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

Home Browse Search

users to travel throughout The Village. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system for roadways, transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-11 --4.13-14.) Threshold T-2: The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less4han-significant impacts to transportation related to conflict or inconsistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Additionally,the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR T-1 through RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-14—4.13-18.) Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), and the proposed land uses are consistent with the RTPISCS. Additionally, the Project would not result in an increase in the VMT per service population (VMT/SP) from what was analyzed in the GPU PEIR. The Traffic Impact Study Guidelines identifies areas in the City that cannot be screened out because they are not located in a TPA and would,therefore, require a VMT analysis; however, the Project is not located within such an area and is therefore screened out of VMT analysis. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Impacts related to VMT as a result of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-14—4.13-18.) Threshold T-3: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to transportation related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement regulatory requirements RR T-1 through RR T-2 (listed above). (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.13-18--4.13-19.) Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would change circulation and mobility throughout the Project site by providing sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and a bicycle network. Additionally, the Project would include improvements to existing roadways, including Sunflower Avenue, Plaza Drive, and Bear Street. All roadway improvements and new roadway construction would be constructed in accordance with the Orange County Fire Authority standards and requirements, the Santa Ana Citywide Design Guidelines, and design guidelines of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Additionally, during construction, a traffic control plan would be implemented to ensure that appropriate construction traffic control measures are utilized for adequate and safe access and circulation within and near the Project site for all modes of transportation, including emergency vehicles. Consistent with the GPU PEIR, circulation network improvements are subject to review by the City's Public Works engineering staff, which would ensure that roadway and circulation network improvements meet geometric design standards and, thus,would not substantially increase hazards. Lastly,the Project is consistent with the land use designation of the site and,thus,would not introduce any incompatible uses that would result in transportation hazards. Therefore, impacts related to substantially increased hazards due to a Resolution No. 2025-041 Page 55 of 140