2009-025 - Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2004-02

Home Browse Search

• Issues New Significant Impacts No Substantial Change from More Severe Previous Impacts Analysis I. Aesthetics -Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock ^ ^ outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ^ ^ surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day ^ ^ or nighttime views in the area? II. Air Quality -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be reli ed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan? ^ ^ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ^ ^ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ^ ^ III. 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ iv. Landslides? ^ ^ 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 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building ^ ^ Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have solid 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? IV. 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? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably ^ ^ foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ^ ^ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites ^ ^ compiled pursuant to Government Code §659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not ^ ^ been adopted, within two miles where 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? Resolution No. 2009-025 Page 57 of 95 MacArth ur Place South EIR Add endum 60