Laserfiche WebLink
*:/ : 11-1 h WA <br />3. Environmental Analvsis <br />Section 2.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact <br />categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. Except as <br />provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: <br />3.1 AESTHETICS <br />a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? <br />No Impact. The replacement park sites are in highly urbanized fesidential neighborhood. Thefe are no scenic <br />views from, of m the immediate vicinity of the project site. Park amenities such as shade canopies, playground <br />equipment, benches, small storage sheds, and a festroom budding would not obstruct any scenic vista <br />Therefore, no impact is anticipated. <br />b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and <br />historic buildings within a state scenic highway? <br />No Impact. The replacement park sites are in highly urbanized fesidential neighborhoods, and there are no <br />scenic resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The closest scenic highway is the portion <br />of State Route (SR) 91 between SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit, approximately 6.7 miles and <br />approximately 8 miles to the north fiom the 6th Street Site and the Raitt Street Site, respectively (Caltrans 2011). <br />Considering the distance, topography, and intervening development, no visual impacts would occur within a <br />state scenic highway. Pacific Coast Highway is an eligible scenic highway and is approximately 8.4 miles and 9.7 <br />miles to the southwest from the Raitt Street Site and the 6th Street Site, respectively. Therefore, no impact is <br />anticipated. <br />c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public <br />views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly <br />accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with <br />applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? <br />Less Than Significant Impact. The replacement pmk sites me in highly urbanized residential neighborhood, <br />and two replacement park sites are vacant with no above -grade structures. Implementation of the proposed <br />project would provide pedestrian community parks with overhead shade structures, playground equipment, <br />benches and tables, picnic area, and a skate area. The park would also provide various landscaping and trees, <br />which incorporates drought tolerant landscaping and preservation of existing trees. Visual impacts are <br />subjective, and development of a park in residential neighborhood is generally considered beneficial impacts <br />that improves visual character of a site and its surroundings. The proposed project would not obstruct any <br />protected views of significant visual resources from adjacent residential uses; therefore, no substantial adverse <br />visual impact is anticipated. The proposed project would change the existing visual quality, but the changes <br />75C-62 <br />