2025-041 - Certifing Final Supplemental Enviromental Impact for The Village

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS-THAN- SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the Supplemental EIR,the Project would have no or less-than-significant environmental effects for the specific areas associated with the topics identified below. 4.1 AESTHETICS Threshold AE-1: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics related to scenic vistas. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5 — 5-6.) Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would include a mix of commercial and residential development that would be at a greater intensity and density in both height and area, as compared to existing conditions. However,the Project is not located within or near a scenic vista, as defined by the City's GP Conservation Element. The Santa Ana River is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the Project site; Santiago Creek is located approximately 4.6 miles north of the Project site. The Project activities would be limited to the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-5—5-6.) Threshold AE-2: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to aesthetics related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-6.) Explanation of the Rationale: The GPU PEIR states that no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the City nor are located near the City. Though buildout consistent with the GPU would lead to infill development and intensify the urban landscape, it would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic highways. There are no eligible or state designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-6.) Threshold AE-3: The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-6--5-7.) Resolution No. 2025-041 Page 21 of 140