2010-002 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 3 F/nd/ngs Regarding Protect Alternatives merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the EIR and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines ~15088.5(b). ~ Findings on Measures Suggested in Comments on the Draft EIR Several mitigation measures and alternatives were proposed in public comments on the Draft EIR. Findings fox these mitigation measures and alternatives are provided below- Findings on Mitigation Measures Proposed to Reduce /mpacts to Cuitura/ Resources ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Make the Lacy Neighborhood a special district based on its histarical character and proposed a Historic Neighborhood District, Conservation or Preservation Overlay for the Lacy Neighborhood. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman (JD), comments JD-24, -27, -35, and -45.) Finding. The Agency Fmds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. The Lacy neighborhood has not been designated as historic, and there is no evidence that the creation of a historic district within the Lacy 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 preservation ordinance and cannot be accomplished through the CEQA process for the proposed project. (See Santa Ana Municipal Code, Part II, Chapter 30.) Therefore, it is not feasible to adopt and implement this measure as part of the project. ~ Proposed Mitigation Measure. Create a "Master Plan for the Preservation of Cultural Resources in the Transit Zoning Code Area" that identifies properties expected to be impacted by the project, the type of impact expected, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to and avoid demolition of historic properties. (See Final EIR Chapter 3 (Responses to Comments), Letter from Jeff Dickman QD), comment JD-26.) Finding. The Agency Fmds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this mitigation measure infeasible. Rationale. Identification of the properties that would be impacted by the project, identification 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 analysis under Impact 4.4-3 explains that multiple studies have been completed that address many of the historic-age properties within the project area. In 2006, HRG conducted areconnaissance-style survey and historic research project in support of the Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan prepared by Moule 8c Polyzoides (HRG 2006). This project aimed to provide recommendations for historic preservation planiii:ig on about 400 acres, including many of the properties found within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) project area. Subsequent property-specific studies were conducted by Jones and Stokes (2006 and 2007), which resulted in the full recordation and evaluation of many of the properties within the Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) project area. These evaluations included determinations of eligibility for the NRHP, CRHR, and the Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (SARHP). An additional historic resources memorandum for the record was then prepared for several properties in Santa Ana by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. This memorandum provided recommendations about the eligibility of 30 properties for inclusion in the SARHP. 3-16 Transit Zoning Code (SD 84) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations