impact of the proposed project, as identified in the FE1R: • Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. 2. Based on the Findings stated herein and information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that: 75AAt89 "Exhibit A" Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project CEQA Findings • All significant adverse impacts on the environment due to the approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to an impact that is less than significant. 13.0 Approvals The City of Santa Ana hereby takes the following actions: 1. The City has certified the Final EIR for the project, as described in Section 1.0 above. 2. The City hereby adopts, incorporates into the project and makes a condition of the project approval, all mitigation measures in the Final EIR, and as discussed in the Findings section (Section 2.0). 3. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, accompanying the Final EIR and discussed in the Findings section. 4. The City hereby adopts the Findings in their entirety, as set forth above. 5. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated mitigations into the project as conditions of project approval, and adopted the Findings, the City hereby approves the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project, as described in the Final EIR. A4�59U "Exhibit A" 75 Mitigation and Monitoring Program ,: -.:.. •. +,yam• " EXHIBIT B " Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 January 2013 75A -592 'a i-� v E 0 W J l2 Y u L t U O bA N } Y C. m � E a C A Y m � c CW L G Y C C O O c C W o b 'Y a � U � � o O y C3 v pL a E O � ,c W O O v � C .5 a H cr 75A -593 m W C co 0 U O 0 i L CL Q Y O a 0 0 W m co m �, a '> m W « p u F C b0 O C W > CL W O C CL O V CO Q ¢ = O a Q 0 z 0 o c c O W 'i R E v u m C Er Z 'Gp Y > 3 W m ~ dl u CL C C m m m w = u m W > W > W > c a o 0 0 N Q Q Q Q C a C Q C a o a o a o o = 3 L 0 4-i c o +W+ w W 0 W 'O 'p b.0 W L O "O O 0 W W > OL W vi O 2i W O sW+ m m d p. T N '� > 3 -0 Y c ° o (U ,j �' = a a°° -0 a ai W m vW- O W cu O Q 4 O C p � C_ W CNC N i s W m "O CL -6 L Y m 'F' m 4- O O U Y> W+> U m '6 _ U C L O of W by W = 2 j O 0 "6 C w@ O m .� 0 W -O °' O o '3 c C L c u v c v N u •0 t by 'm O in W W m > 'O aW+ m m W 'C fyp O u 'C C O T O C =0 O> �n U O ,� ++ Y u 0 C u d bA O V C_ Y 'O .4: 0 U E N -p U W m 7 W °0 u a s ..N a= E 3 C W N L m ,� c c C. m n4 o u o C m °— c O m u N= Y C Y@ v m a m E N �n � – W o U =� O- O 3 v, o Y m� L L Q u m T— C m u .mc 0 = o a a v a T3 •o c M bD 'C -00 �, .o u O 0 6.� m in `� "O .� > O µ0" G (U -0 C. aN+ _ m c C L W _� W N •o U" _ YO '., .3 W C m 7 v N "O E W N E 3 t' L m bA M 0- O_ O °O W_ U m p� U W d W m H m 3 mu—iii m W W O u m= W ', p u Y Q 0 L C m C c, >T W b9 m C , L L = C v, V 0 0 L O ¢ L C O 0 L C �n "O O ,L m= *' m ¢ W �n 0~ W a .� o m .o a 3 u v ++ N O1 U m N ++ n v o O O m M C U p C O O 'CO C 'O "O N p. �O L C ,.+ m O N W C_ "O d C= to N H m 'C W C m C 0 a W N 'D W O m (D i� a> C m= O 'O W a W L O. l7 W V7 m U 2 L 21 m in U 2 6-2 U L 2 O Q N .'_^ 75A -593 m W C co 0 U 'a c v Z O W J w a C3 u t v O o CL a a v � v O N 'r Ot C c a Ln � m � O L y 6 L ao Q w O d m G c o m 'N T d C c= H _0 fro i C N CL > v o C 0 am ¢ o c oa c o c o m •c m E w ` w zm m m Y W N N x O O L y 0 ¢ c o 0. ¢ c O m u_ CL nn mm , = m m m Z ° v v v u m > > > Q a o 0 0 n a o_ o a c o_ c a c a o a o a o L vm a i o c 0 a m o > m C m 0 m ++ i L 'O c c Y_ m c a N L LL �; Q m C -O O C m p? N 3 6 N Vl p a N VNI N E + L Q. m u m v m H Y °' •� C O N Vi c U m y E N N N L m N +' i 0 0_ m m w 0 .Z � O m U m U W W t H N QUl L ai fl_ a d `o U L +� O = m N on ._ °c . N LVi O o O ,vN c OU > o u c `l m v O 0 a u H E z o m° c i c u a c v Q m c a ci _ .T E Y E aT� m O C E" m U�J m m O. C C E w O u •+�+ N O_ y� C= N 0 L N L L L 'O U °_ _ m- •i L `o C o o v' .E a u n Y$ c v `o u m v v p c v v `m E " 3 o E a tin a c v v o c o .m on 0 m° m L a N c O X m Vi ` tC6 N N bA ? -6 E an E 0 °= c-0 c 0 u> 'E L v a L m C __ 3 3 0> w d a N O O +�+ Cn am+ O! sm. N N .}' j¢ U> tL0 v w * c 3 m v u c m m Q E v W-0 E^ a c O i L m° v m° Y r u nn c a= c v o n u o 0 0 3 m v c en a o u a o c a �° 3 ° m v c u v v v g o oc 0 m -0 0 0 0 v o v� p_ '� 3 a " E r Q o Q 3 N v •° o .Y o f @ u v -mo r v o s u v B U ° W~ a i CL > CL o >' c m p L o U s m co oo L M 3° u E = a c me v' °' .o a +� 0` v N- c a m c �' V v ,�, c v .° 3 m c L p —° °o x L v� '2 c 3 o c v o v> c v " +� + v° m r •` v '� > o m m o E u v v bD ° m u E a` - o ¢ ? s ~ cr a > o o > 3 ! H E v '�'' N 'O a = o i a cvn ° ° Q co ._ N u +. v N m d N H m 0 m N N c d o F N v. cl 9 E v y U= i p m '0 c o o n a o > v v v a D c u �o E on3 3 ° z �L 0urc° a�� m ago mF�LHL �v ov° 75A -594 c m c co 0 U 0 c v E 0 W J N N O U p �o a � ar E o O O) � C -Up 0� CL Y °' o a w 0 m m 0 c c c o m m m m m al Y Q r i- m a -o -o -o N i C > > > > > fl. > 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a G C a c n a a O a O a O a O a CL C o w a 0 4 0o c o c o c zm c m txo Ic 7 Y w v 3 p M w F Q O m u CL ba m c t V m ar a CL v ar o a v c ai c C b v +� °c_° toys •c a> .` v Ln 0 3 n p u m o m .v .- o � 3 h 0 0 5 o c o a.� 6 u 0 w a) o a, y m -o u m n c c o- N m o c v ? m m U Y a) N L M C m O O E c in m O .= C^ +.., O u N> u p_ m m `.G �n c m _ Dn O O p u� C �^ Y '^ O v) 'v) X u vi _ m '++ by .0 m N u U O O= 'O W 'G v) m n m 0 .- °- cu _o L c H o E `o m w a 'Y E v u 'E Y CL u O n C m n y 'o N p-- c a) tu m m y = m m w w 0 y m s n m L y m m r I N E °= u 3 u o v 3 CL � L U > a, m o 3 W o w m- a m m u c m w? a v a X '� o E> v E o h9 ;° E -O o +� u m m m m n 3 m m m °° o f u '^ v ,� u u N T m ° u m p w a n d .c a o m v .0 x a v- A •'e u v t m mo v m v m° m'c cr fl° m m m o u 3 v m c 'p m N `) = a)) E a) ++ L= vui 'O m V1 m c m C U O m VI y a) O vu, v c -p -o -mp c= n u ami > 3 0 G C 'C O "00 0° a0+ E L m !t E U a-6) c t @ v 0 N vmi W O m '� -OW -0o E n Y �. o �n w y o y y bb c y o. S o o= o o a a- v m a .� o u c N u bc° o n o v. q �' o cm "O a-+ Y s.. O O m e O "O m y L m m y '� o a u v u 0 '^ $ bq -p o v .� o v y a`, v Y YL -mo c. C V 4 a) c u C p n c C c E 3 c N Oy C m .> - O 6 O •C N O O L c 0 0 V u Q •� p p s m Yvmi c O O n v O v p .Y o` c E p. _ u a c v °-° o c U p E m c u c v a c u ~ E m ti a) *' '6 ay+ N O Y Y c in U' a 0 -6 i w E N C C �n m u •Y w �""� m vi H N > M n n T Qj 75A -595 m m N h O U M r7 w n .m O w i) �! L �' O c a K u K c E E. C °� o O O v) N -o n Ou 6 3 Q D Q .- . m. u a vY u Q n o m m Q m Q m m uu 75A -595 m m N h O U I J Qj Ql L• W J i t O Oy a a v O � i O W O ou h � m o� �v ay a� w 0 Y C O N N d • >_ co f0 L iC > 0 ° a c u a m ¢ O a w Q o w bo c o c u m c a= z b, i YW 3 x w J3 u Q CL bo c m m m m m c m 0 v v CL a o 0 0 0 Q n Q c Q c Q c Q c Q c a o a O¢ o a o a o � v v s v - _ ro L .O N Y 01 {n 0 > Q o u 3 v w `�' L^ o• v m o m p v 3 o Y v °- v vvi pL r @ VI Y i/ Q' VI W L> _p Y L C U Y N v U O 7 .> N C 09 by L CO N bA N C N to f0 O 3 N O p Y O N i N J b4 4- L v L E t a, V Q O 4 w > O p 0 .O a �n O N X UJ C 0 L O .'^ O N O c6 N O u ro �.'' O N O U) t0 to C U L f6 �n (0 O •y= Ol L L n Q Y Q ^' (N� E C O _O E O L C N N Y U N 'C u Y O 7 b9 00 Ln YO O -O L L f0 Y T L U Y Y L O L H H N ti G N 2 v O E E U L td - H p N `� v p-0 0¢ Y N L a N L dv v (UO VI O L v L m y E -p N Y l 4- -O 4) UJ V1 -6 U) •4,i C C L u Q (p vl @ C X Ib w Y N 0 u u vi N O Y fb L Y Y U� J O Y j C U v� p Y tb •bb N Y f0 'O C O L LL Y L 6 E E p N L t 'O O "O u 0> 'C f0 T 0 7 ` m U LJ •i6 ++ u to v w rb C 3 N 0 u .O 'O O 0 O `i N� N "O O "O W L ?� L -Yp LL- v C E y Y b9 C tO �n Q-c 0 v T O u O W T C > •� p- O O .a0 > O E YO 'O bA 0 O_ u _� m v T E W .0 u in E M L C E .W 6 N 'O '^ to O 'in m'i vi L m O C 6 O b0 v O O �n C N� L Y f6 N -O C -O tb w O fL6 = H U O ro cu c m U L Q u 0 b9 O p• 'n "O C N tLV E b9 Y v- N ++ M b0 U) I C L 0 O� N p u .` Y O N U) E V1 bD m C u Y C f6 Q Y v w Q O P c C C .� T f6 a) U S O "O v r0, O -O E Y m 0 �7 E N +�-• v to O .p Oj a p_ p C _N U N Y m O C u ♦O-+ H Q '� �- fY0 @ L N C O E S@ t O> Q p V O N E E N E \ Ll ¢ lY6 H E YO a YO J U H O H '� Y Q j N N Q m C= -O U tb C C O C N N N vi N L C -O N N p Q M E a N u C ate+ +�+ C O O E O m ,�, 0 °J c E m >° E o p v v O O m LE E 'x x. 0 = L.. ¢ v° L o o ` > m bo u c c .b�) m Q m U u Q$ u U v 75A -596 Lo C Q G co O U L O a w Q Q Q {w C .j W J n O U U � i o a a v O � = w Q h A Q L cu CL Y CL 0 a G M r r ID 'y w 7 m c m -O @ L O w Q w a o m a a Q O Q w m c o c w 'c m E v u m c Z 'M 7 3 W ,u X O L m F 4 u CL m m. ° m m m m a a a a s 0 o a 0 0 D- n o. a a n c o. c o.. a 0 a 0 a O a C -6 w N E a o Y m O C O Vf O N L N° Y w L Y 4- i„ w Ia :r .- w YO w V L O Y ro 3 m c c v N m u o w u c c v V M N o > '^ w a c 'IO v f6 _ -Q c = v o w> 0 c °_ c @ Y C Y •m w u Y m a U w w C Y Ia O o E O V .O vI mo O w Y fa v w v C O O E o U v Ir > Y ++ c v= v ,L.. W L U to L w Q w w O. w co �, N N m O -_ > f0 f0 F "° a Q °- Y> E °" 3 Q V1 Y U w a a L L w ++ U L °. L Y .�.: U> to .° w to Z CO H m ° `o '-0O fly`- � Oa V CO � = >_, C ¢` o o �. E •°C-H° - a) -Fu L° L w Cc_ E w w _6 Y w C U w W Y Y w w E 4m- w° c w 9 U IA U0 CL N O °- E c w Y :� '.'_' J E L y O C O a o +L+ <?- 3 aa) o v 3 >> -° c w "' t o `o ` -wo o m ai —ncn °—' -O v v m v L a c •� uo ca o 0 3 v v v ;Y o_ v a` Y w c o w o V c U 3 o m w e m In > •Y {"i w u Q u L ° Y c w m L C I6 j > m •w Y E 0 Y= Y Y vi O. O bA ' i0 O a •N O L w Ia h�7. vI 5 > a C o w° O- u 3 c E L O u m m Y u w ` c° m- a u.y 0@ Y L E Y +L+ fa s. U d w to O O w L O O w a 0 >� M a a° o> Y w +- fa m 0 0 m C E i) a ° c' as L CE v c o c .- w a a 3 °` '+� w s w .` °� E w o U Y m m O 'N O o L L a C> n. c� O w d H w .. m Io w`m O _ w r w m o U vi -c to m to -6 w `° a w E N C E _ w w E o m a° l N O L L f E w E C L E E w L L w m d- w- U O 0 u v Y m `o c o w w E s o u° �° o FL v Q o° o Q c o c u —?@ E u o w v a; c c °^ o 0 4 m w c m m ro U y v� z— m d' O c E w E Q n ro u= Y n '^ a m 4 u m Z J > O °' J to 'I- J L O J E Q O t y O w L 7 i t a O 0, D= (� N .O s• i v Z o c Q C O C w w C a Y w L w V Y In V U Q= Y V Y (a Y V- L a U (a (a L w U m C]. a V1 CZ 75A -597 P G m Q w U 0 c v E c 0 W J p U O o CL O N O � r ar E o 0 Ot N a 75A -598 c m O U ov CL L a 0 0 m m m 0 c c m 'h a m m u - F- 00 __ v N L C .� W >— 0 Q CL CL U m a a c O 0 a C O G Qa c o c u 145 y c M Z no 3 x 0 m ar m m u ffi Q ro c m m v co v co v v '0 Q a o o 0 h a a `o_ n c 0_ c 0_ c a c n O Q O Q O a O ¢ ai v (Li v > �' v u c C vOi 'L" N m C vi e N N O C O .j N `M v O N 0 O c C m o N v U N L o C "6 N to E C E a c a o a 0� E Q1 u f+ a) m` v "C 0 E o ° O v '= OJ i 0— t0 m U T .'�N_' Y N E C C C R tlq c Y CL n5 O N O C !n C `� C v O Q N U N N O to a) N 'p '� v= 0-.— O 'in O v T E c ;w+ d -O ti c 4 0 "0 L E L cu `Y a) M a1 C N •++ w- N O) u OJ o U C O) N -O - ++ 0 U LL m 0 0 �' a) OJ � 7 C f6 E I C C E U a+ 0 E _O O 3 f' eL+ A ++ - N� O1 �+ U U C L N t- ' O O '- c u C N fa Q U LbA U C f6 w m u C f6 p@ O_ U i Evi E CD ° c L Y 4- O -0 " C E o Y ^ v E m s 0 O Q d E U c 0U c OJ vi aJ "6 L O N V C O 0" ra O- -0 Y v o ° an v° co N v c Y o o- E v L m u ro ao o N N T v E ° o _ m n c v nn —° o L° on c 0 c w O N O/ .N -0 C C j` .E 0 -O v Y G r u a C ,+�-+ .0C Q 0 -0 "6 U C N N 0 O yT, C '++ Y E N w aJ N N -o N U= O C O u Y cc O O C al d O U G i O Ol O! OJ aJ C w OJ +.+ Ol i Q N N C O O b0 � U m > 7 N v N V E c C CO C 'L'' c O "o m a E OJ ♦+ ou U" N U .� 6 C-0 p O 0-22 C C O E N O E ° T o c _ v i L d 0 0 0— U Y u t a O a m Qj m y > y u 0? - `an °c_° a o c `o o m 3 N ? c 3 c N N -L 0 0 0 O C C m `° a) .. U 3 O1 0 O m '7 v f6 0 .0 M Q N= o¢ N C O M L p 0 .O 6 U .E O O i cu L O O a O 0 v L O O O 0 N M c O O O p aL+ U' 'p uNi C O 0 v O N C vYi -� > al m t? r Q c ro E E L 3 a �^ 3 c o v '0 z a •- -p z v E$ a u ¢ U m a N m ._ a 0 L a a .� w a, ,Y 75A -598 c m O U ( \\ \\C3 u \\ \\ 75A.5§§ OD ) \ / �k ƒ� §){ \/j 0 k± \ / f k WJ x ra CL CL /) CL .� 6 w o ; a ]£/ } � ; 3 / / .§ -) / $ § \) . \)o 0 >- \ <M 75A.5§§ OD ) \ / Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(a) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(a), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. 11 Q1 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2012 -04(b) Should the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2012- 04(b), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 2010 -47 and the staff report exhibits. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. 4. Vines are required to be added to all block walls that face a public street. Ml Conditions for Approval for Vestina Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231) Should the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2012 -02 (County Map No. 17231), the approval is subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this vesting tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the vesting tentative tract map. A. Planning Division The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. Any amendment to the vesting tentative tract map must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the map must be amended. Landscaping, once installed, shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. After project occupancy, landscaping is to be maintained to include the minimum level of plant materials installed at the time of occupancy and per the approved plan. This requirement shall also be incorporated into the CC &R's for the project. 4. The CC &R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. A solid block wall not less than six feet in height must be provided around the project perimeter. In the event the applicant is unable to secure approval from the adjacent property owners, a revised fence plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. Exhibit "E" 75A -602 March 4, 2014 PAGE 2OF2 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 9. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 2010 -47). 10. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC &R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Authority, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 12. The interior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse shall be rehabilitated to building code standards in order to return the structure to a habitable condition. 13. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, a covenant shall be recorded that requires the existing and replacement oranges trees be maintained on the Sexlinger Farmhouse site. 14. standards, shall be provided on the project's streets. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 15. The exterior of the Sexlinger Farmhouse and garage shall be rehabilitated in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties- Rehabilitation Guidelines. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) 16. A minimum of 16 orange trees shall be maintained and /or planted on the Sexlinger Farmhouse parcel at all times. (Added by the Planning Commission February 10, 2014.) Exhibit "E" 75A -603 75A -604