2 - EIR18-01; DA18-01; GPA18-06; AA18-10_2525 N MAIN STREET

Home Browse Search

3.1 Aesthetics Summary of Impacts Identified in the EIR Viewshed Impacts Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR describes that with implementation of the Project, views of the Project site from the adjacent Santiago Park area would change from setback views of the existing 2-story office building partially screened by mature landscaping to that of forefront views of the 5-story residential building, with a landscaped tree buffer directly adjacent to the park. This would result in a significant and unavoidable change in views of the Project site from the park. The difference in scale and height, due to the Project’s location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the EIR determined that the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) In addition, the EIR describes that implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable change in visual scale, height, and setbacks from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street. The background views of urban buildings would become forefront views, and the proposed size and scale of the Project would substantially increase the overall visual density of the built environment. The difference in visual scale and height with the proposed structure adjacent to the roadway and limited visual setback buffer, would be substantial and considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. Thus, the EIR determined that the visual change related to the height, scale, and setback from Edgewood Road and N. Bush Street would be significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-21.) The EIR describes that PDF-1 that would incorporate the existing mature trees located along the eastern Project site boundary and to the extent feasible protect and preserve the existing mature trees within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary within the 15-foot setback along the southern boundary that were identified as healthy by the Arborist Report. This was determined to reduce the visual impacts of the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-18.) The EIR also included Mitigation Measure AES-1 that requires measures be implemented to retain and protect the trees along the eastern and southern Project site boundary. This measure was determined to reduce visual impacts. However, even with implementation of PDF-1 and Mitigation Measure AES-1, the EIR determined that the Project would still result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that was considered significant pursuant to the City’s criteria. As a result, impacts related to existing visual character or quality of the site were determined to be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-26.) Shade and Shadow Impacts Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR describes that the Original Project would not exceed the City’s thresholds for shade and shadow impacts. The EIR determined that shadow-sensitive use areas (where sunlight is important to its function) would not be shaded by project-related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. between fall and spring, or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. between spring and fall compared to existing conditions. Because these City’s thresholds were not exceeded, impacts related to shade and shadow were determined to be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-24 through 4.1-26.). Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Proposed Modified Project Viewshed Impacts Consistent with the methodology in the EIR, photo-simulations were prepared to demonstrate the degree of visual change that would result from implementation of the Modified Project. The photo-simulations have been utilized to depict, at a realistic yet conceptual level of detail, the proposed conditions from public locations after construction and with 5-years maturity of the proposed landscaping. Figure 7 provides the public viewpoint locations for each of the visual simulations. 2-136