VII Effects Found Not To Be Significant

VII.
EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A. INTRODUCTION
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) provides information regarding impacts of the
proposed project that were determined to no impact by the City of Los Angeles, pursuant to Section
15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended. According to the State
CEQA Guidelines:
An EIR shall 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 EIR.
The following presents a brief summary of proposed project effects found not to be significant, including
reasons why they would not be significant.
B. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The City determined that the proposed project would result in no impact for a range of specific topics
associated with agricultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; mineral
resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation; and utilities. The
potential impacts of the proposed project identified to have no impact are discussed below.
1. Agricultural Resources
The following analyses were determined to result in no impact and were scoped out of the Subsequent
EIR (SEIR) analysis included in Section IV.
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, 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. No farmland designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program exists on the
project site or in the vicinity.1 Implementation of the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and no significant impacts on farmland would occur. No
further analysis is required.
1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Management, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program. Los Angeles County Important Farmland Data Availability: PDF Map. tp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub
/dlrp/FMMP /pdf/2006/los06.pdf. August 2009.
Los Angeles Department of City Planning VII-1 Andora Avenue Subdivision – Tentative Tract No. 53426
Impact Sciences, Inc. (0947.002) Subsequent Draft EIR
February 2010
VII. Effects Found Not To Be Significant
b. Would the project conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
No Impact. The project site is currently zoned A2-1 and A1-1 Agricultural Zone and is designated
Minimum and Very Low housing in the General Plan. The proposed project seeks a zone change to
RE40-1-H–K Residential Estate Zone; however, the project would maintain the current General Plan Land
Use designation. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract, since no agricultural resources or activities occur on project site. No
impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
c. Would the project 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. The project site is located to the west of the Chatsworth community, which is a suburban
setting, to the south of Santa Susana Pass State Historic Park, and to the north of Chatsworth Oak
followed by the Chatsworth Reservoir. Given the development surrounding the project site, project
implementation would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. No further analysis is required.
2. Geology and Soils
The following analysis was determined to result in no impact and was scoped out of the SEIR analysis
included in Section IV.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No Impact. Project implementation would not necessitate the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. During and following proposed project buildout, the project site would
utilize City wastewater conveyance systems by constructing new connections from residential pads as
needed. No further analysis is required.
3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following analyses were determined to result in no impact and were scoped out of the SEIR analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
February 2010
b. Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project would introduce 45 single-family residential units to the project site. The only
hazardous materials anticipated to be used on the project site are landscaping pesticides and fertilizers,
and common household chemicals. As such, no significant hazard to the public is anticipated with any of
these uses, nor would the project result in the routine transport of hazardous materials. Impacts would be
less than significant and no further analysis is required.
As shown in Figure VII-1, Areas of Potential Exposure to Santa Susana Field Laboratory
Contamination, the project site is located to the northeast of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)
contamination site; however, according to University of California, Los Angeles’ SSFL Exposure
Assessment Study, the project site is located outside the area of potential exposure to the Santa Susana
Field Laboratory contamination.2 Additionally, the project would not disturb or expose contaminated soil
from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory site. As such, the project would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset of the contaminated Santa Susana
Field Laboratory site and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials or
waste. The nearest school is located approximately 0.75 mile away from the project site. As such, no
impact would occur and no further analysis is necessary.
d. Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project site is currently and historically has been vacant and therefore no previous
hazardous materials have been present on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As such, no impact would occur
and no further analysis is necessary.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 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?
2 University of California, Los Angeles, SSFL Exposure Assessment Study, 2006.

February 2010
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
the people residing or working in the area?
No Impact. The project site is approximately 14.5 miles southwest of Whiteman Airport (WHP)
(a non-commercial airport) and approximately 8.2 miles northwest of Van Nuys Airport (VNY)
(a commercial airport). There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is
not located in an airport land use plan area. Project implementation is not anticipated to affect or be
affected by airport operations. Impacts related to safety would be less than significant and no further
analysis is required.
g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan as the project site is not located along an evacuation route and would not significantly
add traffic should an evacuation be necessary. As such, no impact would occur and no further analysis is
necessary.
4. Mineral Resources
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project 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?
Items a. and b.: No Impacts. Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a
valuable mineral resource delineated in any applicable plan. No such mineral resources are known to
exist on the project site. The project site is not located near an MRZ-2 zone or near a known or potential
mineral resource area. The site is not identified as a “locally-important mineral resource recovery site,” a
“regionally significant construction aggregate resource area,” or an available site with known mineral
resources of value to the area, region, or state in the Los Angeles County General Plan. Therefore, no
impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
February 2010
Project Site
6 1 5
2 4
Identified AEC Potential AEC

1. Northeast Quadrant 3. 3. Dayton
DaytonCan
Canyon
yon
2. Bell Canyon 4. West
WestHills
Hills
5. Woolsey
WoolseyCanCanyon
yon
6. Northwest
Meier andQuadrant
Runckle Canyons
7. Black Canyon
2.5 1.25 0 2.5
n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN KILOMETERS
SOURCE: UCLA, SSFL Exposure Assessment Study, January 2010
FIGURE VII-1
Areas of Potential Exposure to Santa Susana Field Laboratory Contamination
947-002•01/10
5. Noise
a. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 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?
b. 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?
No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is approximately14.5 miles southwest of WHP (a non-
commercial airport) and approximately 8.2 miles northwest of VNY (a commercial airport). There are no
private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the project site is not located within an airport
land use plan area. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the airport would no impact on the project
site and no further analysis is required.
6. Population and Housing
The following analyses were determined to result in no impact or a less than significant impact and were
scoped out of the SEIR analysis included in Section IV.
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would add 45 single-family residential units in the City of Los
Angeles, which would result in an increase of approximately 119 people.3 The total population in the
Chatsworth–Porter Ranch Community Plan area is 84,734 people and there were 30,713 dwelling units
with a vacancy rate of 2.4 percent.4 As such, project implementation would result in an increase of
approximately 0.1 percent in both population and dwelling units, assuming 100 percent occupancy rate.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
3 The average household size in Census Tract 1132.13 (where the project site is located) is 2.63 persons per
household. (U.S. Census. 2000. American FactFinder: Detailed Census Tables: Census Tract 1132.13.
http://factfinder.census.gov.
4 City of Los Angeles. Census 2000 Statistical Profile: Chatsworth - Porter Ranch Community Plan Area.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/DRU/C2K/C2KPfl.cfm?&geo=cp&loc=Cht. August 2009.
February 2010
c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Items b and c: No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. Therefore, implementation of the project
would not displace residents, people, or housing. As such, no impacts related to displacement of housing
or people would result from proposed project implementation and no further analysis is required.
7. Public Services
d. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives for public parks?
No Impact. Project site implementation is not anticipated to increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site such that substantial
physical deterioration would occur. The project would contain three permanent, common open space lots
(Lots 46 through 48) totaling approximately 38 acres, or approximately 42 percent of the 91-acre project
site that would remain as permanent open space. Additionally, a private equestrian center is proposed on
Open Space Lot 46, accessible to residents via a driveway easement over Lots 44 and 45, and connecting
to the facility on Open Space Lot No. 46. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase use of public
parks or recreational facilities. No impacts on park services are anticipated and no further analysis is
required.
e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives for public libraries?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would add approximately 199 people, or
approximately 0.1 percent of the existing population. As such, the project would not result in substantial
physical deterioration to the public libraries. Since Chatsworth–Porter Ranch Community Plan Area or
City of Los Angeles, it is not anticipated to increase the use of public libraries. Additionally, property tax
as a result of project implementation would fund the City’s general fund, which could be used to fund
the Los Angeles Public Library expenditures as necessary to offset project impacts. For these reasons, no
impacts on library services would occur.
February 2010
8. Transportation
Neighborhood Intrusion
a. The proposed project would have a significant neighborhood intrusion impact if project raffic
increases the average daily traffic (ADT)_volume on a local residential street in an amount equal
to or greater than the following:
16% if final ADT5 <1,000

 ADT increase ≥
 ADT increase >12% if final ADT >1,000 and <2,000
 ADT increase >10% if final ADT >2,000 and <3,000
 ADT increase >8% if final ADT >3,000
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would add approximately 199 people, or
approximately 0.1 percent of the existing population. The project would develop private streets to access
the site that would not connect to any other areas.
Street Closure
b. The length of time of temporary street closures or closures of two or more traffic lanes.
c. Potential safety issues involved with street or lane closures.
d. The length of time of any loss of vehicular or pedestrian access to a parcel fronting the
construction area.
e. The availability of alternative vehicular or pedestrian access within ¼ mile of the lost access.
f. The type of land uses affected, and related safety, convenience, and/or economic issues.
g. The length of time that an existing bus stop would be unavailable or that existing service would be
interrupted.
h. The availability of a nearby location (within ¼ mile) to which the bus stop or route can be
temporarily relocated.
i. The existence of other bus stops or routes with similar routes/destinations within a ¼ mile radius
of the affected stops or routes.
5 “Final ADT” is defined as total projected future daily volume including project, ambient, and related project
growth.
February 2010
j. Whether the interruption would occur on a weekday, weekend or holiday, and whether the existing
bus route typically provides service that/those day(s).
k. The length of time that existing parking spaces would be unavailable.
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve street closures as it would develop 45 single-family
homes on a vacant site. The proposed gated community would be located along Rogers Way, a private
street to be developed at the existing terminus of Andora Avenue. Street or lane closures would not be
necessary during construction or operation of the proposed project. No further analysis is required.
9. Utilities
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
No Impact. The project would add 45 residential units and an equestrian facility on the vacant project
site. The project would generate more solid waste than under current conditions. As the project site is
currently vacant and does not contain any structures, no solid waste generation from demolition would
occur. The project applicant would comply with the requirements of the Bureau of Sanitation to ensure
that the method of construction reduces waste generated, and that construction waste is properly
recycled. As shown in Table VII-1 below, operation of the proposed project would generate
approximately 64.1 tons of solid waste per year. Assuming the City’s existing 62 percent waste diversion
rate,6 the quantity of solid waste expected to be disposed in landfills after Project implementation would
be approximately 24.3 tons per year.
Single-family residential units in the City generated approximately 596,885 tons of waste in 2004.7
Therefore, implementation of the project would result in an increase of less than 0.001 percent. Therefore,
project’s impacts would be minimal. As such, project impacts associated with sufficient landfill capacity
and an increase in solid waste generation with implementation of the proposed project would be less
than significant and no further analysis is required.
6 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Los Angeles,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=272&JUR=Los+Angeles, April 2009.
7 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdiction Profile for City of Los Angeles,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=272&JUR=Los+Angeles, April 2009.
February 2010
Table VII-1
Solid Waste Generation
Solid Solid Waste

Daily Generation Waste Disposed In
Rate 1 Generation Generation Diverted Landfills
Use Units (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (tons/year) 2 (tons/year)3 (tons/year)
Single-family 45 du 7.8 351 64.1 39.7 24.3
residences
1 California Integrated Waste Management Board Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. February, 23 2007. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov
/WasteChar/WasteGenRates
2 1 ton = 2,000 lbs
3 Based on the 2002 California Integrated Waste Management Board Reviewed Diversion Rate of 62 percent.
du = dwelling unit; lbs = pounds
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would be required to meet the solid waste diversion requirements of
Assembly Bill (AB) 939 and the City’s diversion requirements. The project would comply with this and all
other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the impact related
to regulatory compliance would be no impact and no further study is required.
February 2010

VII Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VII Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VII.

EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

B. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

2. Geology and Soils

3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2 University of California, Los Angeles, SSFL Exposure Assessment Study, 2006.

Identified AEC Potential AEC

n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN KILOMETERS

SOURCE: UCLA, SSFL Exposure Assessment Study, January 2010

6. Population and Housing

16% if final ADT5 <1,000

 ADT increase >12% if final ADT >1,000 and <2,000

 ADT increase >10% if final ADT >2,000 and <3,000

 ADT increase >8% if final ADT >3,000

c. Potential safety issues involved with street or lane closures.

k. The length of time that existing parking spaces would be unavailable.

Solid Solid Waste

du = dwelling unit; lbs = pounds

You might also like