HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-02-27 #K
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 27, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COMMENT LEITER TO LOCAL
AREA FORMATION COMMISSION RE: NEGATIVE
DECLARATION - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW
FOR CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize Mayor to execute comment letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission
of Orange County regarding proposed Negative Declaration for "Sphere of Influence
Review - City of Seal Beach". Receive and File Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
The Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County ("LAFCO") has been
reviewing local city boundaries and unincorporated community and special district
boundaries as required by State Law through a process called the "Municipal Service
Review". City staffhas followed this process carefully over the past two years. LAFCO
will consider adoption of separate Negative Declarations for the Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Review/Update for the following communities/special
districts on March 8, 2006:
Q City of Seal Beach;
Q City of Huntington Beach;
Q City of Los Alamitos; .
Q Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District;
Q Rossmoor Community Services District; and
Q Sunset Beach Sanitary District.
The proposed Negative Declaration determines that the approval of a "Sphere of
Influence" for Seal Beach that reaffirms the sphere as being conterminous with the City's
existing jurisdictional boundary could not have a significant effect on the environment.
City staff has reviewed the draft negative Declaration and has no comments on the
document. It is therefore recommended that the City Council authorize the mayor to
Agenda Item K
Z:\My Documents\LAFCO\Seol Bcacb Spbero of Influence NeS Dec.CC StaffReportdocll. W\02-2J-06
Approval ofComme11l Letter to LAFCO re:
Proposed Negative Declaration-
City of Seal Beach Sphere of lrifluence Update
City Council Staff Report
February 27, 2006
execute a letter to LAFCO supporting adoption of both the proposed Negative
Declaration and the Sphere of Influence Update for Seal Beach. The draft comment letter
is provided as Attachment 1 for the review of the City Council. The "Notice of Intent to
Adopt Negative Declarations" for all of the mentioned jurisdictions and the
"Environmental Checklist Form - City of Seal Beach Sphere of Influence Update" is
provided as Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact on City. The proposed Negative Declaration evaluates environmental impacts
of determining that the "Sphere of Influence" for Seal Beach should be conterminous
with the City's existing jurisdictional boundary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to execute comment letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission
of Orange Courtty regarding proposed Negative Declaration for "Sphere of Influence
Review - City of Seal Beach". Receive and File Staff Report.
e Whittenberg
Director of Development Servi s
Attachment!!: (2)
Attachment 1:
Draft Comment Letter re: Negative Declaration - Sphere of
Influence Review for City Of Seal Beach
Attachment 2:
''Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declarations" and
"Environmental Checklist Form - City of Seal Beach
Sphere of Influence Update", Local Agency Formation
Commission of Orange County, February 6, 2006
Seal Beach Sphere oflnflueoce Ncg Dcc.CC Staff Report
2
Approval ofCommelll Letter to LAFCO re:
Proposed Negative Declaratioll-
City of Seal Beach Sphere of /lI/1uetlCe Update
City Coullcil Staff Report
February 27, 2006
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT COMMENT LETTER RE:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION - SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE REVIEW FOR CITY OF SEAL
BEACH
Seal Beach Sphere oflRflueRee Neg Dcc:.cc StalfReport 3
Approval ofC07n1llent Letter to LAFCO re:
Proposed Negative Declaration-
City of Seal Beach Sphere ofl'lfluence Update
City Council Staff RBport
February 27, 2006
February 27, 2006
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
Attn: Joyce Crosthwaite, Executive Officer
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 235
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Ms. Crosthwaite:
SUBJECT:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR CITY OF SEAL
BEACH (SOl 05-32)
Our staff has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration as referenced above, and is in
concurrence with the determination being evaluated in the subject Negative Declaration
that "LAFCO is recommending thm the City of Seal Beach sphere of influence be
reaffirmed as conterminous with the City's existing jurisdictional boundary." This
position is based on our stated letter positions of August 5 and September 8, 2005
regarding the recent Municipal Service Review process that all of the impacted agencies
participated in with LAFCO in the early part of 2005.
Our Staff had previously commented that the boundary map for Seal beach needs to be
revised to clearly indicate that the corporate boundary of the City extends 3 miles off-
shore the Pacific Ocean. It is unclear in the subject Negative Declaration if that boundary
adjustment has been made. Please ensure that the final "Sphere of Influence" map for
Seal Beach reflects this requested correction to the map.
Mr. Lee Whittenberg. Director of Development Services, will be in attendance at the
March 8 Commission meeting on this matter to present the positions stated in this letter
and to be available to respond to any questions that Commission may have.
If you have questions prior to the March 8 Commission meeting, please contact our City
Manager, John Bahorski, at your earliest convenience if you require additional
information. Mr. Bahorski can be reached at (562) 431-2527, extension 300, or by e-mail
at ibahorski@ci.seal-beach.ca.us. In addition, if you have questions of Mr. Whittenberg,
Soal Boaoh Sphere oflnfluOI1CO Nog Dec.CC Staff Report
4
Approval of Comment Letter to LAFCO re:
Proposed Negative Declaration -
City of Seal Beach Sphere of Influence Update
City Council Staff Report
February 27, 2006
he can be reached at (562) 431-2527, extension 313, or bye-mail at
lwhittenberll@ci.seal-beach.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Charles Antos
Mayor
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Director of Development Services
"
Scallleach SphcR: ofJnflUCllce Neg Dcc.CC Staff Report
5
Approval of Comment Letter to LAFCO re:
Proposed Negative Declaration-
City of Seal Beach Sphere of Influence Update
City Caunci/ Staff Report
February 27, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2
"NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS" AND
"ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM -
CITY OF SEAL BEACH SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE UPDATE", LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE
COUNTY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006
Seal Beach Sphere onnflumee Neg Dcc.CC Staff Report
6
N.9TICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION (LAFCO), has completed Initial Studies of the Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Review IUpdate for the City of Huntington Beach and Sphere of Influenc:e
Reviews for the City of LOI Alamitos, the City of Seal Beach, the ROllmoorILOI Alamitos Area
Sewer District, the ROIsmoor Community Services Distriet and the Sunset Beach Sanitary
District.
In accordance with the Commission's Guidelines implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act. Initial Studies for each project were undertalu!n for the purpose of
deciding whether the projects may have a signific:ant effect on the environment. On the basis of
such Initial Studies, the Local Agency Formation Commission has concluded that the projects
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared individual
Draft Negative Declarations for the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence
Review /Update for the City of Htn\tington Beach and the Sphere of Influence
Reviews/Updates for the City of Los AlaJnitos, City of Seal Beach, Rossmoor/Los Alamitos
Area Sewer District, RoIImoor Community Services District and the Sunset Beach Sanilary
District.
The Initial Studies reflect the independent judgment of the Commission. The project
sites are not located on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of
the Initial Studies and Draft Negative Declarations are on li1e at the Commission's office,
located at 12 Civic: Center Plaza, Rm. 235, Santa Ana, CA 92701 and axe available for public
review. Comments will be received until the close of the pubUc hearing on each item at the
Local Agency Fmmation CODUItission meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2006. Any person
wishing to comment on these matters may submit written c:omments to the Commission prior
to the public hearings, or may present oral comments in support or opposition at the time of
each hearing. Comments from responst"ble agencies are encouraged.
At its meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at 9:00 am at 10 Civic: Center Plaza, Santa
Ana, CA 92701, the Local Agency Formation Commission will consider the Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Review/Update of the City of Huntington Beach and the
Sphere of Influence Reviews/Updates for the City of Los AlaJnitos, City of Seal Beach,
Rossmoor/Los AlaJnitos Area Sewer District, Rossmoor Community Services District and the
Sunset Beach Sanitary District. U the Commission finds that the projects wiD not have a
significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declarations and proceed with
consideration of the above-projec:ts without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
.
Please note, available legal remedies may be limited to only those issues raised at the
pubUc: hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence deUvered to the
Commission at, or prior to, each specific public hearing.
Date Received
for Filing: February 6,2006
Joyce Crosthwaite
Executive Officer
Orange County LAFCO
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
City of Seal Beach Sphere of Influence Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Orange County LAFCO
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 235
Santa Ana. CA 92701
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Bob Aldrich, Assistant Executive Officer, (714) 834-2556
4, Project Location: The City of Seal Beach is located in northwest Orange County. To the south are
the City of Huntington Beach and the unincotp<>rated community of Sunset Beach.
,To the west are the City of Long Beach and the Pacific Ocean. The Cities of
Westminister, Garden Grove and Cypress border the City of Seal Beach to the east.
To the north are the unincorporated community of Rossmoor and the City of Los
Alamitos.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Orange County LAFCO
12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 235
Santa Ana. CA 92701
6. General Plan Designation:
Residential, Open Space, Industrial and
Commercial
7. Zoning:
Residential, Open Space, Industrial and Commercial
8, Description of Project: (Descn"be the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15074, the Commission will review and
consider the adoption of a negative declaration relating to the proposed update of the City of Seal
Beach's sphere of influence. The proposed sphere of influence boundary for the City of Seal Beach is
coterminous with the existing City boundary. The negative declaration confmns the findings of the
associated initial study that the proposed project (the City of Seal Beach sphere of influence update)
will not have a significant effect on the environment.
In accordance with Government Code Section 56425 and the LAFCO Sphere of Influence Policy,
LAFCO is required to review an agency's sphere of influence every five years in conjunction with
conducting municipal service reviews. LAFCO is required to eSlablish a sphere of influence to
identify probable future boundaries and service areas of all cities and special districts. A sphere of
influence has a time horizon of 15 to 20 years.
LAFCO is recommending that the City of Seal Beach sphere of influence be reaffirmed as
conterminous with the City's existing jurisdictional boundary.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Tbe City of Seal Beach, and the surrounding communities of Los Alamitos, Westminster, Huntington
Beach, Rossmoor and Sunset Beach, are largely built-out. There are t~o federal defense facilities
COMMIRVPUBI2OOOI602297
Page 1 of 17
FORM "J"
located in the area - the United Slates Naval Weapons Station located in Seal Beach and the Joint
Forces Training Center in the City of Los Alamitos. The Naval Weapons Station is 5,256 acres in
size and is nearly twice the size of the remaining portion of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach and
surrounding areas are largely urbanized and offer only limited growth potential, unless one or both of
the federal defense facilities are closed in the future. Neither facility is currently listed for
realignment or closure by the Federal Base Realignment and Closme Commission (BRAC).
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.. permits. financing approval. or participation
agreement):
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology I Soils
- Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology I Water Quality Land Use I Planning
Materials
Noise Population I Housing
- Mineral Resources
Recreation Transportation I Traffic
Public Services
- Mandatory Fmdings of
- Utilities I Service Systems Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
./ I fmd 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponenL A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT is required.
- I find that the proposed project MAY have a ''potentially significant or ''potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment. but at least one effect I) 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 (a) bave been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
COMMIRVPUBI20001602297 Page 2 of 17 FORM "J"
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standanls. and (b) 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.
February 6. 2005
Date
0ran2e County LAFCO
For
Signature
Jovce Crosthwaite. Executive Officer
Printed Name
COMMIRVPUB/20001602297
Initial Study
Page 3 of 17
BV ALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The following is the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The
checklist form is used to describe the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project with
respect to 17 factors prescribed for consideration. For this checklist, the following four designations are
used:
. Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation
has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
. Less- Tban-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA
relative to existing standards.
. No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
0/
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, tress, rock oulcroppings. and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
0/
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
0/
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
0/
Discussion: The project will not result in any
, significant direct or cumulative impacts on the
aesthetics of the project area. This includes not
adversely affecting scenic vistas, damaging scenic
resources, degrading visual character, or creating
new sources of light.
n. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resow:ces are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Madel (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
COMM/RVPUBI20001602297
Page 4 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Starewide 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?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to Don-agricultural
use?
Discussion: The proposed project will not cause
any specific new developments to be undertaken
and will not result in any significant direct or
cumulative impacts on the agricultural resources
of the project area.
ill. AIR QUALITY. Where available. the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstrUCt implementation of the
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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or
stare ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
COMMIRVPUBI2OOOI602297
Page 5 ofl7
Initial Study
Issues:
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
nwnber of people?
Discussion: The project will not result in any
significant direct or cumulative impacts on the air
quality within the project area. This includes not
violating air quality standards or creating
objectionable odors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modificatillllS, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
III8lllh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological intemJption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0/'
0/'
./
./
./
COMMIRVPUBI2OOOI602297
Page 6 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan. Natural Community
Conservation Plan. or other approved local,
regional. or slate habitat conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed project will not cause
any specific'new developments to be built. The
project will not resUlt in any significant direct or
cumulative impacts on the biological resources of
the project area and this includes adversely
affecting endangered, threatened, or rare species
and their habitat.
V. CULTIJRAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resoun:e as dp.fined in f
I5064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an an:haeological resource pursuant
to f I5064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleootological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains. including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion: The project will not result in any
significant direct or cumulative impacts on the
cultural resources of the project area.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOn.s -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects. including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
./
./
./
./
./
COMMIRVPUBI2OOO1602297
Page 7 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Pault 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 substantiaI soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soillhat is
unstable, or that would become unslable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, 1ateraI 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 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?
Discussion: The sphere of influence update will
not result in any significant direct or cumulative
impacts on the geology or soils of the project
area, including contributing to soil erosion or
exposing individuals or structures to loss, such as
injury or death, resulting from earthquakes or
landslides
vn. 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?
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
COMMIRVPUB120001602297
Page 8 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
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 hllDdle hazardous or
acutely 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 section 65962.5 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 of a public aiJport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) 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 residenl:es are intermixed
with wildlands?
Discussion: Updating the agency's sphere of
influence will not result in any significant direct
or cumulative impacts with respect to creating
hazards or hazardous materials within the project
area.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
- ..~~. 1'0" __"__';:1'"
. ,~.... ....~I. I ;:. ''';.: ".'M'~.:..",!":~ ~,"..~.
,~.u,.... .... . ..... . . Ii ".....
'.~~~.l:/'~~~..,~,:, .".U" ;,' I. ..~ ....,1..~~.,..li<Z.;::;.!.,...:"
.I:: ~ ~~.......",.. ~.... F': "J"'~""'-':'
~'" ." ~".,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'~~-b..~,,r..~,;~.:<<~.:;;.,,,
.~~ . l::.~.-'~Wl~''-'''~~' -....~~.,g..'J::: ";;~~7.....
t .....l,...~r.;; . ,r,J .,~,l...~~..h!..~iii;.;;;~. :.:.., ~~.... (
, ."'-' ."~ ;:)11 ~ J1 .-,
~.....~ "'~~"I\"~_. ,J '_. ..... ."" Co .~r:.\. .",,-,~~ "I.n;f
_. ;ID' .", "':>ooa r....
,~..... '~''''S~l: ~\'"' .':~r: ,{,,;,~~'Y,~'~~.:;:5~'~'~",
I J!;':-ttt:..~.~~~.;..+:,,,,~~ ,I.."..~:~;>"~.~~~~.
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
COMMJRVPUBf2000l602297
Page 9 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
b) SubstantiaUy deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the coune of a stream or river, in a manner which
would l'llSult in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of smface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 1000year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) l3lcpose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
-I'
-I'
-I'
-I'
-I'
-I'
-I'
-I'
COMMIRVPUBI2OOOI602297
Page 10 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or .mudflow?
DIscussion: AdoptJOD of an updated sphere of
influenc:e for the City of Seal Beach will Dot result in
a depletJoD of groundwater supples, alteration of
uistiDg draiDBge patterns, ereadoD of runoff water,
and exposure of people to a s1gDificant risk of
flooding nor wiD it result iD a net defidt In aquifer
volume.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natUral community conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed sphere update would
reaffirm the City's existing sphere of influence
which is coterminous with the City's boundary.
Updating the agency's sphere of influence will not
result in any significant direct or cumulative
impacts with respect to land use planning within
the project area.
X.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) 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?
./
./
./
./.
COMMIRVPUB120001602297
Page 11 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important minerai resource recovery site
delineated on a local general pian, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Discussion:. The project will not result in any
significant direct or cumulative impacts on the
mineral resources of the project area. This
includes not incurring the loss of known valuable
mineral resources.
XL NOISB. Would the project result in:
,
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of staDdanis eslablished in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where sucb a plan bas not been adopted, within
two 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?
./
./
./
./
./
COMMIRVPUBl2OllO/602297
Page 12 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
f) 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?
Discussion: The project will not result in any
significant direct or cumulative impacts on noise
levels within the project area. This includes not
exposing individuals to excess groundbome
vibrations or substantially increasing ambient
noises, whether temporary, periodical, or
permanent.
XU. 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 extension of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
b) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Diseussion: The proposed sphere of lnDueDee Dpdate
reaftirms the Dty's mstlng sphere of iullDenc:e. The
Dty 01 SeaI Beach Is largely built-out. Adoption of aD
updated sphere 0I1ufIuenc:e, which Is conterminous
with the Dty's ex1sting Jurlsdietloual boundary, will
not result iD direct aDd substanti8l populatioD growth"
XDJ, PUBUC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Rcsuh in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities. need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceplable service ratios, response times or other
performance 9bjectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
./
./
./
./
./
COMMJRVPUB/2OOOI602297
Page 13 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion: The proposed sphere of influence update
reaffirms the City's existing sphere of influence. The
proposed sphere of influence update will have no
impact on the ability of the City of Seal Beach to
provide public services and facilities for its existing
residents.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion: The project will not result in any
signitica.nt direct or cumulative impacts on
recreational services within the project area
including increasing the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Wouldthe
project:
r
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., 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 eslablished by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
-/
-/
-/
-/
-/
-/
-/
COMM/RVPUBI2OOO1602297
Page 14 of 17
Initial Study
Issues:
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., 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 (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion: The project will not result in any
significant direct or cumulative impacts relating to
transportation or circulation within the project
area. This includes not causing an increase in
street or air traffic patterns, creating inadequate
emergency access or parking capacity, or
conflicting with adopted transportation policies.
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 snfficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entidements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
COMMIRVPUBI2OOOI602297
Page 15 of17
Initial Study
Issues:
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treabnent provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
t) Be served by a laDdfiII with sufficient
permitted capacity to accOD'lmnilate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, slate, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
DIsc:uasIon: Water and sewer servic:e Is
provided to Seal Beach residents through the
Cty of Seal Beach PnbUe Works Department.
The proposed sphere of influence update,
which reaffirms the City's existing sphere of
influence, will have no impact on the ability
of the City of Seal Beach to serve existing
customers.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal 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 project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
.;'
./
./
./
COMMIRVPUBI20001602297
Page 16 ofl7
Initial Study
Issues:
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The project would not result in
any significant direct or cumulative impacts
relating to mandatory findings of significance
within the project area. This includes not
degrading the quality of the environment or
causing substantial adverse effects on
individuals, whether directly or indirectly.
./
COMMIRVPUBI20001602297
Page 17 of 17
Initial Study