75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

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