2010-024 - The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-02

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 Ffndings Regarding ProJeet AltarnatNes merely clarify and amplify the anal}•sis presented in the EIR and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQt1 Guidelines §I5088.5(b). Findings on Measures Suggested in Comments on the Draft EIR Several mitigation measures and alternati~=es were proposed in public comments on the Draft EIR. Findings for these mitigation measures and alternati~=es are pro~•ided below. Ffndings on Mitigatfon Measures Proposed to Reduce Impacts to Cultural Resources ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. 1Vlake the Lacy Neighborhood a special district based on its historical character and proposed a Historic Neighborhood District, Conset-~>ation or Presere=anon Overlay For the Lac}= Neighborhood. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter fcotn Jeff Dickman QD), cotrunents JD-24, -27, -35, and -45.) Finding_ The Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make tlis mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. T'he Lac}• neighborhood has not been designated as historic, and there is no e~>idence that Ilse creation of a historic district within the I.ac}' Neighborhood would reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project. Further, the creation of a historic district within the City is a separate process requiring adoption of a local preser~=anon ordinance and cannot be accomplished through the CEQA process for the proposed project (See Santa Ana l~iunicipal Code, Part II, Chapter 30.) Therefore, it is not feasible to adopt and implement this measure as par[ of the project. ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Create a "piaster Plan for the Presel-~=anon of Cultural Resources in the Transit Zoning Code Area" that identiFies properties expected to be impacted by the project, the t}•pe of impact expected, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to and a~=oid demolition of historic properties. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter fioln Jeff Dickman QD), comment JD-26.) Finding. The Agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Identification of the properties that would be impacted b}> the project, identiftcation of the type of impact expected, and identification of mitigation measures to reduce impacts and avoid demolition of historic properties has already been conducted in the EIR. Specifically, Table 4.4-2 (as modified in Final EIR Chapter 2) lists all properties proposed For demolition under the proposed Developer Project, and the anal}•sis under Zmpact 4.4-3 explains that multiple studies have been completed that address man}• of the historic-age properties ~iitltin the project :area. In 2006, RRG conducted areconnaissance-sty>le sun>ey and listoric research project in support of the Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan prepared by= 1\ioule 8: Polyzoides (F3RG 2006). 'T'his project aimed to prop=ide recommendations for ltistoric presets anon planning on about 400 acres, including many of the properties Found withn the Transit 'Lotting Code (SD 84) project area. Subsequent property-speci£tc studies were conducted by Jones and Stokes (2006 and 2007), wlich resulted in the Full recordation and evaluation of many of the properties arithin the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) project area. 'T'hese c~=aluations included determinations of eligibility for the NRI3P, CRHR, and the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (BARRY). An additional historic resources~Ermemorandum Eor the record was then prepared for see>eral properties in Santa Ana by ReSs~~i~IOn f~To }}~~$r~~t~tal, Inc. Tltis memorandum provided recommendations about the eligibility Pa ~$``~~ $}9~~~yues (`or Inclusion in the SARIIP. (Refer to DEIR, Appendix D.) Table 4.4-1 lists all 3-16 Transit Zoning Coda (SD 84) EIR Ffndings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Consfderatfons