Laserfiche WebLink
Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 <br />February 10, 2014 <br />Page 4 <br />Prior to the City Council public hearing, the City offered to hire an independent mediator so that the <br />applicant and the opposing The Old Orchard Conservancy (TOOC) could meet and hopefully <br />identify a development proposal that would satisfy both parties. Although the groups declined the <br />City's mediation offer, the two parties met on three occasions throughout the summer. At the <br />conclusion of these meetings, it was determined that they were unable to agree on an alternative <br />acceptable to both parties. As a result, the property owner requested to move forward with the <br />entitlements to the City Council. <br />In fall 2013, the City reanalyzed the numerous responses to comment letters received for the <br />development. After careful consideration of these letters, the City decided to prepare a "Response <br />to the Response to Comments" that included an additional alternative that addressed concerns <br />related to the preservation of the historically designated site. This new alternative, the Historic <br />Preservation Alternative, slightly differed from the other alternatives in that it studied the <br />preservation of the Sexlinger Farmhouse at its current location, the rehabilitation of the house to <br />the Secretary of Interior standards, the preservation of existing orange trees on the Sexlinger <br />parcel along with the planting of new trees where dead or missing trees exist, and the construction <br />of 22 new residences. <br />Areas of Controversy <br />During the review of the project, release of the draft EIR and public hearings held for the project, <br />three areas of controversy were identified: The eligibility of the site as a historic resource, the <br />preservation of the property as an orange grove, and cut through traffic. <br />The first area of controversy pertains to the property's designation as a historic resource. The <br />initial release of the draft EIR in 2011 contained a Cultural Resources section that evaluated the <br />property as not eligible for listing on the State or City's Historical Registers. The determination was <br />based on the analysis that, while the property was associated with the development of the citrus <br />industry in the early twentieth century, small citrus operations did not play a significant role in the <br />development of Santa Ana. During the public review period, comments were received from the <br />public requesting a reevaluation of the non - historic determination. In response, the City hired a <br />new consultant to take another look at the project's historic status. In March 2012, the new study <br />also concluded that the property was not eligible for the State register; however, the study noted <br />that the property did appear to be eligible on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties <br />( SARHP). On April 5, 2012, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) considered placing the <br />property on the SARHP but denied the listing after taking testimony from the property owner and <br />public. However, on June 4, 2012, the City Council overturned the HRC and designated the site <br />as "Key." As a result, the property is considered to be a City historic resource. <br />The second area of controversy is related to the preservation of the site as an orange grove. The <br />property owners, in conjunction with a local homebuilder, originally submitted a proposal to <br />demolish the existing Sexlinger Farmhouse and orange orchard and construct a 24 -unit residential <br />75A -6 <br />