Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT A <br />9.5 Cultural Resources <br />9.5.1 Historical Resources <br />Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical <br />resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? <br />Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) <br />Facts in Support of Finding: As described in DEIR Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, the Project <br />would not impact any historic resources. The DEIR describes the viewsheds of the properties listed on the <br />Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties near the Project site as already significantly affected by urban <br />and modem structures that are taller than the Project's tallest structure, the proposed 8 -level above ground <br />parking structure. As a result, the setting has changed and no longer provides an aesthetic sense of a <br />particular period of history. The Historic Review, referenced in the DEIR, also describes that tall trees <br />throughout Park Santiago screen views toward the Project site, and that many of the Santa Ana Register <br />of Historic Properties in Park Santiago are not within the viewshed of the Project site. Overall, as detailed <br />in the Historic Review referenced in the DEIR, due to the existing built environment, location of the Santa <br />Ana Register of Historic Properties, and the existing viewsheds, the integrity of the historic setting and <br />feeling aspects of properties in Park Santiago would not be reduced by construction of the proposed <br />Project. Accordingly, a reduction in the historic significance of the properties would not occur from <br />implementation of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-9 through 4.4-15) <br />9.5.2 Archaeological Resources <br />Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an <br />archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? <br />Finding: Less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 2-5; Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been disturbed various times for different uses and <br />developments. This includes excavation to depths for installation and removal of the previous gas station <br />tanks, and septic tanks, and utility lines from previous developments in the southern portion of the site. In <br />addition, the Property Condition Report referenced in the Initial Study describes that the foundation of the <br />existing building in the northern portion of the site is developed on a 4 -inch thick concrete slab on top of <br />24 -inch diameter, 20 -36 -foot -deep piles. Thus, previous excavation in the area of the existing building <br />reaches 20-36 feet deep, and excavation in other areas of the site were deep enough to provide for utilities, <br />septic tanks, and gasoline tanks. Also, as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared <br />for the site (referenced in the Initial Study), up to 5.5 feet of fill soils were observed in soil borings. Due <br />to the extent and depth of previous ground disturbances throughout the site, the potential for archaeological <br />resources to be on site is low. hi addition, the Project is anticipated to involve grading and excavations to <br />depths of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface, which would not extend below previous <br />excavations into native soils. As a result, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be <br />less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 26-27.) <br />9.5.3 Paleontological Resources or Geologic Feature <br />Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or <br />site or unique geologic feature? <br />Resolution No. <br />Certification of the Magnolia at the Park EIR <br />75E-63 <br />Page 25 of 71 <br />