Full Text
SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 states: “…it is the policy of the state that…all persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15162.2(a), which states that “a[n] EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project” and Section 15143 which states that “the EIR shall focus on the significant effects of the environment.” The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. 8.1 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY It is anticipated that the Proposed Project would tier off of Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332 for The Platinum Triangle MLUP and Associated Actions. Based on the FSEIR No. 332, the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project in December 2008 determined that impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this Subsequent EIR (SEIR) No. 339 with the exception of impacts identified under Section XV, Transportation/Traffic(c) and Section XI, Noise(f). In response to the comments made by the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County during the Notice of Preparation period, impacts associated with the air traffic has been included in the SEIR analysis even though the Initial Study determined the impact to be less than significant. SEIR also includes noise impact associated with the eliminated Threshold XI, Noise(f) because the analysis in the Initial Study did not evaluate noise associated with helicopter overflights of the project site. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study. Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-2 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact d) 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? No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-3 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact iv) Landslides? No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less Than Significant Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-4 • The Planning Center August 2010 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less Than Significant Impact l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affect the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less Than Significant Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant SEIR No. 339 City of Anaheim• Page 8-5 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? Less Than Significant Impact k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? Less Than Significant Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-6 • The Planning Center August 2010 This page has been left intentionally blank.