My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75A - PH - EIR -1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
03/04/2014
>
75A - PH - EIR -1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2014 5:04:05 PM
Creation date
2/27/2014 4:53:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
75A
Date
3/4/2014
Destruction Year
2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
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
r <br />August 21, 2013 <br />VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL <br />Mr. Vincent C. Fregoso, AICP, Principal Planner <br />City of Santa Ana <br />Planning and Building Agency <br />P.O. Box 1988 M -20 <br />Santa Ana, CA 92702 <br />Email: vfregoso @santa- ana,org <br />Re: Sexlinger Orchard Project <br />Dear Mr. Fregoso: <br />Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP <br />650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor <br />Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 <br />714.513.5100 main <br />714.513.5130 main tax <br />www.s heppa rd mull In.com <br />714.424.2821 direct <br />drosenth al @sheppard m ul lin.ccm <br />File Number: 0010-174415 <br />In prior correspondence with the City Planning Commission, the Old Orchard Conservancy <br />objected to the failure of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sexlinger Project to <br />consider any preservation alternatives. Since submitting comments, the Conservancy has <br />identified two potential alternatives that would preserve the historic Farmhouse in situ, as well <br />as a substantial portion of the Orchard. Both of these alternatives allow for economically <br />feasible residential development of the property, although at a reduced number of units from <br />that proposed by the landowner, The alternatives also call for single -story homes, which are <br />more compatible with the character of the Orchard and address some of the concerns <br />expressed by the Planning Commission. <br />The Conservancy would also like to bring to your attention the recent decision in Masonite <br />Corporation v. County of Mendocino, 2013 DdDAR 9784. Copy attached. This case holds that <br />a requirement to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement is a legally feasible mitigation <br />for impacts to prime farmland under CEQA. P. 9780. The decision also notes that acquisition <br />of agricultural conservation easements "over acreage equal to the agricultural acreage lost due <br />to a project is 'standard for California communities. "' P. 9791. Finally, the Court of Appeal <br />reaffirms that "the preservation of agricultural land is an important public policy" that CEQA is <br />intended to effectuate. P. 9791. Section 815 of the Civic Code recognizes that "the <br />preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open -space <br />condition is among the most important environmental assets of California." P. 9791. <br />The Sexlinger El R determined that no mitigation was required for impacts to agricultural <br />resources because the Orchard is located in an urbanized area. However, in areas where lands <br />have riot been surveyed, CEQA Section 21060.1(a) defines "agricultural land" as land meeting <br />the requirements of "prime agricultural land" under Section 51201 of the Government Code. <br />75A -63 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.