Full Text
Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR 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 15126.2(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[c]). 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. 8.3 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in September 2011 determined that the impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, these impacts have not been further analyzed in this EIR. 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 or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? No Impact c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 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 CenterIDC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 timberland (as defined by the Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 8-3 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? 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: 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 described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), 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 VIII. 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 (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-4 The Planning CenterIDC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, 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 i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects increased vectors and noxious odors)? No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? No Impact 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? No Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No 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? No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No 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? No Impact j) Inundation by seiche 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? No Impact l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? No Impact m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact n) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 8-5 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Although this was identified as “Less than Significant Impact” in the Initial Study, this topic is addressed in Section 5.3, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact XI. 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 XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal 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, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact 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 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact c) Schools? No Impact d) Parks? No Impact e) Other public facilities? No Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-6 The Planning CenterIDC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination XVI. 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? No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities? No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? Less Than Significant Impact i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? Less Than Significant Impact 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 XVIII. 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