My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_2525 N MAIN STREET
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2019
>
01-14-19
>
2 - COMBINED PUBLIC COMMENTS_2525 N MAIN STREET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2019 4:09:36 PM
Creation date
8/16/2019 4:04:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
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.
/
379
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
2525 North Main Street <br />January 14, 2019 <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />Historic Neighborhood <br />The City of Santa Ana has two National Register Districts, Downtown Santa Ana and French Park. <br />Park Santiago is not a registered historic district. A total of 32 historic homes have been <br />documented in Park Santiago of the approximately 1,173 homes in the neighborhood with the <br />majority of the homes being more than 50 years old. As part of the EIR (Section 4.4), Cogstone <br />prepared a Historic Resources Report and concluded that the historic homes in Park Santiago will <br />not have the setting and feeling aspects of integrity reduced by construction of the proposed <br />project and thus there is no reduction in the historic significance of the homes. Future opportunity <br />for the neighborhood to become a historic district still remains and is a public benefit deal point <br />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 <br />and right‐out turn movements as Main Street has a median that separates north‐south street <br />traffic. As proposed, to enter the site when traveling southbound on Main Street residents would <br />have to make a U‐turn at Edgewood Road, and to exit the development and travel southbound <br />on Main Street residents would have make a right‐hand turn (northbound on Main Street) and <br />make a U‐turn at Walkie Way or Main Place Drive. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the <br />project analyzed the impacts of having Main Street as the sole and primary access point and found <br />that operations would not exceed a threshold of significance (DEIR Access Option A). <br />Use of Santiago Park <br />The applicant is proposing secondary access through Santiago Park which would utilize the <br />existing traffic signal at Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive. This would allow for all <br />directional movements to and from the property and reduce the U‐turn movements described <br />above. This access option, is not a required element for the project, however it was studied as a <br />secondary access option (DEIR Access Option B) in the Traffic Impact Analysis and found to have <br />a less than significant impact. <br />Various portions of the park were developed with Land & Water Conservation grant funding. As <br />a result, a 6(f)(3) boundary map placed the entire park under federal protection to be preserved <br />as outdoor recreational use. Any proposed changes to the park, such as the proposed vehicular <br />access, will require review by the City's Parks & Recreation Department, the Office of Grants and <br />Local Services and National Park Service and replacement of land with new park land of equal <br />utility and value. The estimated square footage to improve the park for vehicular access is 10,000 <br />square feet, in turn the applicant is proposing to provide 10,000 square feet of their property to <br />the City for park purposes. At this time, the City has not been begun conversations with the Office <br />of Grants and Local Services or the National Park Service, but the City would support use of the <br />park as long as replacement parkland is provided and monetary funds are contributed to the City <br />for Santiago Park Maintenance & Improvements. <br />Commented [DH56]: Park Santiago is a <br />Historical resource and it should be treated <br />as such. <br /> <br />Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), <br />the term “historical 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 />Code, 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 /> <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 />described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic <br />Resources, Park Santiago is not identified by <br />the General Plan or other City designation as <br />a historic district.” <br /> ... [1] <br />Commented [DH57]: The only way to <br />access the property from the north is to <br />make a U‐turn. This is absurd. <br />Commented [DH58]: Likewise, the only <br />way to travel south is to make a U‐turn at <br />Walkie Way or Main Place Drive. <br />Commented [DH59]: An example from the <br />Traffic Analysis in regards ot the access at the <br />22 Freeway: <br />“With the addition of project traffic, the <br />intersection would continue to operate at an <br />unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour <br />and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, <br />and the proposed project would not result in <br />exceedance of the Caltrans criteria, and no ... [2] <br />Commented [DH60]: 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 [DH61]: The applicant should <br />assume this would happen and plan <br />accordingly.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.