My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2019 12:38:42 PM
Creation date
2/19/2019 11:32:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75E
Date
2/19/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, <br />AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street <br />February 5, 2019 <br />Page 15 <br />Historic Neighborhood <br />The City of Santa Ana has two National Register Districts, Downtown Santa Ana and French Park. park <br />Santiago is nota registered historic district. b total of 32 historic homes have been documented in Park <br />---- ---- -- --------------- <br />Santiago of the approximately 1,173 homes in the neighborhood with the majority of the homes being more <br />than 50 years old. As part of the EIR (Section 4.4), Cogstone prepared a Historic Resources Report and <br />concluded that the historic homes in Park Santiago will not have the setting and feeling aspects of integrity <br />reduced by construction of the proposed project and thus there is no reduction in the historic significance <br />of the homes. Future opportunity for the neighborhood to become a historic district still remains and is a <br />public benefit deal point in the Development Agreement. <br />Project Access <br />Vehicular access is proposed via a driveway on Main Street which would only allow for right -in and right -out <br />turn movements as Main Street has a median that separates north -south street traffic. As proposed, to <br />enter the site when traveling southbound on Main Street ksidents would have to make a U-turn at <br />Edgewood Road, and to exit the development and travel southbound on Main Street residents would have <br />make a right-hand turn (northbound on Main Street)�mcl make a U-turn at Walkie Way or Main Place Drive.1- <br />The �raffic Impact Analysis brepared for the project analyzed the impacts of having Main Street as the sole <br />and primary access point and found that operations would not exceed a threshold of significance (DEIR <br />Access Option A). <br />J, <br />Use of Santiago Park <br />�he applicant is proposing secondary access through Santiago Park which would utilize the existing traffic <br />signal at Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive. �his would allow for all directional movements <br />to and from the property and reduce the U-turn movements described above. This access option, is not a <br />required element for the project, however it was studied as a secondary access option (DEIR Access Option <br />B) in the Traffic Impact Analysis and found to have a less than significant impact. <br />Various portions of the park were developed with Land &Water Conservation grant funding. As a result, a 11 <br />6(f)(3) boundary map placed the entire park under federal protection to be preserved as outdoor <br />recreational use. Any proposed changes to the park, such as the proposed vehicular access, will require <br />review by the City's Parks & Recreation Department, the Office of Grants and Local Services and National <br />Park Service and replacement of land with new park land of equal utility and value. The estimated square <br />footage to improve the park for vehicular access is 10,000 square feet, in turn �he applicant is proposing to <br />provide 10,000 square feet oftheir propertyto the Cityfor park purposes'At this time, the City has not been <br />begun conversations with the Office of Grants and Local Services or the National Park Service, but the City <br />would support use of the park as long as replacement parkland is provided and monetary funds are <br />contributed to the City for Santiago Park Maintenance & Improvements. <br />75E-15 <br />Commented [DH58]: Park Santiago is a <br />Historical resource andit should be treated <br />as such. <br />Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), <br />the term "histarirel resources" includes the <br />following: <br />1) A resource listed in, or determined to be <br />eligible by the State Historical Resources <br />Commission, for listing in the California <br />Register of Historical Resources(Public <br />Resources Code, Section 5024.1). <br />2) A resource included in a local register of <br />historical resources, as defined in Section <br />5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or <br />identified as significant In a historical <br />resource survey meeting the requirements of <br />Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources <br />Cade, will be presumed to be historically or <br />culturally significant. Public agencies must <br />treat any such resource as significant unless <br />the preponderance of evidence demonstrates <br />that it is not historically or culturally <br />significant. <br />The EIR response to this is: <br />'This policy [Urban Design Element Policy 2.4 <br />] is not relevant to the proposed project. As <br />is <br />in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic <br />Resources, Park Santiago is not identif t <br />Commented [DH59]: The onty way [o <br />access the property from the north is to <br />makea U -tum. This is absurd. <br />Commented [DH60]: Likewise, the only <br />way to travel south is to make a U -tum at <br />Walkie Way or Main Place Drive. <br />Commented [DH61]: An example from the <br />Traffic Analysis in regards of the access at the <br />22 Freeway: <br />"With the addition of project troffc, the <br />intersection would continue to operate at an <br />unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour <br />and LOS Fin the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, <br />and the proposed project would not res z <br />Commented [DH62]: This secondary access <br />should be fully understood prior to making a <br />determination as to the feasibility of <br />Implementing it. It could drastically change <br />the layout of the entire Northern area of the <br />property. <br />Commented [DH63]: The applicant should <br />assume this would happen and plan <br />accordingly. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.