Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - PH - EIR -1584 E SANTA CLARA AVEREQUEST 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 d- CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 18' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 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. 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 (R1) 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 -1 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 -2 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.cc Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Environmental Documents (city web addresses) C. Correspondence 75A -3 75A -4 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: 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 Interim Executive Di 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 Acting PI nning, anager 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(8) 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 -5 Final El No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No, 2012 -02 February 10, 2014 Page 2 Proiect 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). Proiect 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 -6 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 Nonce 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 -7 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 -8 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 Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard. While the property owners and TOOL 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. ProiectAnalvsis 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 -9 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 -10 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 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 -11 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 -12 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 -13 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 A 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 -14 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 -15 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, 2011 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 -16 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 arbodcultural 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 Anatysis 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 -17 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 Fregoso, Ai.OP' Acting Planning Manager VF;jm of Tava EIMSeAnger ProjeGL021014.po 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 -18 FAIRHAVEN AVE Y a`- i. RA YRI: Enil . 31� II jl �I � -,v- j MIX II it i II 4 R4 �ioluss�n R1 y ui III p IN II II it - ar,rvn S 11 jl 1111 CS M 9^Rt ; ji I� II ii 60-A7 -7200 W .t 11 F.:ra ..RI R1 _ .,Ri__ a`I s 60-AI -1200 e ` •Rl n. 3 CS RI JR1 81 VA RI Iti £ Rl Al � RI 8 R1 p� z ao-nl � A I CS v [[ 3 zmo wnt a I R4 _ I Al A 1 AI k R, P E SITE Al Ig- Rl g �-" Rl mui�InmA d vo g 5 j`R�lµ , o -- d nunMnm 0 $ Rl ?1 AI B RI Rl 3 Ri !g Rle § RI-nW � � : RM1 n RI Cis Z .r —us— .a R �vR1 AI Rl n1.R nl -0 +,r jai cs v c5 n x At �C5 C7 .t2 P D >Q R CS CS SEVENTEENTH ST. Al GW. LAGjQJLRUPAlt OR CCMMHa7AL�ORMAL RI SNGE FAMILY�DDMAL .0 RARRNGMOCInmTION CC COAVB-0VM� lm w I FAMILYFYNMI E aW OCMMMALS MMAIN M, UGFRINCUSTRAL W MLL'RREOIN3lYMUL1IF Ci DWMUNI,Y07MMUUAL M2 HFAWINCUS L FAMILYfd.T,D9 CI -MO WMM =AAMffuAUMUMMOISIPoCf MO MIUTAWORIIATIONS Rl WWlI3A.NAR\ M[NM O2 GHJ LLCMMEFOAL 0 OPEN slk @ PL PIBOB IlALL AM m cu,41MMSN� P MOFESCN m FkmmOOOlw NFM C A C14,MLW9NE3�414nUrIALIAGE KO Fl NNMOQMMUNWDO19.OPR1C 9r lTsOnc N CA RANNID8- iNGC,M FFO MANN ®p6909JNIAL0E413.IXAABJf CS ARrERAL03MMMIAL ` EI R 2011 -1 /VA2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARDS — =500 n3-7 1 " =1000FE-7 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE P L A N N I N G A N D 8 U I L 0 1 N G A G E N C Y EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP 75A -19 I I I I I IW BEECH WOOD STREET a w 5 1 N G w W CC 4J zoo R E N C E w �w ASPEN STREET z w O } J CHURCH i l7 5 . F 'R. i SANTA CLARA AVEN El R 2011 -1 /VA, 2012- 4 /VTTM 2012 -2 WiGN SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE & ORCHARD A 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE ew _ P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L p N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 75A -20 FINAL EIR NO. 2011 -01 /VARIANCE N0. 2012 -04 /VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 2012 -02 1584 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE EXHIBIT 3 75A -21 a e�i'sg r N s ccy q 4 3 T z s`�' �g i. z ~W 1 � Oy� unms rvan _. I� n >� 3 LY�W h� # a V_ LW - a c cc U ¢� ti ~ )Rftld M'I4(HOd dLYI FJNV"i OAZ VW ,YJ UL/T.t1F "LVN/ 'pxoo NbWd bH9 P N 9 LD'i _HOcVf3f bYl l0 N0.4HDd U75 C . IM, 1 -MIDI O AIN AVWAI IOM-d '� fi$LY1i aVfJNYi -3d(L MLYWLNOJ — - nrsan amTwin. kti <vl 3 M 1 4i4 s LOU W W - c G�! xs p N kti <vl 3 M 1 4i4 s � s � Ix q p °uI AIR .1 '"T MID Flats 9Z0107 10, ;z a �g J e d,�.lg F5U $g M EXHIBIT 5 SAa-23 0 aw ay L v i a -- G1�C4 � v d con EXHIBIT 5 SAa-23 0 aw ay L v �I a _�1 .„ 4 �� Page 2 of 3 75A -24 0 0 � w by %y ummus =U AP 9- a 5 —s3 a� u�p a nub n a nay N Cd m a � � � ro H CAS � \ � m , /\ M` �-11—T \�k\ _ � \ i� i� � /± Page a! 75A-25 )2 \i \( � t( � \( w@ {( «w ; Aft a= � « E / t \ QOn )/ _e y, „ \[ �\) MIA \ ] } } ,. `zQ !) .wJ aa� 9 / \gQa }/gQ9222 � )) �)$ § ! A ®° \} � } ,. `zQ !) .wJ aa� 9 / \gQa }/gQ9222 � )) ,r,_ \( £J � \§ � ER t[ 7 5A� le, )/ ; �$7 a �R4 A� )/ / . � �� � � 75A-29 y, {[ 5 j( . ® {\ K@ %[ A]$ ; ƒ {)ƒ §\ �\\ � ,w _. §& E# � \\ !I |, £[ !) 21. / \A d/ MUM Iy6 \d2! � }) �)Q ) TOM ) » / /an - )) ,9'9Z N N to c'u '"P MMISi0 IN z0 & uz A w� yJC d`� C N QI 4r O RY, 7WINUo`9 N d w s.. cis cz b C cd RE Ya�O q�q Y+1 C�J A v, N d w s.. ) \ ,e,_ 2§ < M \( to 3 75Aa I^ ) ) ƒ\ e \\ ® 73/ ) ) ! !/ /\ q! E` \ \( \9 � \) . - |. \# v, �}) r7 �)f 7}/ }§ 7 \ � \\ :Q �\) . -�. \4 G_ /$ �@\ �® J)A /$ f ƒ .a _, §§ � \\ §t v, Page r, 75A-34 N 2 }§ cis w§ & #¥ /� d ! �]a 2 }§ .! , \ N | } � � ! �© : ® % 1�1-- , � , j < d�\ ¥�� 3� k� 7� AlO }} 75X392' 1; -i LU� 0 § \ ui �\ & § U � k j Ir § { � \ ! | �® q §§!; § `( } ( m 31 I 0 8 I It M a Hill ro € a e § 9 e 44"3 0 �41 s I. . . 7661 2A J w Q. cl Q Z J U CL D P M CJ h c~i r► A N a g y� 0 g Q 6 Rf QUEST W A R Historic Resources Commission Action I STORK: RI SOURCC�3' Gl (VIMMS 7RH EU- NO DATE: JANUARY 24, 2013 I HISTORIC RESOURCES COMML98ION SECRETARY_ TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL REPORT ON THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH THE SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE AND ORCHARD LOCATED AT 1604 EAST SANTA CLARA AVENUE — HRD No.2012.01 Prepared by I tally Soboleske _ APPROVED Cf As Recommended fD As Amended FI Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO Executive director !Ma n er 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. Prefect 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), Protect Background At the June 4, 2012 public hearing, the City Council voted to list the properly 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 213, 2012 at a duly noticed public hearing, the hIRC appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to study potential alternatives to demolition. The Ad Hoc Committee members included Blair O'Callaghan, Patrick Yrarraxaval and Alberta Christy. The Ad Hoc Committee met on August 7, 2012 to discuss resources that could be used to preserve the site. The Ad Vice 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 -37 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. Resource Funding Certified Local Government _ Outcorne Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property National Trust for Historic Preservation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of p ro ert Save America's Treasures Program currently unfunded Preserve America _ ,Prograrn 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 ofproperty„ The Getty Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property California Preservation Foundation Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition ofproperty California Grant Watch I Subscription only 75A -38 HRD No. 2012 -01 January 24, 2016 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-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 Energy,_Sunshot Initiative Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property Air Quality Management District Does not fund rehabilitation or ac uisition of property California Energy Commission Does not fund rehabilitation or acquisition of property Orange County Transportation Authority Funds only public ri htt -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 Parkwa s R elated 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 property_ Solid Waste grants Recycling 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 -39 HRD No. 2012.01 January 24, 2013 Page d 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 Webslte City of Santa Ana Facebook Account i City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency Facebook Account • OC History Roundup Blog (who subsequently posted on their wobsite) + 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 -40 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 Steos: 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 -41 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 16331. This Class 31 exemption is applicable as these actions are designed to preserve historic resources, A Categorical Exemption will be filed for this project. ' 7 Hally SobgJ ke Associate P annex HS:jm hs$lstodo bNoOI2412HRCUvd 12.09 IntentToDemollelfln it r 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 Hoc Committee meeting Exhibit 5 — Notice of Availability Flyer Exhibit 6 — Resolution 75A -42 HRD- 2012 -01 15814 Cast Santa Clara Avenue PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY 75A -43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sexiinger Farmhouse and Orchard 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92706 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 1 5 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE 551 Location: Q Not for Publication ® Unrestricted ❑ Prehistoric [9 Historic ❑ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Craftsman Bungalow Closely related to the English Ads and Crafts Movement, American BungalowlCraBemon arohfteclure 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 Ads 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 v 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 malarial; 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 unill the early 1920s (McAlester, 453 453). The Sexitnger Farmhouse and Orchard Is substantially intact as a rurallagricuiturat 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 G. EXPLANATION OF CODES: California Register 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.) 651: Individual property that Is listed or designated locally, 75A -44 State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Primarylf P -30. 179000 Trinomial NRI1P Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 17 "Resource Name or th (Assigned by recorder) 1584 E. Santa Clara Avenue P1., Otherldontifior: $exlingerOrchard "P2. Location; ❑ Not for Publication 0Unrestricted 'a; county: Oran a and (P20, Pte, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) •b. USG$ 70 Quad Oran a Date 1974 T 5S; R 9W; NIA '/4 of NIA A of Sec fl; D.M. MD c, Address 1594 E Santa Clara Ave City ajig a Zip fl2706 d. UTM: (Give more than one for fares and /or Ilnearresources) Zone 11.4m ME/ 3736673 mN e. Other L=rfljm al Dola: (e.g., parcel ii, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APNs: 396052.43 and 396.062.44. The specific project location Is bounded roughly by East Santa Clara Avenue to the north, Portola Park on (he east, East Avalon Avenue on the scull), and Concord Street on the west. "P3a. Description: (Desedbe resource and Its major elements. include design, materials, candilion, ofteradons, size, selling, and boundaries) This properly was previously recorded In 2008, and assigned P- 30.179880. The 5•acre properly Is an historic -age orchard landscape of which the major features Include the remnants of a Valencia orange orchard, a resdence, and a garage (McClelland at at. 1989, Revised 1999:1048; Dolan 2009160). The land has been historically used as an orange orchard since c. 1913, when it was likely planted by Perry Grout, and as the Sextinger family's residence and orchard from 1914 to 2086. The boundary of the landscape is demarcated by the boundaries of the 5 -acre parcel occupied by the Sextinger family for 90 years. The landscape's spatial organization is very simple with only two clusters of land uses: ro ildonllal (f ui 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 "119. Data Recordorl; December 2011 rib. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) )rchard Landscape — HP 33 H.Resources Present:®Bullding ❑ Structure :)Object Mile []District Mement of District MOlilor (isolates, otm) Orchard Landscape 761). Description of Photo: (view, date, accession A) View of Xchard November 2011 `Pa, Dato Constructo(IfAge and Saurce: IMI- lateric 71Prehistaric ❑Goth s 10131orahartl);1914 ( reaidonce) (port)eumann and Flowell- Mile 2007 and Padon and Marvin 2008) 1137. Owner and Address; Private "Pa. Rocorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) URS Corporation 4226 Executive Sguare Suite 1600 San Diego CA. 022.037 "P10. Survey Typo: (aoscrthe) Deskto nvesil atioo "P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or stile( "none.") SupalcmentalTechnicalMomorendum— CullumlRasonrces ElinlhililyAssessmentof 1584E Santa Clara Ave Santa Ana Cailfomia TAVA 7avelopmenl Comnanv Protect. becembor 2011. "Attactunonts: ONONE ❑Localian Map 11flContinuonon Sheat ®DUllding, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Rocord ODislrict Record 131-inear Feature Record Willing Station Record ORock Ad Record OArlifact Record UlPholograph Record ❑Other (List): DPR 623A (1196) "Roqulrod Information 75A -45 DPR 6"A (1198) 75A -46 'Requirod Information 1 u3 5 % a � R b � O' 4 i a� a 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 Lu }t t Qf� afrt" 11�1141 [t1uP o < <u � t [} IA Hill 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 Lo o'. 9�l,: P i 75A -47 s� o BG in a N h L7 75A -48 C O .ngg C "9 tl' N e+ Q a a a �, •1- I June 11, 2012 Ms. Karen Haluza, AICP Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Sox 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Application of Intent to Demolish Historic Property RE: Sexlinger property, 1504 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Ms, Halula: The purpose of this letter Is to fonually notify the City of Santa Ann 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 307 (a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Cade, 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 PlannerVlncent C. Fregosm Your attention to this letter is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact our consultant, Robert Odle, at 714.401.9281 or ndleassociatesao! cam. Sincerely, u� Kevin Tilden Concordia University Executive Vice President for Finance Chief Financial Officer Enclosures I n >dnydnn wlw, I lulu,btlili, ,110 Cnlnval"I Cni: our 6tL Emmalea Noble Lutheran High School of orange County Chief Flnanelal Officer 75A -49 �15f0e y1unldu•C6 +A „ull }RdII� >:•.. lnut, l.. Id411r „•:C'f 1:1111 VIeC •910, 47 w 2 U � xz t-0 0 0: Z. 0 U O 0 0 U G J 8 y C9 � E 0 P[CC�E 0 ps Y�z _ � W MMry naN�. M Qj� sM-N Pf t0 N N of h PPPfff r�.�m uo q �� c �E n. n h: lnn nt=n tinrh- $nt'it'i ro '�cCg C�f�UU � E L ry m ro m ro = 0.10 N i� roQQQ QQ '0 0 0 e a 0000ro�ro . Ef>�v:2 RR2. to 8<00000000046 co> m v va91 ,E`b'Ao o vrQ- gFf�hhd vuGiS c o w � N E.l2 oo E,E._`m� =a� �p.E � � c� m C3 L) C) 1- o ma5NrBss =a m a a w �° ((opp''� N$�j11 �'s O (J U g o a p� z� move, awz LCa x o � U a`i c a rn ro UI �/3y NN 'per 0. N O. Z p O` 6 g lW t1 6 N G �aU> vs°�a2)i�� v o (.l c ar p F � t E. Ci ccfu c o o 8z O q ,u6romro�;�NG0. S ° Nm roM 75A -50 ( ' 7", ,1 Notice of Availability of Historic property END5eAn er Orange Orchard and f=armhouse ' 6 The Sexiinger 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 Iligh School of Orange County and Concordia University, were donated the property by Martha Sexiinger 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 safe or, In the case of the house, for safe 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 to the property owner Is January 15, 2013. For more Information about the property go to: nttpd/www.santa- ana.oru /pba /2lt annint>L exlingerranmhouseandOrchar cl.asn. For more information please contact: Owners Representative Mr. Robert H. Odle Odle & Associates LLC (714) 401 -8231 odlea -Ss nciate-5 @aoLcoIn City Representative Mr, Vince Fregoso, Principal planner City of Santa Ana (714) 667 -2713 vfre .oso . santa -ana org 75A -51 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 S[XLINGER 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 -52 Page 1 of 4 EXEMPT FROM FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 8103 Section 2: The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Santa Ana after i 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 10 BI 0 "Callag(7an 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 -53 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: 1 om Isslon Secretary City of Santa Ana f,J Resolution No, 2013 -01 75A -54 Page 3 of EXEMPT FROM FEES PURUSANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN Address Owner Names Legal Description 396- 052 -14 1684 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 -55 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 Alan agemcut 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 relrabititation/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 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 fitture time specified in the agreement between the parties. 75A -56 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 tlu-ough 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 terms 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 -57 The complete Environmental Impact Report is available at the Planning Division public counter and on the City's webpage at http://www.santa- ana.orq /pba /planninq /documents /sexiinger /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.orq/ pba /planninq /documents /SexlingerOrchard AAforRTConDEIR 0130 14. pd 75A -58 YIA 5 t5 Ell- gp Nt ON CON- Lu rg cc u IE lAM1i N01} GF rm Vw aX,F Wndiflo a v ik" II <�9, is PfJR PR bvN,l Iii._._. fat Id I yeti � Ml- LU V. ON CON- Lu rg cc u IE lAM1i N01} GF rm Vw aX,F Wndiflo a v ik" II <�9, is PfJR PR bvN,l Iii._._. fat Id I yeti � !y> :1k 1%.F T6 Owlwd ! i,' Cnxnssrvancy www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 1,J January 17, 2014 Dff_1Q=: Mr. Vince Fregoso, AICP Jeannie President Principal Planner Santa Ana Planning & Building Agency Ryan sensiey Vice-President 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 Board M .me hers < = Project, Additional Analysis for Response to Comments on the Patrick Mitchell Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008041172) Moises Plascencia Steve Ray Dear Mr. Fregoso, Nick Spain 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 Qyrc Miscinn, Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) continues to oppose the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project (formerly "To preserve, known as the TAVA Development Company Project, SCH# 2008041172) acquire, restore and manage the as it continues to propose inadequate alternatives for preservation. The Old Orange Orchard following outlines our concerns with regard to the AdditionalAnalysis. located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, Cultural, The staff's latest alternative to be included in the EIR is referred to as agricultural and the "Historic Preservation Alternative "(HPA). Let's first review what the educational resource foralf° 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 flue -acre orchard. Q n act The distinction between an orchard- residence designation and a (7 14) 296.4642 residence -only determination has all along been a crucial element of the understanding among the Conservancy and city staff. Including the full P. ox landscape of the Sexlinger Orchard Complex as a "Key" historical Sant0. Santa Ana, California 92711 -003II www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 1,J 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 Sexlinaer 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.01dOrchardConservancy.or 75A -61 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, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 2014_ 0107_ EIR_Rasponse_pdf Enclosures cc: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Miguel Pulido, Mayor Sal Tinalero, Mayor Pro Tern Vince Sarmfento Michele Martinez Angelica Amezcua David Senavides Roman Reyna www.0idOrchardConservancy.org 75A -62 r 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 tax www.s heppa rd mull In.com 714.424.2821 direct drosenth al @sheppard m ul lin.ccm 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 DdDAR 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 El R 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 riot 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 -63 a . + • t 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 legaily 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, /fin Borah M. Rosenthal AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP SMRH:409959505,1 Enclosures cc; Ms. Jeannie Gillett Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Ryan Hodge, Esq. Mr. Robert Odle Mr. Steve Ray Mr. Nick Spain 75A -64 9784 Dally Appellate Report Monday, July 28, 2013 . ENVIRONMENTAL LAW The County failed to adopt adequate measures to mitigate sigaificant impacts from truck traffic - along a private road associated with the Project. Environmental impact report And finally, that the EIR failed to adequately :fr quarry project should plot evaluate Project alternatives. hgve been appproved because it did not mitigate loss ofprime We agree with Masomte's contentions involvng: recrculation for comment on possible . farmland§ on proferN mitigation measures that can protect the Frog; the hafeasiblity of agricultural conservation - easements and in -lieu fees; discussion - of cumulative Impacts on f tanland; and mitigation Cite as 2013 DJDAR 9784 measures for truck traffic, Accordingly, we: reversa 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 MASONITECORPORATION, the errors weldentity. Petitioner and Appellant, I. BACKGROUND V. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO at al., Defendants and Respondents; The Project is a sand and gravel quarry to , GRANITE CONSPRUCT'ION be developed on 65.3 acres approximately one mile north of Ukiah, The site is bordered on the i COMPANY, north by Ackerman Creek, on the east by the Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Russian River, on the south by property owned by Masonite, end on the west by Knnzler Ranell Road. Most of the site is' culdvated as a vineyard, No, A134896 with an opeas ace poMan in the northeast and a , (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CVPT 1056883) truck maintenance shop at the northwest corner. Forty-five acres of the site's 65 acres are classified ', California courts of Appeal as' prime farmland," but fire site has been zoned for use 1982, it is surrounded by First Appellate District Division Three industrial since aglnamber mill to the north of Ackerman Creek, , i Fded July25, 2tl13 to tproperty Riverul Masomante's industrial to the south. {described as "vacant" on area maps), and i CERTIFIEDFORPARTiALPUBLICATION* Industrial and commercial properties to the west Granite plans to extract 3,37 million tons Of - aggregate from 30.3 acres of the site over 25- ' Pursuant to California Rues of Court, :rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publiczfion witli the year perlod, The mine Is designed to operate yea raund, six days a week, 14 hours a days ' 1 exception of parts Q.B., ir.rl , tt.E., and 11Y The mining will be done in phases to allow for , concurrent site reclamation, and five years j of reclamation are planned after the mining Masomte Corporation (Masonite) appeals operations are complete; Following reclamation; r? from a judgment denying its petition for writ of the northwestern portion of the property will be mandate to set aside approvals by Mendocino try ailabl eforfuturemdustrial uses, aadtherestof County (County) of die Kunzler Terrace Mine tha.site wdl be "open apace (ponds).." -, Projeat (Project) to be developed by Granite Construction Company (Granite; Granite and the Gran'to .submitted an appli cation County for approval of a conditional to the use County are hereafter referred to colleedvely as permit and red atlon plan for the Project in re spaadents),andthefm ale nvI onmantalimPact February 2008. The County determined that report (EIR) for Its Project, far failure to comply an anvkanmennll impact report was required, with the Cabfornia EnvkoomellW duality Act solicited comments from government eguncles (CE 4A) (Pub. Rasourcas Code, § 21000 at seq.), in..Aprit 2008, and noticed preparation of a dratt Masonfte argues the approval process and the EIIi were deficient in several wava. 7lie environl imp act Yep art (Draft) in October, menta 'Inhe. Draft was released for public and agency t .. t County was required to recirculate the EIR because the Project as approved had significantly review in September 2000. Among those who commented critically on the Draft and the Project greater impacts §Ian the fine originally proposed. were SCS Engineers on behalf of Masorete, and Recircula'on was also required because the Russian Riverkeeper, an organization dedicated ' EIR disclosed a new significant impact. on the Tailed Frog (Frog) that was not to protection of the Russian RwAr environment The EIR was released for review on May Foothill YaRow adequately mitigated, The County erroneously 3, 2010, The EIR identified two significant and deterramed that conservation easements and in- unavoidable Project impacts, the permanent 'l lieu fees were not feasible ways to mitigate the loss of prune farmland, and traffic problems that 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 cumulative impacts or, agricultural resources. 20, 2010, After considering public comments, i 75A -65 Monday;. duly 29, 2013 Dally Appellate Report 9785 including tbose on behalf of Masonite, the Pla uming Commission certified the ERt and. as Guidelines]; Pub.: Resources Code, § 210921.) ' Mile addition of new Information to an EIR approved the use permit and reclamation plan, 7'he Planniig'Commission adopted a statement after the close of the public comment period Is nut'significane unless the EIR is in of overriding considerations noting, among other things, that the Project would provide "a ratable changed a way that deprives the public of a, meaningful . 20 -year supply of constiuction aggregate in the Mendocino County area," opPort unitytocommentuponasubatantio ladverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible Masoimta, and Russian Riverkeeper appealed the way to midgets, or avoid such an effect." (Laurel Her US ImprooementAssn. a Regeno o(Luuuenity Pla lmli gsommission decislOns to the County Board of Supervisors, The appeals wore heurdby o}Caldfornia (1908) 6 Cal.4th 1112,1129 (Laurel the board a.n4uly27 ,20I0.Thedayofthe fie arIng, H411ts fn; see also Vineyard, supra 40 Cal 4th atp ,417, quoting LaurelHeightslL,). Signiflcatt Masonite filed a 49 -page letter brief challengin g die EIR on approximately 20groonda. Thebnazd new information" includes a disclosure showing that '[a] new significant environmental impact denied both 4ppeals. -.Mas inito,�.and Russian Riverkeeper filed would result from the project. 7" (Guidelines,. § 15088,5, subd. (a) (1),} - petitions for writ of mandate seelchig to overturn the ComiVs approval of the Project due to (2) ProjectAlteri tions violations of CEQA T11e Petitions were denied, and Masonite and Russian Riverkeeper appealed front the judgments. Russian Riverkeepees The Project was changed in two respects from tie one originally envisioned, ' !' Appeal was dismissed after settlement (a Pond-River Cannecdon -; �! .. _ H. DISCUSSION in Lieu of a Weir and )fuse A. Scope of Review Gran'ite's application for die use permit and "In reviewing agency's compliance with reclamation plan recograed that, "because of its proximity to die Russian River and Ackerman c ou -.the courts' inquiry 'shall - extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse 'Creek, the project site has valuable aquatic and riparian habitats adjacent to it., The aquatic of discretion.' [Citation.] Such. an abuse is established. if the agency has not proceeded in a habitat supports Chinook salmon and steelltead, both listed as threatened species under the ` mannerrequired bylawor if the determination or decision isnotsupported by substantial evidence," Endangered species Act 7b'e piimary concern for these species relative to the proposed project j [Citations,] ' Aiiappellatecouresrcviewpftlteadnnirdstrative is the potential for hall entrapment in. the pit during floods high enough to Inundate the + record for legal error and substantial evidence in a CEQA case , , , is the same as die trial court's: site." The application noted with respect to hydrology and drainage that, "as an alluvial terrace adjacent t 71ie appellate court reviews the agency's action, not, the trial courts decision; In that sense to the Russian River and Ackerman Creak," the Project site "is subject to perigl is inindatign.. appellate judicial review under CEQA Is de nova, [Citations.) We therefore resolve the substantive , ; Extensive hydrologicniodelingwas conducted to designan overflow structure diatwould CEQA issues ... by Independently determining whether die administrative record demonstrates nnnhlli5e the Potential for fish r4 became entrapped n the any legal error by the Comity and whether it pit, and prevent erosion of pit flanks and walls during a104yearflood event" contains substantial evidence to support the County's :factual determinations," (Vineyard Granite's application, proposed. •to 'address the potential for flooding and trapped fish with Area Citizens for,ReV /onslble Crowell, file, it City afRaucho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4di 412, 426.427, construction ofaf loodomitol.weir.,andfaneplug, ' "the armared�overflow weir gives.the creek and -_ Ik! in. omitted (Vlnayard)) river a controlled access and drainage point for t E. Recirculadon of the EIR flood waters without eroding the riling buffer," while the erodable ISM fuse plug limbs potential ..(1) Atguinents and Standards fish entrapmenu" fix May 2008, comments oil the Project the National Marine Fisheries Service . Masonite contends that the EIR should have ( NMFS, ) oftheNationalOceanicandAtmospheric Administration stated that "reconnecting die pit r been recirculated fnr public review because the Project as approved was "different inarkeW, to the stream" would provide better. long-term protection for endangered salmonids than the t, from lac one analyzed In die Draft and had more severe environmental impacts, . and because the . proposed weir and fuse plug, Granite's study of the NMFS proposal, attached as.Appendix F to EIR identified a new significant Impact on the Frog, the Draft, concluded thatitwouildbe preferable to t; Alead agency is required to recirculate an EIR use .a connection channel betweenthe mine Pond ` and the Russian River in lieu of the weir and fase when significant new information 1s added to the plug. . EII;, atter public notice is given of the availabifity of lice draft Ell: for public review but before ",(Cal. The Project as proposed in the Drat provided for use.of the weir and fuse plugo but he pond. • �l`l cerBfication Code Pegs., tit 14, §15088.5, subd. (a) [the- CEQA Guidelines In Dal, Code river connection - bhanneldesignwal.presented as "Alternative 3" .It.replaced,the,weir and fuse fn €I 1 Reis, ht 14., §d5000, or seq. are hereafter cited plug with 'a culvert (or culverts). suitable for the 5..�'wC'itcsxlzYC -^�1"2 75A -66 _..._.,... 978Q. Dally Appellate Report Monday, Iuly:29i'.43� project life (rather than as a permanent structure, w will increase annual winter juvenile% chid as muter the proposed project)," and eliminated s survivability in the project yici*.." •"" s the need for ongoing maintenance of the weir and " "floodplain benching' was inwiltoi•dted,ln'td' the - i fuseplug,'the Drandetermined that "stranding or D Draft, along with mitigation measured for its entrapment ofspeciat- sta tussalmonida would be i impact onsalmoWds and riparian habitat a potentially sigrilflcant hnpaet if the Projectwere I In its comments on the Draft SCS Engineers - constructed wlththeweir fuse plug; However, f for Masonito criticized the floodplain benching. F ntigation measures that included salmond S SCS wrote;. "Artificial and unwarranted rescue and relocation programs Implemented in ' 'improvements' such as those pprotosed by, consultation with NMFS and the Department of G Granite serve to upset the b' litliduirl'iof trig` Fish and Game (Fish & Gaine), would make this f fluvial s system for the financial beQefit `�o# •one impact "[1jessthan significant" TlieDraftfurther l landowner, T Ttils proposed at 'do , is stated that if Alternative 9 was implemented, it n not only unneeded under`current'hcbuditious" would " such channel manipulations have'the,'patent12; capture and sabnonld entrapment" and "eliminate t to destabilize downstream banks and to'shift'the� the need for the rescue. plan:" - p position of the channet thalweg vdtli potentially: .In November A,. 2009, comments on the n negativeimpactstodownstreamlanddwners 'Stich; Draft, NMFS expressed concern that when pit n negative impacts may include mcrea9edtoteq"dalI - ininhhg operations resulted in ponds of standing f for flooding or other unanticipated " groundwater more than 35 feet deep, sonar obic r response's that may occur : as7 a 'result of'f de ' conditions would threaten the vitallty'of any p proposed unwarranted mechanical maid elation' salmonhds trapped in the ponds, mid the depths of o of tine channel.... (I] ... ITlhere is tittle ' the reclaimed ponds would need to b no geomorphic or other sclemiHc justi t The County determined in the EIR that T The Mendocino County Neater' Agency' also - Alternative 3 was "environmentally superior" to e expressed concerns that erosion would decor in the weir and fuse plug, aril the NMFS supported t the floodplain bench area. in response to these• Alternative 3 in comments "submitted prior to c comments, Alternative 3 was rovised in theTIR' PI m C r ann g at as on approva e, a e approved, die Project included the pond -river The EIR sls connection in lieu of the weir and fuse plug . benching "t reflected intherevisedreclamaticuptan appended relative toil to the EIR. I After cic Although the Draft stated that the pond -. on the Di river connection would' et ati ate the need for - Conservatic a salmonid rescue program, the EIR retained a letter'to a rescue program during the mining phase of benching -v die Project. The Draft set forth two options for moatrecert the reclamation phase. Option A provided for Departmen construction of the pond- river - connection unless that floodpl NMFS and great benel Fish & Game staff determined tlhat the "potential along the ai adverse quality within the pit" would floodcoatr+ t twelgh the connection's expected 'benefits floodplain t to salmonid habitat. optic, B required Granite the reclaim to continue the salmonid rescue program until for removk construction of the pond-river connection, Tlie benefir " ant ' deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns potential envi ' over water quality In the pit was replaced in the Countysta EIR by more detailed mitigation regWrements, was "not de sot forth ffi newmidgadon measure 3AA-AET 3, mitigation fei to address concerns raised InNMFS'sNovember the issue as a 20(191otter.9 oe"> ficatly,theElRstatedthntGranite "m'" of the won" limit the depth''a the reclaimed ponds to iDrahj - regm 35 feet list stated would be acceptable, ar habitats woul } deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future . waits the'floodplah qualilyassrssmenta since the on benching we (b) Floodplain Benching position and I ' to - determim 'rhe term "loodplam benching" refers to a benching in proposal by Grimd.e in'the Project,applleation, Commisslon ' to widen the Ackerman Creek and Russian &Game had �;. River channels to hnprave channel hydraulic would adver capacity and winter resting habitat for salmoWds habitat of the above what is curre»�Iyavailable which, in turn, discussing th { no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a construction of the pond-river connection, Tlie benefir " ant ' deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns potential envi ' over water quality In the pit was replaced in the Countysta EIR by more detailed mitigation regWrements, was "not de sot forth ffi newmidgadon measure 3AA-AET 3, mitigation fei to address concerns raised InNMFS'sNovember the issue as a 20(191otter.9 oe"> ficatly,theElRstatedthntGranite "m'" of the won" limit the depth''a the reclaimed ponds to iDrahj - regm 35 feet list stated would be acceptable, ar habitats woul } deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future . waits the'floodplah qualilyassrssmenta since the on benching we (b) Floodplain Benching position and I ' to - determim 'rhe term "loodplam benching" refers to a benching in proposal by Grimd.e in'the Project,applleation, Commisslon ' to widen the Ackerman Creek and Russian &Game had �;. River channels to hnprave channel hydraulic would adver capacity and winter resting habitat for salmoWds habitat of the above what is curre»�Iyavailable which, in turn, discussing th { no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a no was nme that to whether' to' ri the Project neeting, staff a micerns that flo =ly affect water Frog. After uddt matter, Uie'Plan 75A -6 ever;, r plain: ' 3sloq plain nog,> Fish Ifm i i 'flit t addh = asnono a bgVqted nohi a fea vetheProlecCwithouttheHoadp4'- na'(ed,whhen ii board�ofa of t a t feature IV appeals of the Planning Commission's decision (c) Analysis f "An accurate Project description isnecessar or an lntellikent.,,evaluation of the poomth Nit.onineiand'effects of a nrnnnoa.t mra1i and an can 'rNeieArt If, ....Ln_ =„,umg was ] are an :there" in the EIIL 94t,h at:p, "2,1111format bUe and decision mailer no Indication nt'tlid reel Y other interesi'ad par i nature of fleodnlaln hb its.role as aspect to I the uie project," (3) 7lieFrag..; Be It discussed Main benching (a). Record. : et alternative, was an open Protectedepeciasot' . In the Prate Project anhnalspotendal(yi nadan. about Status s esr �erelistedonatableof Old'shara,do the Poolmial for occurrenceatttthesiittleBe :: te e: and o uro nlikl' "l 1-, fora u w.pol ,eiasomte ar Wed about or whether the Project. g IM the leterized as to , "° 41G Thera i en weigh cmml elevat parch, IMeProjectdescrptioa hattheProjectchan Poteni to be es ,een"'Onmentaleff ct" precl t a of the EI2.. (Inure! 2d� at p, .1129, italics and R u Masonite asserts that mitigat r,. a oo species wide a "medium" for occurrence, and provided "a designed, to reduce those :ance, $tile status species inch od' , stated that tiia Frog 1 strewn Habitats W th lock, . isually Below G,0(i0 feet in inhequentwhommh'oducod f table estimated the curren0ein the Projeotarea a. Ackerman Groek may el (slow /low slowportions). ant{n both Ackerman Creek :� Thus, the Draft specified no or die Frog the DraC,Fish & Game said 1 I 1 9788 Dally Appall that recent surveys had documented the presence of Frogs at abridge crossing the Russian River bridge approximately three miles southeastof the Project site, Accordingly, Fliih &, Game believed that F1Iogs were "likely to exist along. riparian areas of Ackerman Creels and the Russian Rivet," and recommended that the special status species table be amended to list the potential for Frog occurrence at the site as "high ' not "low." The table was amended- 'u}.the EIR.. A discussion of table, significant impacts to the Frog was added; and mitigation measures were proposed that reduced the .'Impacts to insignificance.. The impacts would arise from Qoodplain benching, and'conatrucurm and mining operations that would Impact potentially suitable upland habitat adjacent to the Russian River and Ache n an Creels; Mitigation measures Included retention of current riparian vegetation to the extent possible; biological monitoring of the effecIs of construction on the Frog, and halting of construction if impacts to the Frog became evident. (b) Review Masonits argues that the EIR. should have been recirculated for public continent because it contained significant new informatt regarding die Frog. Masonite submit$ the';rTk disclosed "[aj new significant environri ental'bnpact on the Frog (Guidelines, r § 16088.5, in that the situatiou here is the samo as thirst Sn Sierra CIuA u Cilroy Cfly Council (1990) 222 cal. ate Report Monday, July 294013' was required because newinfo emotion ahowed that 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;" could thus be construed to discl oseappo�ssible minor impact on the .Frog, and s when the rkelihood of the Frogg+s presence )vas changed from "low" to "high," Kle, EIR ci sclosed a "substantial increase In the .severity of [that) Impact' (Guidelines, § 15088.5, solid. '(a) (2)). .. But regardless of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(2), recirculation was. required. under Guidelines section 16088.5, =. 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 theftrst time in the EIR, mid was both "new" and "significant" within the meaning of Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1) `. r '? A contrary conclusion, would contravene J Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at page 447 and Laurel Heights A,, supra, .:6 CaUth at page 1129, by depriving the public of an opportunity to.. - comment on mitigation measures for apotentially, significant effect that were first Identified In the EIR (See also Silaerado Mo4faka.Recreation & .. Park Dist. it County of Orange (2011):197 ;Cal. AppAth 282, 308 [new information that materially, - impficates, the public's rightto parlicipatelustiQes Forty -five acres of the Project site are prime - Larmland, meaning they are "designated by the - Department of Conservation FMMP.[Farmland _ Mapping and Monitoring Pre j`as prime '. farmland; farmland of state de'Importance,.=-.- or,unique farmland." One of the significant unavoidable effects of the project identified -in - - 145 the Draft is the loss of those acres of prime agricultural.. land. Masonite` Contends that.. ? ' - i'tIP. r'PIIM1iV 4YYUti Wt"an il'tta(nvani�n.�'41a1n... . .. Ion .easements an•offsite it of "in -lleu" fees to fund - - 75A -69 +41) Alford easements. The conversion of agricultural ]t 1 y should be deemed an impact of at least regio ��'he j]e gated: why atis unpact could not significance, Hence Ole search for repiaCem, essmly6, u Mefor nfor agricultural lands should be conductod iegionan re0latem, ,psquices mit�y'. Cake. the form of avoidance, }7h!imlzadon,',',fiestoia(on, Preservation, or sud not li itedrea ctlytolandwfthintheproje, ;ompensntion '(providing substitute resources �ff�ite) These forms Ofmitigntloneorres lid 'be County didnotrespondtotheseconrmoc ? , �CFr�Air Cuide ines Section 15370.8 Ford did except to note that no Williamson Acts contra( Rp,Q¢�,jl pS4 ept avoidance Is not possible, ae would be affected by die Project and cite to H e' locdgopotlthomineralreaourcescorresponda DraftRSif7teprpf i�GU for lost farmland it, e P e fartmland a9 identified in the WIVIR of such im(gahon was like a m land i 1 O tkijjmraat�pon is incorporated into the project to an {Apra ell lntq'dte)r] ��tpnf as't]ie project is phased, slid agricultural withoutchange,., - Ise9tu , ndnueonaphase'untll.Itlsmined, Commis�3ondasiuns 'todiBoard'of5usiiei•vison usekt €ndmgagriculturalactivit du' pp e pl`n the Ppr41 ct_: However, this will no eiduce orichs ion th that i was no fo ogical basis for th At easible,�`,vo 11Yhe9niming will residt Insnofinished a�County r�epres,st�tap'�ve responded that theta "Lt]b, 8 sgncultGralland Cool irids' Instance, e Is similar ell Preservation basic. w se of an" qt th]s the is similar son voidance, and is eaale Purpose of an he aeCUpdaryi6neerstha easiUle for thn. same mason. Compensation easemeni is to void theressecondary la lint land lieraliy takes die form of off -site ac;quisitian of You know, sometimes considered the so callet e -Men, typically an Agricultural Conservation domino effect As you extinguish temeit (ACE): ACquisiOOn of an ACE is you're putting developmen essupe on them now siilered infeasiblefor the proposed projectfor termer and you're causing nuisance n the next re' ACE,scu es not aregoingtomakatifedif (cu[tforhfmassues that An ACE, _ rises not replace the on•site tunes, but'rather, it addresses Elie Indirect more likely that that operationlsgofngtowaritto bcnOffs is effects of farmland conversion. you' renotteplacing eresom•ces;'Wecanputan rock e' Offsets include the pressure created to easement somnwhere else abut It(,,'] a can ut to >urageaess th alconvarsione,asdeve'lopment recreate (rose few acres of pt9me;S'llot farmland ing to su {a raises the speaulaOve value of theland are present on that sitenaw, 'Sa: "that',s }row we to fire econom c costs 0f farrnng approach that analysis and you.hamto look e to land use Incompatibilities (limitations on cide nCr. ,des..,. __ the C.iPrumc +�....,... _s.e.. Wa east; but they wersepgratadi 6 y die natural bail -neref the Russian Riven ]n addition, the end age of the property is open space (Including habitat, rather than urban developments. Open . otCnmldevelopment se n'reate dreet Presure on agricultural lands, are not vailableeaanbd this impact would be significant and unavoidable." .(Italics and bold type dejetedJ of a ''ultural lauds as Can una- about the )P the I'rojeit in ifs comments on the Draft, �4COrtipg'to the UDC; the loss should have lennmhiit]dzed through the acquisition ofACEs n comps aU]a Isud of at least equal size,. The >DC 4onsidererl this means of mitieation,m ho easements care be 1111 1 etttedrby at least a altefgdOve appreaches;;. the outright purehase 4ref slnents'or the dona n of miOgation fees to a local; 'regional , or st a te wide'organizafion or agency whose purpose Includes the acgldsidan and stewardship of agriCUlhu•al' conservation • " " +r�� uieapproprhflmy sponselnjtiig case y (2) Review w r Wfiigriculturalconsei vsOop);asaments . CEQAprovides that "public agencies should notapprode,pcionM asproposed:ifitareare ,. feaslblomlflU O ninebsuiesavaitaliiewhichwould affects of such lesion projects,&i (ub. Resources ce Code 921002; see also id at 921002:1, subd:. (U) [agencies must mI F.Me significant. effects Of projects they approv'e,'whealMr itisfeasibleto do so "j.} _CEQA defines feasible "to mean "capable of being accomplished jn,a au@ceeean caumer widen t eaaanable `Period, oft 'a Asking into account, economlc envifonlicis 1, sego], social ; andteChno]oglealfactors.. (Guidell",i .8 15'xaai. PasrAeres &Nei i o — �C,' e•g•, G'herry Yallei 190 Cal ¢ a. City 01Roauinorir (2010) ApA.se'. 916, 350351 (Reaumont)) But not in (1119 naBC " Here,, di , detet 1'a mitigation was feasib(e for jt p qss *df'r� Ii]0'reated On a conclusron'tiiTt'of(site agf901t1t(t}ai conaervation easaments,.(ACE�S) ,canndt'udOgakelYortho. land 75A -70 is I 9790 Daily Appellate Report Monday,.JUly, 2g, Qa1yS,.rr1 lost at the Project . site because they would ,not replace the on-site resources." Tlie County Presumed that ACEs were useful only to address "the Indirect and cumulative effects of farmland conversion, "" and were not needed here because the Pro ecG would. have no such effects, Thus, the tinting of infeasibility In Use EIR rested on the legal conclusion that while ACES can be used to mitigate .a pro�99eces.Indirect and cumulative effects on agricultural resource's, 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 feasibllity 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 aggcultural land to a nonagricultural use, even III ugh an ACE does not replace the onsite resources. Our conclusion is reinforced by the CEQA Guidelines, case law on offsite midgation fortoss of biological. resources,. case law onins, prevailing practice, and die public policy of this state. ACES preserve land: for agricultural use 'n perpetuity. (See Civ Code, §§ 815,1, s15,2 iserves in an amicus for the conclusion we t it no longer exists. , , , if lernsaneatly protected off. a 1:1 reolarement shin. than _-__. (Guidelines §153 0, subd. (e) (mitiga°tion includes 'Tclompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments' l) Tbere is no good reason to distingu sh the use of offsite AMP to miHo.fp rhd 1— „£ on of s by V. C 794 1:1 , I 75A -71 - - -- § kY I al or are th MPermian �,Es on farmland of equal quality in the ' 4, 1:1 ratio or pay "an inlleu mitigation Environmental. Quality Act plays an important at p.588.5 The court concluded that ligation requirements were role is the preservation of agricultural lands,"],) To categorically exclude ACES as a. means to reasonably 3 the adverse public Impact of such and floe an authorized use the mitigate the conversion of farmland would be contrary to one of CGQA's important purposes. of wllceletw would tbeapprved"uhaY ial not be approved We agree with the CFBF that ACEs should not "be removed from ageneies'toolboxes as available r provides p aper provides permanent protection of on of mitigation" for this environmental Impact For these of farmland for every acre. of farmland �'to residential use. Agricultural reasons, the EIE's determinaNOn that ACES are legally infeasible cannot be ion . easements granted in Perpetuity rimary means of accomplishing this sustained, The eeouomio feasibility of affairs ACES to mitigate the Project's hupact on the loss t protection requirement of 45 acres of prime farndand must be explored, Ithough the developed farmland is ed, an equivalent area of comparable (b) In•Llcurees ;Permaneatlyprotectedfrom a shnilar np.592) Stanisfaas reaches thatACEs As an alternative to the outright purchase of ACES; the tnable means to mitigate the impactofa repl DOC comment letter recommended "the donation of mitigation fees to a'local, acesagriculturalland, ppearsdiatACEsareaanmonly regional or statewide organization or agency whose 'purpose Includes the acquisition and � P [ d] and a e[djbylead s an appropriate nadgation as of i t argues esenta"ace the EIR w defc ntbecause it did not measure )A.' and the administrative record ddence that ACES are so employed this suggestion. The County responds, saying it was legally precluded frmn accepting nrlieu w of cities and counftes. The EIR at stated that acquisition of ACES fees because it does not have a comprehensive farmland mitigation program, - Is to equal to the agricultural acreage "'standard We agree with Masointe, -hat the EIE should have addressed the DOC a project is for California s.'" saps, Cit addition to the City Lodi, comment and given reasons for rejecting the DCC`s' proposal. (Guidelines, § 15088, subds, (a) & (c) [responses of of Lodi, the is the ;elleieS Ira rile surroua*g area apply with reasoned analysis are required:) Again, we are not n rrc..nrla:l I.., w.:...:,._:..._.._, _ our thtul and nuttii `this state and 10201, subd, (c) areas that are total use are stature has also declared th to effectuate this public poi 812, § 1, p. 4428 ["(a) Agrict ding Industry..,: [Tj,,, [ n ofogriculturaUanda to non. Ytens (he long-term health o ad'industim [I] (d) The D. Cumulative fmpac(s on Tara drard' a �.. Of ke to Elects in Its a is le, 75A -72 9782 Daily Appellate Report Monday, July 29, 2013„ insufficient to support the determination that the Project's cumulative effect on farmland would be ius[grdficant For reasons we shall discuss, we agree with Masonite on both points. Respondents asserttbat "[c]umuladve 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 inIsfuture, Based on this premise, respondents reason that because the Draft shows that the Project !'wili 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, § §'15094, subd. (d)(2) & 15358, subd. (a) (2) [defining indirect effects] with Guidelines, §§ 15065, an d. (a) (3) & 15355 (describing cumulative effects], see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.AppAth'at p. 278.Edistinguisbing along -term indirect 'impact from a cumulative hnpactj,) 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 then significant in the General Plan RIR," "A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the previsions for deiingg and. program EIRs." (Guidelines,.. § 15130, subd. (d)) However, an EIR that uses incorporation by reference or tiering must do so expressly; (Vineyard supra, 40 CaI4th at p, 440.) It must Indicate where the earller document is available for Inspection, briefly summarize or describe the pertinentparts of earlier document, and describe how they relate to the currentiproject, (Guidelines, §15150, subds (b) &(c),§ 16152, subd,jg),Xostha; supra; § 10.11 p. 501, •Thep information is requires to give the reader a , .. road neap to the Information [the EIR1 intends to convey," (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal4th at p. 443,). The EIR here was deficient because 3t provides no such road map, Respondents'.brlef Indicates that the :EIR was relying on the following discussion of cumulative impacts of.the draft EIR46r the 2009 update of the County's general'plan. (2009 - Update Draft), Although implementation of the General' -Plan would change land use designations, the result would be a minor loss of designated agricultural lands. , .thatwouldnotbe.considered asubstan0al loss ofagriculturallandin the county. Additionally, policies in the proposed General Plan Update support the preservation of agricultural lands and farming oporadous in the county — Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would not result in a cumulative loss of agricultural lands." Respondents argguue that neither tiering nor incorporation by,re*ence 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. Surelyi respondents cannot be saying that because tho, general plan EIR{ determned that changing land use designations mould not cause a substandallass -of agricultural land within the county, no particular project consistent with the general plan could cause such a loss. There is avast dit£erencebetween land use designations thatpertnitseveral alternative uses of property; in a geographic area, and the approval of a specific Project that chargges the characterof a particular property. Nor do we understand the general plan EIR to mean tint no substantial loss to the County's agricultural resources would occur if all the agricultural land in the county, rleatgnated for other possible uses were to-be so converted, or that no such other conversion v1puld be. approved. The general plan EIR acknowledges the Importance of preserving prime agricultural land and while there may be no projects in the plpejine that will similarly convert agricultural land, the EIR does not attempt to quantify the future of the County's agricultural repources,.in, onymeaningfidway . We recognize that "standards of pmcflealat` 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, § 15180, subd, (b).) But,, wearenotpersuadedthediscussionofcumuladie; " LUpacts m the EIR is. suftioient Under the, Guidelines, "an adequate discussion of sigriiflcant cumulative impacts' requires 'either .[a] at of past; present, .and probable fuhire,trojects producing relatedare a ve impacts, or' 3] , summary of projections (ln,.pnilong other things, a certified EIR for an adopfed local plaij' that describes or evaluates con lion contributing to the cumulative effect° ' (Gulrlelloes § 15 0, subds. (b) (1) (A) & (b) (1) (B).7 The �rscua , on .. In the 2009 Up to Draft includes neither of, ` these "necessary. olements. (Rialto Gitr`zetu fqr Res"powiWe Growth v. City offttta_ (201"0 208 Gal. APP.4tlr 899, 928.) Because. the general plan. amendnnents were concerned only with zoning,.chaages, the amendments did not conpider,projeets like, the one under review that 'convert farnijanii to another use without any such Since the 2009 Update Draft does not address,'._ such conversions, die 2008 Update.cannot be , retied upon as a comprehensive, "summary ,of projections" of cumulatve impacts on agrkul(u .aj lands, Despite ,the ,Coup ty pdlicks that favor; preservation of agriculuual Land, the 2009 Update Draft acknowledges: that "thepropossd General Plan Uppdate would not explicitly preclude the i -- co iversicn of farmlands of concern under CEQA ' [Prime Farmland of Statewide Imppoortance, and, - `r- Unique Farmlaadl to otheruses [ngeolyuore ";sad . that "[slubsequent land use activities associated, ... with implementation of the "proposed General. Plan Update, in. combination - with existing, _ approved, proposed, and reasduably Foreseeable development in the region, would contribufe;to, the additional conversion of important farm lands, toother .uses and may increase agriculture /urban, e interface conflicts. ". The County's more general. [ agricultural preservation policies do not salvage, the cumulative Impacts analysis. _ Thus, the discussion of cumulative impsptS- g,. on "agricultural, resources 'suffers froig,]ioth; procedural and factual flaws." a wle2loyard...ff4ra4, 40 CalAth at p, 447.) 75A -73 Monday; July 29, 2013 Dally Appel E. Roadway Mitigation (1) Record The plan is for aggregate mined in the Project to be 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 as Kumner-Ranch Road and North State Street .. are genermjy 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 impaoted.from project truck traffic would have to be upgraded to support vehicle weights up to 25 tons, IT] ... 1911, .. Mile project would have a significant impact on Kunzler Ranch Road and aless than significant impact on North State Street, M ... [911 The project applicant has recently prepared an assessment of Kunzler Ranch Road, Kunzler Ranch Road •Pavg »cent Evaluation and Rehabilitation Strategies, April 28, 20W. This report was submitted to the County and provides a detailed assessment of current roadway conditions and a comprehensive plan to i rehabilitate and maintain the roadway over a 30 yearperiod. The report identified Kunzler Ranch I Ron as being in serious condition and identifies - various alternatives for addressing the condition of the road. "s To mitigate this significant impact, the Draft' �'recanunended that Kunzler Ranch Road be improved as needed (e.g., overlays or reconstruction) per the April 28, 2009 Kunzler Ranch Road study and the Caltrans Design Manual standards.. The project applicant would pay the full cost of road improvements, including design and construction. [col Prior to operations the projei:t'applicant shall enter into a Roadway Maintenance Agreement with Mendocino County providing their proportionate share of the responsibility to maintain the proposed haul roads." (talicsomitted) - - When it commented on the Draft, die 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.... IT) ... [911... Therefore there is no need for the applicant to enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with the County for maintenance of Kunzler Rauch 'Road" The MDOT further stated; "Arriving at a cost sharing arrangement is the responsibility of the applicant, the mad's owner(s) and those property owners having rights to its use.. ITT IT] ... Ideally, ail 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 make 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 Minzler Ranch Road shall be initiated when the owners of the road and users of the casement reach a decision that such repairs are necessary. Granite's fair share shall be calculated based on the proportion of applicanCs heavy truck trips to the total numherof heavy truck trips on the road the cost and expense incurred for traffic-relate� repairs of Kunzler Ranch Road." - (2) Review Masonfte argues dtat the mitigation measure; for the Project's imnact on Kneader Ranch Rea, =a Won u• Cil of Anderson (2005) h` -1173, 1188 [discussing fee-b: 'Programs for cumulative ttr of, - Masonite's' •arguments Ing. "IMleasuros to mitigate orn they wit be made or funded. The EIR to be made when: decide they are r of an agreement; ­M­ RAGm 11._ 75A -74 to construed to include to accommodate the sere is'no reason to ment to enforce the - valid point when it measures have been t mitigation measures air share payments rovenields must be it the payments are :sted private parties 9794 Dally Appellate Report Mannay, July 29, 201; 1' nddgadon will be effective, ]sere, as In Mader, the proposed mitigations are not so vague as to be unenforceable, but sufftcden fly Mile as to'vnpict [the] analysis of (heir viability and effectiveness," (Madera, stepra, 187 Cal,App.4th at p, 1116.) The Mader court "[g]enerally agreafell that CEQA permits a lead agency to defer specifically detailing mitigation. measures as long as the lead agency commits itself to specific nerformance, here, had not made that commitment, and the midgadou measures were found to be inadequate trader CEQA. '(Id at pp, 1119,.1120; see also Santee, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 280.282 [without performance standards or guidelines mitgadon was Improperly deferredL) The County emphasizes that the mitgation measures were changed only after it discovered that it had no jurisdiction over the road. But while that discovery main obviated the need for a. roadway in .agreement between respondents, it did not justify deletion of criteria for the roadway improvements such as those specified in the Draft. If " "'practical considerations pprohlbit devising [mitigation] measures, early W the planning process ... the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria, .. ;" ". (Oakland flerltageAtlianre it City of Oakland (2011) 195 CAAppdth 884, 906.) But this Is not such a case. According to the Draft, Granite had .completed a. study that included a. for die improvements there is no'substandal evidence to support the EIR's finding that the impact of the Project on Kunzler Ranch Road will be mitigated to insignificance. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Ca1.4th at p. 427 (scope of review of factual determinationol.) R Discussion ofAlterna4ves . Masonite contends that the EIR did not adequately evaluate offaite or onslte alternatives to the Project. (1) OffsiteAlternatioes The Draft's analysis of ofaske alternatives, incorporated without change in the EIR, considered nine alternative mining sites in the Ukiah area, discussed one of them as an offaite alternative, and rejected the ,other eight as infeasible. Masontte says there was no reason for linritinps consideration of alternative sites to those within die 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 tiie project" (Citizens of Goleta Valley a Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca13d 553, 566, italics omitted.) "Ibere Is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason," (Guidelines, 915126.6, subd.. (a) ) In February 2009 correspondence, Granite Identified various factors to be considered in selecfinn and as an industrial sees; like Kunzle; would blcely compatible with its surroundings)," and leathetics (e.g. not in the direct view shed the AMM TA,b r A " _ Hie botendnf for sivnAcnnk . to those in the Utdaharea was and unduly restrictive. (2) OnsltaAlternadve Maannite argues that theonsite. alternative evaluated in . the EIR— Alternatve. 3 -was inadequate because it did not offer stibstandal: environmental advantages over the project as proposed.. (See. Citizens of Goleta _Valley a Board of pro " Supra; 52 Cal.3d at p. 5661131R. must consider a, reasons bIs range. of feasible alternatives that "offer'substantlal anvli 'o nmantal advantages' over is project as'propo,S d "]) Masomte reasons that Alternative 3 offered no substanti al anvironmental advanis e,,over the weir and fuse plug o l}y contemplated because its pond -river eonnneA a wnuldh.". 3 was and its 183 have even the 1 to ca than the that such protection was a i mmental Issue for the Project asOulte asserts that "Alternative -3 d any change In operations or the size a would reduce the mount of aggregate y 10 to 15 perceaL - Thus, Alternative 3 t 75A -75 h i Monday, Jury 29, 2013 Daily Appellate Report 9795 as finally approved did in fact reduce the scale o die Project. Masonite's challenges to Alternat(vs 3 are.without metiL M. DISPOSITION The judgment denying the petition for wri of mandate Is reversed, With directions to issust a writ requiring die County to set aside its certiflcattoli of the,ElR, set aside its. approvals of the cWiditional use permit an d reclamatior plan for flip Project, and prepare and chreulmt a supplemental EIR, which includes the EIR's Provisions pertaining to the Frog, and addresses the deficiencies we have Identiiled In the EIR concerning:' the feasibility of ACES and in -lieu fees as mitigation for the Projects conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use; the discussion of Biggins, J, We concur: McGuiness, RJ, Pollak, J. Trial Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County Trial Judge: Hon, John A. Behnke Counsel for Petitioner and Appellant:. Masombe Corporation 'Christian. Lucier Marsh DOWNEY BRAND David Ivester BRISCO, NES'T'ER & BAZEL Counsel fur Defendant and Respondent: Mendocino County et el. Jeanine B. Nadel Terry Nan Gross OFFICE OFTT-LE COUNTTCOUNSEL Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Respondent .Granite Construction Company - Mark David Harrison HARRISONTEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD &JOHNSON r Granite advised at the County board at supervisors hearing on the Project tat, in reap.... to romman[s from the Regional Water Board, it agreed to suspend. mfnhng during the wet season between November and March. ° the Draft stated: 'Measure 3.4.4: pp1... [11 Reclona0on Phase (1) Option A. Prior to completion of reclamation, Granite shall, In coordination with NMFS and (Fish & Game] , evaluate the results of the biological feasibility, and design and construct an alternative reclamation design consistent with the. extended hydrologicconnecnon concept discussed above during the 5ycar reclamation phase (see also Chapter 4, PrafeotAltenm9ves). If, daing,cordlnanoa With NNIn and (Fish & Game), regtdamry, agency staff determine that the potential adverse water quality effects within the pit would outweigh due expected benefits to salmonid ha blta4 Granite shall no t implemen t this mitigation measure, (1) Opdmn S,,;•Gmabaa yhall,maintain asahnodid rescue sad relocation program in. consultation with N1,1M and Mail & Gamel until it is determined by Bose mention, that such a program le nolaneer necessary" 'Mining to agreaterdepth of 65 feet had been contemplated in the projectapplieanon tad tile noun. ' Sloan Chu, Was disapproved on another ground In RSstarn States Petwlea nAmn. a Superior Court (1095) 9 Cd,4th 559, 576, fa, 6. ,.. ,, ' TI s Guideline provides: '^M(tlgatlon' Includes: i'J] (a) Avoiding the Impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an notion. III (b) Minimising impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its ° "A Williamson Act contract obligates tlie' landowner I. maintain the land as agricultural for 10 or morn years, with resuidng tax benefits, (IGov, Code,l §§ 5124451244:) Absent conhnry action, each year the eonhnct renewe for on additionalyenr, no that the use restrictions as always in place for the next nine to loyears. (ld., §51244,)° (Friends of East Wlllm Palley it Cmmty afAfen fedna (2002) 101 Cal, . App.4th 191,195.) r Tice amentlmenfs' omited�fncup and hichtidl'urgto account tarthe Rojemare shownbv lhedidcusafbn of brinAnf d.J.a u" lend use clu agriculture, to another I the county vacant hand in 92.10 acres of of land within the county, Out of the 82.10 acres otvacant 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 agricnhuml Ind lost with the proposed land use changes..., III, I'll ... pat of the''1446 Vacant acres proposed for land use changes in the proposed Central plan. Update, there era approximately 0.94 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.68 acres of Unique Farmland." ' ° ltiispave dent reportis not hncluded in (he`. Draft or LrIPw u This statute such easement is attached Corte, If 845, solid, (a),) If hey wig share the costs 'each on in die absence e. heir use of dvy easement. srovidee 'for cou4 tedul ibilgatiart. (Gf atsu,l(d. (c) of say casement tit the f any land to which any italn It in repair." '(Ciu, muddple . such owners, to any agreement they imem,,`in proportion to eng; of flint proportionate 75A -76 CA Codes(gov:51200- 5]207) 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 T or class I1 in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classificati-ons. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Store Index Bating. (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. (4) 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 512311 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 I of 6 hfln: / /www.lecinfo.ca. ov/ cei- bin /dishlaYCO "dfitl —r7-1 v &group =51001 -52000 &file =5... 8/14/2013 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 l 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 (3) 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 . f.acili: ties 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 affect of unduly limiting its use by the public. Any ancillary structures necessary for a recreational use shall comply with the provisions of Section 5123 &.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 tittp : / /www.leginfo.ca.gov /cgi- bin /clisplayc d eitiot� ov&group= 51001- 52000&file =5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes(gov:51200- 51207) (1) A scenic highway corridor, as defined in subdivision (i). (2) A wildlife habitat area, as defined in subdivision (j). (3) A sal.tpond, 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 51.283.4, if the Department. of Conservation or the landowner believes that the current fair market valuation certified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 53.283 or Section 51203.4 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 riot 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 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) if 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 L'he 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 htfn / /w,,vw.lecinfo.ca.Lyov /cEi- bin /diso[ayc1 egGo� v &Rroup= 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, 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 maill..ng. 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_ ion 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 51 283,.9: The agreement shall be transmitted to the board or council considering the petition to cancel the contract. te) 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 salt-pond; 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 http : / /www.leginfo . ca,gov /cgi- bin /displayc � �iol6nv &group= 51001 - 52000 &filc�--5... 8/19/2013 CA Codes (gov:512OO- 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 submergedarea, 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 51201, 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 infornation 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. (A) 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 h,nn• /(nnznv Irc.infn ra nnv /rai- hin /di.¢nlavcc)tt ,,,v &LTiollU= 51001,- 52C)00&FIle =5... 8/19/2012 CA Codes (gov:5 1 200- 5 1 2 07) 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 :51263 in an amount sufficient to prepare the report required by this section. Page 6 of 6 littp://w �Nw. leginfo .ca.gov /cn,i- biti/displaycode ?section-- ov&group= 5'1001- 52000MUce 5... 8/19/2013 75A -8i %,+ N1 A,Y )j//��, r .wy t g l C fire Jeannie Gillett President Ryan Bens1ey Vice - President Treasurer uT- Patrick Mitchell Moises Plascancia Steve Ray Nick Spain "To preserve, acquire, restore andrnanage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultutat, agricultural and educational rosour'oe for all (714) 296 -4642 P. G. Box 10088 Santa Ana, California 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 (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, www.0Id0rchardConservancy.org 75A -83 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 "[17his 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. R 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. TOOL Director Deborah Rosenthal, AICP, Esq. Matthew Holbrook, Esq. Sonia Carvalho, Esq. www.0Id0rchaidConservaiicy.org 75A -84 RUTAN RUTAN &-I'UCKER. 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 ,Ieffrey'I'. Melching Direct Dial (714) 641 -9422 pip Re; Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa. Clara Avenue Dear Mr. Fregosw This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, die "Schools "), in connection with their development applications for the property located at 1.584 East Strata 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 a "Historic Preservation Alternative " to the development originally proposed by the Schools, which would call for the permanent preservation in sitit 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 1istoric 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 Planting Commission on February 1.0, 2014. R LItan & Tucker, LLP I 011 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1950 ( 714 -F41 -5100 I Fax 714.54E -9035 Orange County i Palo Alto i emw.rutan.eom EXHIBIT 13 75A -85 680701181AW9d0 6602}84.1 „0117.1114 RUTAN r�o.nn emeucn. ury 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 )renderings: At the January 2013 Planting 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 letter as Exhibit B. As the renderings show, the shade and shadow effects on adjoining development are minimal, with no shadows oast on structures and only minor shadows cast oil back yards during the late fall 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 Aualvsis. Through the public review and outreach process, community members inquired as to whether the installation of a "mash gate" at the south end of Lyon Avenue on the project site would cause any additional traffic hnpacts 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 6801048179 -0940 66023(4.10112111-1 75A -86 RILITAN Vince C.Fregoso January 24, 2014 Page 3 hesitate to contact inc, or any of the School's project representatives, if there is any additional information or explanation that we may provide. JTM 6601040170-0940 6602364,101/21114 Sincerely, Jeffrey T. Melching RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 75A -87 b30/ . 0.0 �Moowoo 1 75A -88 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 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 "Encourage the Retention and Reuse of Historical Buildinss." 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 farrrnhouse building, together with orchard trees, on- site, and (3) based 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 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 Nlun. Code ( "SAMC ") Ch. 30 [ "Historic Preservation Ordinance "].) Those regulations have been applied to the Sexiinger Property. 75A -89 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 hoe 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 Witdlands 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; ('l8) Historic French Park (Debbie -2- 75A -90 McEwen, President); and (19) all Historic Resources Commission ad hoe 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 emaiis 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 terms under which the religious institutions would consider a sale of the Sexlinger Property on or before December 31, 2042. 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, 7013. 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 t5, 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 had, to that point, not raised sufficient funds to enter into a purchase agreement with the owners.2 1 The `limited thncframe" 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 -91 In 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 amutually satisfactory resolution has been achieved. On August 29, 2013, the City received an email from a representative of Tire Old Orchard Conservancy, requesting that an additional preservation alternative be considered. Tile City had previously considered a "Hybrid Development Alternative" that involved the relocation of the existing residential structure and the rectangular outbuilding to the northeast caner 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 deterrnination 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 Comments oil 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 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: GuidOines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes (McLelland et a1, 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; (G) Topography; (7) Vegetation; (8) Buildings and Structures; (9) Cluster Arrangements; (10) Small Scale Features; (1'1) 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 13), are either not applicable or mininial'ly applicable, and are therefore not discussed in the Additional Analysis. As to the retraining ten factors, the Additional Analysis acknowledges that natural systems and for the property. -4- 75A -92 features (criterion 1), land use (criterion 3), cultural traditions (criterion 4), topography (criterion 6), and buildings and structures (criterion 4) are all characteristics that are retained in (lie Historic Preservation Alternative, Of the remaining five factors, the Additional Analysis concludes that circulation (criterion 5), Cluster arrangements (criterion 9), wound 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 sutra, 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 purposes. Importantly, as compared to the Hybrid Development Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative better locals the City's objectives — particularly the goal of adding to the City's stock of moue -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 the complied with both Land Use Element Goal 4 and Land Use Policy 42. 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 -93 The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sextinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on June 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "I {ey" as described in SAMC Section 30- 2.2(2)c. Following that designation, the rt o ertV o_wi er_s runlia ut(elo led in preserving the site and representatives ok the lmo-IJertu_ owners. The committee and City staff ...cx, >Jotied =accts from no less Chan 19 gd ate gr9lus r 7 Inttions,.Ait d ^r hjg that there are no feasible preservation alternatiM�Lfst the site Despite that conclusion Cif staff ncverthdess - ip re&Wnse to a comment on the F_IR _ eonnnissioned an additional trees on site (together w I HIP planting of additional like -kind trees). The additional analysis found th, t the I[ivtp -ic Preservation tyuSt- zeviewing the additional analysis. the _annlicant has agree to modify its development proposal to reflect the Historic Preservadon Alternative By these actions it is clear th u'the City as nnactively encouraged the retention and reuse of histo tea buildings and sites as re m ed by the A;s- „ucI+ w- propo%d-p"eet would- eery €I -ie-t wi -th -City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element Goal 4 trod - Policy 4.2vl iceettn ;ems tt r teafi m «, n' ���nst�rri €trl- htriidirags- -tHtt� site„- This- e- on-f -l-ict tca- tke -GiEy ota- Atia��tal- P-kut- Land- T�,yc-- E- letaten t- Et��i- A -I'•ol i ey-4� ,o ,,. �' �'- rc�ettE-; }�- tkae- ptc�ju�:����t�litiorr- the-- c�r4tstt -irtc re iide+gfd sEet tore outiui rlijsg and -oraj e tr Howe e-a sankprl n- the i of Santa £ e aeral Pl n��i- Use -Vent - 46= t1�1- fl�5E�- �le-- �vit. t# 8i@ El- thi�Otik' �-7-- thf°,-{•.'- Ftj� ';r- F(�'2�@i*J- j-JfflC- l;fi4't;r, - 4+dH�tk Fespec- t- to- Ehc� -gettl s- Gnstl- petit- it�tJS- tares- C- it}'trCc�tcxrl- I- ttn�- T�artd {use -I�IeI trient: The text of Section 7.3.2, under the heading "Land Use and Planning” (Pages 7 -4 to 7 -5) is modified as follows: -6- 75A -94 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). €•'afthei-mmr�t a °�„- adopted Ehe- "�AI�k- oR�nne 4, 291'?. T- lie- z�t+an- d€signat�d- the - site -aS M lied -k —I--- - crT:ty— ccicztt(?N- 9- G. Ji-1 f ifttl-Vk: would -resin t- in- tlae���r�v�l- ef- tlFe- F�:i�lenti,�l- sty =uettate;- ad�ac -eaG eaN�r%lding; and- c�rfr,, -- ttees- ettnitel- ilae4naertt- w+t#- a- ptt�- sett+ng: = F1tis�Fti -v • «�, «', n « C�tzrA��r- C- �nc�tl �tulEl -et-tn llt -el -4 � .����y- of -�`ia Pktrr- Liu R'� ;n- rlet�ent- t�attl -4; - P- P- Fi:� =; .?- o;�treoaa�g+�- Nre reterrt i�nr-- a3td -re<;s � t- ltis4oric- al- build- rtsg✓;- and -siRas —fives ; as Itrt pl€ a�ntrtt- isn- lalttn- tl�i5-- �tnd -�rlr l --Ise r.- a-- i:�+e%pr��errt�'e'IeeF� Weald- be- st�jeeeteel- to- prrijec- �;-ie or- Ehretrb r- Elte- CCirty- s- r�.v�v -iestx pCf nest;- anE l- l�enefate- e�ar..�t�l- thxsrigh- the- Etty- s- re��w- lvrac -e�.. 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), Land -Flue 0evnent- 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 Planning" (Page 7 -1.1) should be modified as follows: The City Council adopted a resolution that listed the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard on the SARHP on Jute 4, 2012. The action designated the site as "Key" as described in SAMC Section feasible preservation alternatives were thoroueh(v evalulted An AC-1-110c committee was formed, which hincludeA members of the pl•Unerty owners The committee—and City slaff expl red pi-e, er ` on- ontions by examining 28 different entWI public -7- 75A -95 determined that there are np i=e3isible preservation alternatives s fgr 11'e —site. Despite that conclusion. City staff nevertheless - jj and garage iyt�2lace. and call for the R'eLy3lSion of some of the mo- ify its development liropnsal to reflect the Historic Preservation Alternativr, By these actions it is clear that the City t+ld cax €lit w tl City �F Santa Ana General Pl m Lancl Use E e -n ittl - Pltui— Laxd —U -a leiare tt Goal 4, I;ey 4.2, will A es ti nierrh n n Cri for cztl tau lelixgtrtl s -tes Revfte� d -ir"+e C - of -&antes -Ante Gene n, Rat3 -L-and Use le Went- lxakensertfiatsn Flit -n- this aeE titheiect r are s tf3}eEt ta-Prer}e- et-ve- vteroy4hrettb h the City's w -ff—e mind -a 13rej eel;;- Iaene�tta- t�ti- N- xl�o- l�2- evattxttet{- thr�gh- tl�- C -i -t�° s- re -aieav Ix wi 'Rrres}�ect to Nxa tls aoliea{ the City S CJetaeral enie+tt. 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 Jane 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 pJ)osed demolition of the on -site structures which trigger_, 1 open, up b1iG and comprehensive uroeess thronah which Ll feasible pre. em,,L& alternatives were thoroughly evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed. which included members of the j2rpjgrtv owners The committee and City staff exglQj�ul preservation options by examining 23 different potential pu1,c fundin: som•c_e� tt actively soliciting interest in i tnchashz the operty from no Less than 19Lrivate groups nnci grganizaxQns. At the conclusion Of N& process. the City's I-Ii�storic Resources -8- 75A -96 Commission held a public hearing at which it conclusively Preservation Alternative would preserve the existing farmhouse trees), The additional a tat alvsis found that the Historic Preseration Preservation Alternative. By these actions, it is clear that the City has proactively encouraged Ate retention and reuge Plii5t4r caI buildings and sites as required by the woalil- e-r °`F' ^* ` "°^ City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Uce Elet t7_ent Gnal 4 and - Policy 4 2- 4 sue]this ante t+alivs'tcttidaa { H-- t{- it'- t5E6p6ti2E1- j3F8&IE'�E- V.'HMId- C'(3r} €(- }fit - Vi-ih -L,u,t F ta All �i$+ lek'- a%-- 1•? ifH- n�ai6-- o.- s�-, e+ ttet;i;--- t�3tTEkl— Li;— �41:18j^ .�, 'yrrrtL'tt eneetw-agea4fie-felen ld FeL[se e h+sttai ital b i kEli+ b urd tes �Hwe-1 ..r- ainiki@Ei- FC`r -�inu- vii' y- 6z- �tHlii %A+kR-1•.iP.n@rai- 1= 1tHi —, L-anii Usc�len3ont� - Irx}rlei�nfat ion. P- la+ t- tiffs- �rtiti- oEier- g+o-jr."c:ts --sere snijeeFto-projeet rtti- env - through- Nt�Git3�- reyievw pra;�t project ktn�rke �e- evak+ate 4 EhrecrgirtiErEy s rem taraeesss- witFra�G- tc�- t #e- ge�tl�- arid- ps�ic- ies- o�:he� -iz °y "- �- .r'- etet�1 P- kan- ban,;�„e E�tenC: • The text of Section 7.6.2 (page 7 -15) should be modified as follows: The Lower Density Alternatives would result in decreased impacts to air quality, noise, population and housing_; =This alternative would result in significant impacts to cultural resources_ -afid sotrfl;it =t- with- t} ie- tvit�j- o-F- 6enc3r-al- [?la +r6and- Lase- F;1 €irte+tt -Goal -4; P-oldc e= 4al +ieh- eac,^,a�a- ate,- Ehe- reteu+t =ien- acrd - reuse -tt 1= l+irieirl {suntletings -aitd- lies— Fwthermare, 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 Prgiect Site. Some of the written and oral continents on the Draft and Final EIR focused on proposals that would reinstate orchard operations on the project site. For example, in continents 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 -97 17, 2012 letter from The Old Orchard Conservancy, p. S ["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 pro Fits of a, citrus - growing operation could be used to fund ongoing maintenance and repair of the Farmhouse or the construction of a small -state 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 -I 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], 4'1 -232.5 [conditionally permitted uses].) The former agricultural use on the property was a grandfathered legal non- conforluing 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 (1.2) 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 eommaercial 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 tine current and future "move up" (rousing 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 farther 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 analysts 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 to- 75A -98 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 tithe. In this respect, the provision of it significant [lumber 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 till future development" within the City, and the City's Zoning Code acts to implement the General 'Plan on a district- by- dishrict 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 ]•rift." 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 "nnove -up" housing. That statement is not accurate. While 24 single family units would achieve the "move - tip" 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 it point where it 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 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 MR'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, it 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. -Il- 75A -99 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 Farhouse 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 situ and also calls for the preservation of some 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 1.0 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 world a preservation alternative be similar in character to surrounding uses. Over the years, tine 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 wilt 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 Findings Necessary to Grant a Variance. In this case, tile, applicant is proposing that Lot No. 12 have a street frontage that is less than what in 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 -100 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 througli the project site. After the applicant agreed to this modification, City staff further determined that it "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 all 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. 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. Phu and zoning designations for the property, will support move -tip 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 developmentt 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 -101 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 -102 i 680!- a 0, nOOlO(HOO 75A -103 75A -105 A JUN_L A 344 h may F �u� C� 0 CJJ [d ✓a b @ Q }. O f� O 'mod H cd v C UJ ti O b O "y O O � �, o 75A -106 TV 9R n� 3¢�a u `L G x v a 3 a d x �d 3 m a� U � � � A E r. ^d � o v m cC �, 0 0 0 N o' � N O d' �, o � M L gp l i f I f, i - i s k f' pr Fr- M, MEN 110 IFFIF. r sy 680x- 0.0 n00 /00700 I m 1 75A -110 May 22, 2013 INC. Mr, Robert Odle Odle & Associates 6007 E. Mabury Ave Orange, CA 92867 Re: Se:riiriger Orange Grove Dear Mr. Odle: Thank you for asking me to provide an arboricu'lturai evaluation of the orange 'trees' health and condition, professional opinions regarding its viability as an orellard, requirements to maintain an orchard, and report as appropriate, Observations 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 Flight.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, i.e. 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 on Santa Clara and get the impression that the trees are healthy. The trees along the snail get runoff from the street and may be getting hose water from Off the house. People that can take the time to wallc it, as we did, get quite 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 oasts 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 trees 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 mots. There is almost no part of the trees south of the third row down that is healthy or capable of prnducflhg edible 'fruit, ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horuculttire St Atboiicultme 1131 Lucia& Way, Tushin, CA 92780, 13h.714.731.62,10, Cell: 714.292:7184, Fiis 714.73'1.6138 75A -111 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.. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I-lmdailmre & Arboriculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.2923184, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -112 5/22/2013 Seslinger Orange Grove Page 3 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Horticulture & Arboriculture 11311 ucinda Wo-iq, Tustin, CA 92780, P11.714.731.6240, Cell: 714.2917184; Five 7'14.75'1.6138 75A -113 . . .. -wg - � � � « - 2 � � \� .. .,� wo � k6l J. 3j 1 .. P � x Ytil ­W UM W.Mx, , 0-i \ v A I Al V4, Of, ILI A�l V1•1 711 w all, A96; "I -Wr w all, A96; "I 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 9 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Flom culture & tlrboriculhue 11.31 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph.. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714,731.67.38 75A -119 5/22/2013 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 10 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. I lor6culture & Arboriculhire 1131 Lucinda Way, Tns6n, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 75A -120 / \ ` go � Kk d:. ? AA ANN m <m� 5/22/20 t3 Sexlinger Orange Grove Page 12 Analysis 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 snake 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 roadside stand so they are malting 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 availablc 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 Nissen tit the Agriculture Commissioner's office, whose family has the last, or one of the Mast, "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 trader the Williamson Act. At five cents a pound, maybe not even then would, it pay for itself. At the'Sexiinger 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 offruit 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 fruit. Replanting should he 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 free, 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 finites, 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 m_ ake 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 RI residential use. The Guy Stivers report is in error expecting any significant root growth to five feet deep. If there are any toots at five feet it will be less than 1 percent ofthe root 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 carbonn. bank, Orange m11Se11111 or one species botanic garden. At onetime it may have been a viable orchard, or part of one. That time has long pasted. There is a nice public part, next door and two cemeteries that can serve as "carbon banks ". Few if any people would spend time to visit ail orange museum. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Hocticuttiue & Arbodculture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tus6u, Cif 92780, PI1. 714.731,6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fns 714.731:6138 75A -122 5/22/2013 SexlingerOrmige (Trove Page 13 The neighbors would not want to breathe the £uytes of the pesticides used to control the pests and keep an orange orchard healthy. This property would require replanting, an experienced caretaker, water, fertilize_ r; pest co_ ntrol, 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 ConsultingArboristU365 Enclosures ARBORGAT E CONSULTING, INC. Horticultam & Arboricuklire 1131 Lueiuda V1iy, Tnsay, Cry 92780; Ph. 714.73'1.0240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 744.731.6'133 75A -123 fiHa. 0.0000!00/00 Immullamoll 75A -124 FF KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 18; 2013 To: Mr. Robert Odle Odle Associates From: Min Zhou,'P,E., Vice President - KQA'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 Horns 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, 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 I8 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 1KOA 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 Wight Street, and 75A -125 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING R ENGINE @RING 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 atotal 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 entering /exittngthe 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 • EastSanta. Clara Avenue at Project Access (Lyon Street) • Avalon Avenue at Wright Street Average daily traffic on the following street segments is also affected by 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 8uildout (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 -126 12 r 13 r 0 84' t 6 '°-rte ..720 r - � - II sz' E e' � a - -r_ J�R m H 9 's- 3 N M x8 J r. III N LEGEND POTENTIAL CRASH GATE LOCATION iACIcr n wAmVoAOn 5bTAVn>mm<s51ti Not[a Scale KOA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure I " nAmmp,c s. erUcu•rreuuoc TAVA MomesT atflc Impact Study- South Entrance Closure Site Plan KOA CORPORATION FIGURE 2— INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Y N C 0 60% Santa. Clara Ave 25% 40% Avalon Ave V) 15% 4 �L FIGURE 3 - OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 1 B; 2013 75A -128 r- -3t2 2i6 1 j 1 In c (I!2 J Santa Clara Ave Project 6nly PealcHour TrafftoVa lumes N s/u )4719 -. J a/t \\ 14/19 LOI3 ee 1 -- 293/ }IL 79/1007 ,f AO /37' 45/193 1 (44139 / 0/1 z:vll3s I 125 !4p 25/13 } f s(a 1 I' /4' 197/182 BuildoutWith Project Peak HourTraffic Volumes 0LLI Lam 3511377 2761 : V9 5/3� r,5 b16 29/1 10 /R LO%4 2781514 -- 3481371 9711317 49/44 ss /i4eS] I x54145 0/i a Future With Project Peale HourTraffic Volumes 000i t 0/0 3/554 —e -3 2/61 �C-3/9 5/3� F9 /5 LEGENb EM P roject Site• U34112r,� Study Intersection XX /XX AMiPM Peale HourValumes NOT TO SCALE J:AQWS.e A,AMI0]] SA.TAVA H.,, m. N[ A,aty,MCE— W]0772a —.m K-OA CORPORATION City of Santa Ana Figure 4 atANNJNG 4 eNGUaeE a!bicv TAVA Homes Trafilc Impact Study. -South Entrance Closure AM /PM Peak Hour TrafficVOlumes 15 14 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 buildout "WITH Project" intersection level of service for the "WITH Project" conditions is summarized in Table 2. Table I AMIPMPeak Hour Intersection Performance I Future WITH Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay2 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 It For intersections affected by change In project trip distribution Note 2: LOS = Level of Service; Delay In Seconds /Vehicle Average Table 2 AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Performance I BuildoutWITH Project Conditions Intersection I AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections (Level of Service I Delay) Delay 2 LOS 2 Delay? 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 5 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. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -130 KOA CORPORATION t PLANNING E ENGINEERING FIGURES - FUTURE WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FIGURE 6- BUILDOUT WITH PROJEcTAVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -131 KOA +CORPORATION ,.K PLANNING& 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 Capacity. Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 9,370 1 1,300 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 Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -132 Future LOS "D" 'Future Street Between And ADT Level of Volume Capacity. Service Santa Clara Avenue Wright Street Lyon Street 12,493 11,300 E Wright Street: Santa Clara Ave 17`h 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 Santa Ana ", March 14, 2011, by KOA Corporation. TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -132 KOA CORl L911NFIO1V 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: 1-05 =1-evel of Scivice TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -133 Existing I Future Future Increase/ Significant intersection Without Projeet With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay I LOS Z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 13.9 B 14.4 B 14.5 B 0.1 No Wright Street Santa Clara Ave/ NA N/A NA NIA 11.3 B N/A No Project Access Wright Street/ 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.9 A 0.1 No Avalon Avenue PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS z Delay I LOS 2 Delay I LOS z Santa Clara Ave/ 30.0 D 33.5 D 34,3 D 0.8 No Wright Street Santa Clara Project Accessss . 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: 1-05 =1-evel of Scivice TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18,2013 75A -133 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINKRING Table 6 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Buildout Project Conditions Note n oway in seconds per venicie avenge; Note Z: WS =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 Hornes 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 (201 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 Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -134 Existing Future Future Increase/ Significant Intersection Without Project. With Project Decrease Impact? AM Peak Hour Delay! LOS 2 Delay'' LOS 2 Delay' LOS x Santa Clara Avel 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( Avalon Avenue 9.8 A 10.3 B 103 B 0.0 No PM Peak Hour Delay I LOS 7 Delay i LOS 7 Delay l LOS a Santa Clara Ave/ Wr i ght Street 30.0 D 81:3 F 849 f 3,6 Yes Santa Clara Ave( ProjectAccess NA N/A N/A N/A 14.8 - B N/A No Wright Street/ 9.5 A 93 A 9:8 A 0.0 No Avalon Avenue Note n oway in seconds per venicie avenge; Note Z: WS =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 Hornes 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 (201 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 Wright Street TAVA Homes Supplemental Traffic Analysis July 18, 2013 75A -134 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING a 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 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 (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 Pealc 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 -135 X 4-1cc cc G RoL .r. i. O i.. 0 0 .F� EXHIBIT 14 75A -136 Co m� m Q tu N N L � �cU oUto UU N� t!5 N G N u N O } U � s o b ' a e m CL s m O � O W O O �g C a0 UM C N ti p c a s R v C H 75A -137 L 4F A N 'O m C O s. L � 7 a m a e Q O wa Q C O C u tp w z C } W � O A m F CL m m m m c CL 0 0 Q O ¢ 0 ¢ 0 c m ,v m. _ six o w avr c .E > a ;� 'in. 'a C =. 'in:..� N 'O v vi' � Q a. 01 'ta .E m v tl E c cif' w" 'c aoi•uN'- m: c m nmu�t a o o B m ci o v p i 4 w w m ro E f- a> 'u v c v e. 'L a N u N ro O O N a O .°ia 'a C %3 O n ca [V, c !op m e olaT =o" c ro K'� ua*w6G .'_^ ? to m 8'C u. .n C 2 1� C ry D C C �N o E G io v� L'� C ,�..+ w a m o u L°. cap Lam°.. a c L° 0 33 o Q a C 'i� Co N a �a,.. Q tp 4 ro V N V m 'C 4, m n fJ .0 to N. u ° 'io pr i'n m m. °CA R '� ;: m o w .S 'm CL •O- 'u c o c C O d v N °a m E��'' j tl C' .�0. 'O t+ N ��'' C V. E. E C pl 4 id L Vi ap f0 N E O 41 s+ N V m a o — ,tl. c c ui .o 0 N pl � tl 'i. 'np ro h0 CL c •.m a w w c ro c o l7 cu an m u 4 v a� v o ro 2 .o. ra °� u E. ,c v c �+. 0 40 4 7 c x c a. m it u �' ¢ 0 U z= a N 75A -137 Z ti B w o 'i n m � q O ° fi m O U9 ` a a C a a o �o a w 4 N w m a b C a c F' p m as y G O C 9 •Cj � v V ? y a re v CL v a n o E a 4 O ¢ b 4 P a v w v 3 -o m c o . m W v w m 6 d$ c` > n m o ti a c E M a s a a � 'NJ a ❑ fl, ii .c n:. °` c � v �c o > c� Z a- B s j aaa ¢aC O C N 2 E u E m a ° c •m E m i CL ° v d O m C W O E a U N n.+�s 'a v c v,�' a :C c V a C "'. u. m m O m 'C ` c 'a^ v y a°43ow3v °c.O,5.�"?m�ca°m'�N L wyH a � a cC a am m = m u ¢ro tr s c o 0 cf �c 3- . ¢ v 2 w m a ro 3 o° E a a a a c n a A m 'a ca c m a Y° n a 2 m 'i u v w ti° c m v m c c 0 3 m 4 m o a m s v w ° c m a° e 3 E c y L a° m a o a o° a w �: E-. 12 k� a eO T con 3 m b Y-' C3C _ t� o o •a ° � G. (-�' > W CO .w ;i3. w. n, m o n. Q .�. a c m c ` �' 3. m e '- 0 0 E v° '. Yn .°'c b- o- °`' 4" Cl a Q :° a E a :-i ro o c n E y o v` +� ° o a°. °P .. ;�•. C7 a u p a w d= .v. � m c❑ c LL c a o— a m a s w-a h w m `o Cy E ti M 3 �} �$ a 2 c me a ?° W 4� h a m cs a= m c rG z ac E 3 ._ a+ w ++ h m o. vi ❑ m :h +, a+ U O vi 75A -138 v a O re CL . w O a N q O C N .0 ti amp m m m m m 0 G O c L z ` m ~ a ¢ a CL o, m m R C v no 01 a s c c a v a +v. v a .o 3 wx .c roR a O E c cvn ro h u ro ,'.}-u d o u m m :c. as .ae ro L o; c .o O 0....0 O. cc w m c:.o. _° °° = ° v `w v .ro ?.= `v m .ac ,`o. E .S a L^ N' E o. as E ��. > A m ar a ao °.° n m E ;c +'= a ;ro;d� ' m •3 `m W a a a u r a bb E n c m• m.E v u a u �� •�-. E v a N N 'E 'c` c a w a m v m p m o 43 m ;ro o .� � ry..a �oIQ�. Qom• U C UI ro N °. •] °" j lCl N of C "' NEvvm�°a+ c ❑roF °c�ro.2Emro pia > >n w o c .- a '❑' o° N E .c `° cm u v. c L° E o ro v 'o m i- °o. E 3 E u m o. 'o o. o- ° v d a c �. 'G m qua a too ° e c a o a c° o al x'% o a o E o ro N v h. n m m tW L , N o ao ro v ,� c •p C N '� �� a i 0 U _tU9 'e C 7E C 4+ ro C m C° O fl: O O C E p. Q Ic bb cti E' v c�,;i a"m °.viti `gym o.o.E a .o �"° •a � o E o d 'E . m s w, !-� coYu ° d v. Tn 4a U Q o. 'a 'O rt a o 3 o _ m m Q v m 1 �. v m <C u 75A -139 IT ti � W 'a 0. O W vui .Q o d Q v c fi 0l ti W � 75A -140 c Q U 4� CL j5 0 CL E o 8 a U a 4 O aC c o e O y 'C ql u O a m ro u_ CL ao e am ¢ O 4 O¢ O < O 4 b V m' Q wo° m° °c v E m o a y m N m y '� E °c �' b° a> a m o" cC c IOU .n (mu a w o t c v m m o o E tl E 0 Y Y y C 0 � N. C E w a �$" v v m „°. 9.0 o w..M o. a u O ro ] 'C �. u �% w N c m v v c ti . o v E u o o °o 'c u w '= v N u .> ,E 'CI -C N , C m .� a o O t E ,'U b0 .0 bbb C 0 .Yt i :L' ,G V. = 'm `' H. 'CVI C 2 N. 'O O C Ea 'o C'a m ro= pp ut N �O v.� 0 N i C �o !C C C O y� bO N C N u N O F^ C b�0 N 's `m c .L ° C. E off] ti w ar.a v Er b4 #e nO ov''� , ° 0- ,., c. v °•°`°.`�° p B c m a O a C? E E ' o a. c c a ..,. Q.. a o c o ,:2 w cz ,O m .c. ,0 c O +-' c °> 2 w E m t; E a c .'�'. 0 3 c o L° b�_ -' 2 , m y in ,C Y C v E m m m E o`a °u G C O m w °� m E m m m 5 d P u o, 75A -140 c Q U -°c a a h 0 LZ v c v h ^ 4 q Q 0 �w N 'O C m .� D 4 O u° ° W 'y � C vS Q a H a a P� qaq CL .s O CL '4 ¢ O ¢ O q. w 3 Lu n u o ro` Yw GGy ° .ae `a m j+n 'C] N C oa a C a°+ c m �'o E c v° w m v a:m to w o E m w a o E c° c `ro x a 1' .a m= m .�2 w a 0c s E u E 3 a E w" u w a° g y ro ,Q v °° v w m Z ° v w m ,°- a m E m t S bp .. ° w o '`^ o 3 m w ,y w v �= o H c N v ,c c ° 2 Id m + 1p u o° s a° a ++ y c e 3 w° rs'm N. a o q9 a" �= ++ `C7 Q c w y m 3} 't1 j o E t a J CM1O w p o O v o m o � a a m o g N a ��} v "o 0, L° o s° ``w EC� qm- m w e d �� N O n u i o E y o W' La° m° m a E° E •E u m a w E w V E s w 0 m m o v a anti n +- 6 E li Em ty qEi O +'�. E a. a 6 u, .G w W w O °' .c l° a "" m >. to m ^3 O u L b o ro a. w 2 u w? c G o. '� in..m q c c M m m o. v ':. 'o o *'...:` aoi @ a c r uz �": m o u`•c �. a M o a. a u E` w u m vii ^6 a m m° m .wc V 3� 75A -141 v a U Q c a N 0 r e m ro a` CL Q 9 0 M @ 9 C ti a m¢ O t? o ¢ m u z m a� ov m N st G LM m m W ' c b a •o m 6. A. O q a CL +. O ¢ O d O Q d q IE A O 'e m jJ-' ❑ G m C G C V! .O O U ,qN D„ .E W °oroF �`c�o° To 'a, . ��� Eon= bn oc m a= v o m m a ¢ y E m c � 'a 0) y c% o n e r-- n 2 '� o T a E p o q o t m a) m a m q v e' h E m o `E �° wl � o cc +`cm. a w m GD C iJ G G) Ctl O. L Y."+ G m m ^..0 U C. �VI p U •G Cc 'O E m cmi +m. •y w m o' m N b sj .G t m ro v m o �.cNm+..E °o ?cUcv= u;m�t'�'.Ou,cc�m°`` �0`':c q a c a w: E m o c N !6 A :' N 'wa G E c c �v >cQ�wNvcmm m o o ccc a m c .q q n$ u e 'C u a E a c a m o a a c ;•; o, cs ti q' .c u m 'c u a ro m �.n=m m�o, > y a 2 3 0 4 a 4 utic yc- 3 'm m ro 3° d c j o n p iri o a%, 0 0 v a.a a c o 4. m..S. c'n'� •` o v �° mG m na U F�4 C m O G m a sm E E `v 3 a 3 °z a z 1E °u a° v :c ¢° u�° 75A -142 h 0 U zo \ § } \ \ ) { \) /\ k *$ � \/ \ %± k!1 §f / ) %t � « . \$ /} f� e 0 \ \ \� \(\ ) / §i � \/\ i 5 {u <= / $ x¥46 \ //« {m\ /< . 75A.142 75A -144 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 -145 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 -146 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: 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 -147 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 -148 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: 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 -149 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 -150 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 -151 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 -152 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 -153 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney Ryan O. Hodge Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 2014 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -154 Page 10 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council Resolution No. 2014 -XXX to be the original City of Santa Ana on Date: do hereby attest to and certify the attached resolution adopted by the City Council of the Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2014 -xxx 75A -155 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 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. 75A4`66 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 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. 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 prior 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. 75A'b' �8 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. 14. Landscaped parkways, designed to conform to the City's residential street standards, shall be provided on the prolect'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.) 75A -160 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Response to Comments on Additional Alternatives and Green House Gas Anal (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, 06/2011 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 - January 2012 Sexlinger Draft EIR: Comments and Responses - October 2011 EXHIBIT B 75A -161 75A -162 CORRESPONDENCE Exhibit C 75A -163 75A -164 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. 791R 2.6 Rtl 2: 56 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 -165 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 -166 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 Property 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 /kin �� iane Fr 2402 N. Oakmont Ave Santa Ana, CA 92706 75A -167 75A -168 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 Mosonite 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 3RD STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 -3205 415.495.0349 PHONE 415.495.0265 FAX CPF ®CA LIFOR N IAP R ESERVATION.O RG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATIONORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES Charles Chase, AIA, San Francisco PRESIDENT VICE - PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Diane Kane, PhD, To Jolla VICE - PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Thomas Neary, Santa Monica TREASURER David Wilkinson, Woodland SECRETARY Kelly Sutherlin- McLeod, FAIA, Long Beach Ray Adamyk, Pomona Andrea Galvin, El Segundo Robert lmber, Palm Springs David Marshall, AIA, San Diego Amy Mlnteer, Esq., Los Angeles Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley Carolyn Sears, PE, San Francisco Julianne Polanco, San Francisco Richard Sucre, San Francisco Sally Zornowitz, AIA, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Holtzman 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 -169 IE P E S R VV A T 1 0 N F O U N D A T 1 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 Mosonite 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 3RD STREET, SUITE 424 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 -3205 415.495.0349 PHONE 415.495.0265 FAX CPF ®CA LIFOR N IAP R ESERVATION.O RG WWW CALIFORNIAPRESERVATIONORG BOARD OF TRUSTEES Charles Chase, AIA, San Francisco PRESIDENT VICE - PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS Diane Kane, PhD, To Jolla VICE - PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT Thomas Neary, Santa Monica TREASURER David Wilkinson, Woodland SECRETARY Kelly Sutherlin- McLeod, FAIA, Long Beach Ray Adamyk, Pomona Andrea Galvin, El Segundo Robert lmber, Palm Springs David Marshall, AIA, San Diego Amy Mlnteer, Esq., Los Angeles Deborah Rosenthal, Esq., Costa Mesa Kurt Schindler, AIA, Berkeley Carolyn Sears, PE, San Francisco Julianne Polanco, San Francisco Richard Sucre, San Francisco Sally Zornowitz, AIA, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Cindy L. Holtzman 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 -169 75A -170 ♦. • • Via` `§ 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 Proiect 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.sheppardmullin.com 714,424.2821 direct drosentlial@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 Proiect 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 "character" 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 -171 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 -172 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 Proiect 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 -173 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 DEIR 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 DEIR was revised to consider and reject preservation of one -half acre of the Orchard and relocation of the Farmhouse. The DEIR 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 DEIR 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 DEIR 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. Very truly yours, Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON Ll_P cc: Ms. Jeannie Gillett SMRH:418131688.1 75A -174 �T Tk ' ° `'a w4 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. 75A -175 l •` iN ' •i 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 (NPS) 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 /istof 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 • � r � is + 75A -176 �s g 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 NIPS 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: Landsca e r< sr o 10 fo Alternative � �� Y r a �, � x rmrr o x, , 5 /o Alte(natroe ,,� , �r, � u se„ �2 Charact ristic : k ,r a a a�ybaa��, on), Historc Prsa {ion)r kk rp; with..10 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 meat ..." 75A -177 Page 4 tMGLandscape „ , 10 %Alternatrvke < g rµ5 %AlternatNVU11M tr Characteristic "/ �HistortcrPreserVation)� W,, 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 VisEwould ansition ".., the Views and Vistas would transition om that of a pastoric small from that of a pastoral and historic small orange grove to that ential orange grove to that of new residential buildin s and roadw uildin s and roadwa s." 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 75A -178 Page S 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, 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 -179 75A -180