Document Anaheim_doc_d58d8582ac

Initial Study Checklist 10/13/03 City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist Form CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Printed Name ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study Checklist 2003.dot The County of Orange requires that the City notify the County of certain zoning actions. The following checklist will determine the need for notification. The County will be notified of any “yes” responses to questions 1 through 4: 1. Does this zoning action involve adoption or amendment to either the Anaheim General Plan, a Specific Plan, or a Reclassification? Yes No IF YES, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 2. Does this zoning action involve land located east of the alignment of Weir Canyon Road? Yes No 3. Does this zoning action involve a residential project over 99 acres or 99 units in size? Yes No 4. Does this zoning action involve a non-residential project over 29 acres or a non-residential project with more than 99 employees? Yes No EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by information sources cited immediately following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study Checklist 2003.dot process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Initial Study Checklist 10/13/03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS–Would the project: a) Have an effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway? † † † † b) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? † † † † c) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely by affect day or nighttime views in the area? † † † † Narrative Summary: II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES–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? † † † † b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? † † † † Narrative Summary: III. AIR QUALITY–Would the project:* a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? † † † † b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? † † † † c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? † † † † d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations? † † † † e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? † † † † *Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) may be relied upon to make the determinations. Narrative Summary: ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES–Would the project: a) Affect any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by local designation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? † † † † b) Have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by local designation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? † † † † c) Have an 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? † † † † d) Interfere with established migratory wildlife corridors? † † † † e) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? † † † † Narrative Summary: V. CULTURAL RESOURCES–Would the project: a) Disturb any historic resources 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)? † † † † b) Disturb archaeological resources? † † † † c) Destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? † † † † d) Disturb any human resources, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? † † † † Narrative Summary: 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-Prolo 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. † † † † ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? † † † † iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? † † † † iv) Landslide? † † † † b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? † † † † 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? † † † † d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the most current version of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? † † † † 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? † † † † Narrative Summary: VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS–Would the project: a) Create a need to routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials? † † † † b) Create a hazard by a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition(s) involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? † † † † c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? † † † † d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? † † † † e) Be located within the boundaries of an adopted Airport Land Use Plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport) and conflict with any policies of an adopted Airport Land Use Plan? † † † † f) Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, and, as a result, would cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? † † † † g) 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? † † † † ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY–Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? † † † † b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge? † † † † c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, and/or alter the course of a stream or river? † † † † d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or significant increase in erosion, or cause environmental harm? † † † † e) Create or increase runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? † † † † f) Degrade water quality? † † † † g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area? † † † † h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? † † † † i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding? † † † † j) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction and/or post-construction activities? † † † † k) Result in a potential for discharge of 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? † † † † l) Result in the potential for discharge which affects the beneficial uses swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? † † † † m) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? † † † † ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING–Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? † † † † b) Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? † † † † Narrative Summary: X. MINERAL RESOURCES–Would the project: Result in the loss of availability delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? † † † † Narrative Summary: XI. NOISE–Would the project: a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance or other applicable standards? † † † † b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? † † † † c) Result in a temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? † † † † d) For a project within the vicinity of a private or public airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? † † † † Narrative Summary: ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. 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)? † † † † b) Remove or displace a substantial number of people or existing homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? † † † † Narrative Summary: XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES–Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of these public services, which could cause significant environmental impacts: Fire protection? † † † † Police protection? † † † † Schools? † † † † Parks? † † † † Other public facilities? † † † † Narrative Summary: XIV. RECREATION–Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities causing physical deterioration of the facility? † † † † b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? † † † † Narrative Summary: ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc -10- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC–Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? † † † † b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? † † † † c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? † † † † d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? † † † † e) Result in inadequate emergency access? † † † † f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? † † † † g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? † † † † Narrative Summary: XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS–Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? † † † † b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? † † † † 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? † † † † d) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? † † † † e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? † † † † ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc -11- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (Attach explanation and information sources) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? † † † † g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? † † † † h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? † † † † i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? † † † † j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? † † † † k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? † † † † Narrative Summary: 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 wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? † † † † b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? † † † † c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? † † † † Narrative Summary: Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* ---PAGE BREAK--- C:\Documents and Settings\rminter\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK47\Environmental-Initial Study Checklist-Oct 2003.doc -12- Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 been rebutted by substantial evidence? Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption and County Administrative fee required) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee.