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

Home Browse Search

Threshold B-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to biological resources related to state or federally protected wetlands. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.) Explanation of the Rationale: Based on a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands within the Project site. Furthermore, no potential jurisdictional drainages or wetland features were observed within Project site. The National Wetlands Inventory identifies several wetland features in the Project vicinity. However, these wetland habitats are engineered and man-made, and the Project would not impact these nearby wetland features. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.) Threshold B-4: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources related to interfering with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-11 —5.12.) Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles east of the Santa Ana River, and 5.2 miles south of Santiago Creek. As such, the Project would not result in impacts to either of these corridors. In addition, the Project site is not located within any wildlife corridors, as it is fully developed and surrounded by urban land uses that provide minimal to no opportunities for movement of wildlife. The Project would remove ornamental trees at the Project site, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the META. To maintain compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, clearance surveys would be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds if construction occurs during the nesting bird season. With compliance to the requirements of the MBTA, any direct or indirect impacts on nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-11 —5.12.) Threshold B-5: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources related to local policies or ordinances protecting biologics! resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-12.) Resolution No. 2025-041 Page 27 of 140