My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FULL PACKET_2010-08-16
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2010
>
08/16/2010
>
FULL PACKET_2010-08-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2016 3:13:06 PM
Creation date
10/19/2010 4:44:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
8/16/2010
Destruction Year
2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
333
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION <br />JULY 2010 FIRST STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT <br />CITY OF SANTA ANA <br />and operation of the proposed project. This impact is considered less than significant, given its limited <br />nature, and no mitigation is required. <br />G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? <br />No impact. The proposed project will be in compliance with State and federal laws related to solid <br />waste. No solid waste will be generated during the operational phase, and demolition activities will <br />comply with the County's Source Reduction Ordinance. No impact is expected, and no mitigation is <br />required. <br />XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance <br />A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially <br />reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below setf- <br />sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict <br />the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major <br />periods of California history or prehistory? <br />Less than significant impact with mitigation. Based on this analysis, the proposed project will not <br />degrade the quality of the natural environment, significantly impact sensitive biological resources, nor <br />will it destroy archaeological or paleontological resources. There are no known biological, <br />archeological, or paleontological resources on or in the vicinity of the project site and, therefore, the <br />proposed project has no potential to physically interfere with these resources. No sensitive wildlife <br />species, plants, or animal communities are present on site or in the vicinity of the site. However, some <br />marginal suitable habitat exists on the site that may by used by some species. Therefore, incorporation <br />of the minimization measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 will be incorporated prior to construction activities. <br />The proposed project occurs in an urban built -out environment and thus is not anticipated to have the <br />potential to degrade the overall quality of environment. Mitigation Measures BIO -I and BIO -2 will <br />reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. <br />B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? <br />("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when <br />viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects <br />of probable future projects.) <br />Less than significant impact. The proposed bridge replacement and road widening has a very <br />limited impact area. Project impacts are confined to the project construction limits and are temporary <br />in nature in that they only occur during construction. The only operation impacts requiring mitigation <br />are noise impacts that will be mitigated by the incorporation of sound barrier walls into the project <br />design. All other environmental parameters either return to their existing condition or are improved <br />by the project (e.g. air quality, water quality, flood potential, traffic). These beneficial effects, when <br />considered with other projects in the area do not pose any potential to result in cumulative effects <br />because the project area is not particularly sensitive because it is highly urbanized and the project <br />contributes only nominally to impacts under all environmental parameters. <br />07/25/10 «P:\DMJ070]\MND\4.0 Environmental Analysis.doc» <br />'kil "MOR <br />4-44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.