My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75B - PH - AMEND ZONING 2001 W MACARTHUR
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2017
>
10/03/2017
>
75B - PH - AMEND ZONING 2001 W MACARTHUR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2017 5:09:37 PM
Creation date
9/28/2017 4:44:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
75B
Date
10/3/2017
Destruction Year
2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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
¢NTf¢ONYENTALUXPAOT RRYUNT AUULNUUH <br />3&PT¢M bL& 901l A¢N9ttC 'AUNU AANCAY119F➢ YAOJZCT <br />BANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA <br />design geotechnical report and compliance with recommendations of the final design <br />geotechnical report. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires compliance with the California <br />Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic desist provisions that shall be <br />implemented with design and construction of the Revised Project. Mitigation Measure GEU- <br />4 requires that a registered geologist ensure that That project adheres to the recommendations <br />of the final .design gcolcelmical report. Implementation <br />of Mitigation'Measures GEO-1, <br />GEO-2,'and GE -0.4 would{ reduce any potential impacts related to seismic -related kzound <br />failure to a lass than significant level. The Certified EIR also concluded that Mitigation <br />Measures GE0=1, GF,O-2, and GEO.4 would reduce impacts related to seismic -related <br />ground Failure to a less than significant level. There(ore, the Revised Project would not result <br />in new significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certilied EIR'. No new mitigation <br />measures are required. <br />(iv) Scismically'induced 'landslides and other slope Etilures are common o"wrrcnces during or <br />soon after gartkquakes in -areas with sibmificant Ground slopes. According to: the State of <br />California SLismic Hazard 7ones map, the Project sito is not located in an earlhqu ke- <br />induced landslide zone.' In addition, the Project site is rela(ively,0at, and the Preliminary <br />Geoteclinieal Investigation Report prepared For the Certified EIR aid -not idcriify any existing <br />landslides or potential for landslides on the property, Therefore,lhc Revised Project would <br />nor expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismically induced <br />landslides, and no mitigation is required. The Certified EIR also concluded that no impacts <br />related to landslides would occur. Tiierefore, the Revised Project would not result yin new <br />significant impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures <br />are _required. ' <br />b) During consn-diction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential <br />for soil erosion compared to existingconditions. Additionally, during'a'storm event, soil erosion <br />and loss of topsoil could occur al;an accelerated rate. l7te Revised Project would be required to <br />dimply with Mitigation Measures GEO-5 and GEO-6 from the Certlfied.ElR, which require <br />compliance with. the Construction General Permit, and implementation of Erosion Control best <br />managermentpractices (BM.Ps). The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stonn <br />Plater Pollution Prevention Plan (S1iPPP) and implementation of construction BMPs, including <br />Erosion Control BMPs, during construction activities. Over, long term, the Revised ['reject <br />would increase the impervious surface arca on the Projcet site compared to usisting cundl tions <br />which would not be prone, to erosion or siltation. The remaining portion of the Pty jcct site would <br />primarily be landscaping, which -would minimize on-site erosion and sihation. <br />Compliance with the Construction General Prnnit and implementation of Erosion Control BMPs, <br />as specified in Mitigation Measures GEO-i and GEO-6, would reduce impacts related to erosion <br />and loss of topsoil to a less than significant level. The Curtifed FiR also concluded that <br />Mitigation Measures 0E0-5 and GEO-6 would reduce impacts related to erosion and loss of <br />topsoil to a lem than sig ifiaant Icvcl. Therefore, thc.Revised Prqject would not result in new <br />significant impacts beyond those ielc�rJtified in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures are <br />required. <br />Scare of California; Division of ,%leas and,Geolo€y. 1918. Seismic Hazard Longs.. <br />P!M1016bI'Adk... M OdJ ndiim ti.c. s69fa$eJ7A _ 2-31 <br />75B-80 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.