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