Laserfiche WebLink
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT <br />ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES <br />Threshold B-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or <br />federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal <br />pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, <br />or other means. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to biological resources related <br />to state or federally protected wetlands. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.) <br />Explanation of the Rationale: Based on a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National <br />Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands within the Project site. Furthermore, no potential <br />jurisdictional drainages or wetland features were observed within Project site. The National <br />Wetlands Inventory identifies several wetland features in the Project vicinity. However, these <br />wetland habitats are engineered and man-made, and the Project would not impact these nearby <br />wetland features. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or <br />federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-11.) <br />Threshold B-4: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any <br />native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established <br />native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native <br />wildlife nursery sites. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological <br />resources related to interfering with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or <br />wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the <br />use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-11 — 5.12.) <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles east of the <br />Santa Ana River, and 5.2 miles south of Santiago Creek. As such, the Project would not result in <br />impacts to either of these corridors. In addition, the Project site is not located within any wildlife <br />corridors, as it is fully developed and surrounded by urban land uses that provide minimal to no <br />opportunities for movement of wildlife. The Project would remove ornamental trees at the Project <br />site, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the MBTA. To maintain <br />compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, clearance surveys <br />would be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid <br />direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds if construction occurs during the <br />nesting bird season. With compliance to the requirements of the MBTA, any direct or indirect <br />impacts on nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft Supplemental <br />EIR, pp. 5-11 — 5.12.) <br />Threshold B-5: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances <br />protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or <br />ordinance. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological <br />resources related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree <br />preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-12.) <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 />4-7 <br />