2.2 Base teórica o fundamento teórico
2.2.3 Variables de estudio
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
The Napa Pipe EIR concluded that impacts regarding airport safety hazards would be less than significant because upon approval of the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments, the project would comply with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental In 2013, the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments proposed in 2009 were adopted by the County of Napa. Since the approval of the project by the County, the City of Napa has annexed approximately 111 acres of the project site. As discussed in the 2014 Addendum to the EIR, the City and County executed a Memorandum of Understanding that established the terms and conditions under which the City could annex the property, including prezoning the Napa Pipe Property consistent with the County’s zoning for the property. Thus, the modified project would comply with the Napa County ALUCP, which guides air transportation development while protecting public health and safety. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur.
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The applicant shall carry out the provisions set forth in the RAP and clean up the site to levels below the levels protective of human health and the environment agreed to by the RWQCB. Following full implementation, the applicant should prepare and submit a report to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for review and approval. The report should document cleanup activities performed, quantities of soil reused on-site and disposed of off-site, facilities that received exported material, soil gas sample analytical results, and verification that the targeted cleanup levels have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: To allow for the successful assessment and remediation of any previously unknown soil contaminants hazardous to the public and/or environment encountered during project construction, implement the protocols documented in the soil risk management plan portion of the RDIP in the event that such contaminants are encountered, and record in the deed records for the site a notice of the existence of the soil risk management protocols from the RDIP (including a full copy of those protocols) so that all owners of portions of the site have advanced notice of both the existence of the soil risk management plan and its terms and provisions.
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
3.11
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Was Analyzed in Where Impact the EIR Do Any New Circumstances Involve New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Address/Resolve Impacts?
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-40 through 4.10-71
No No NA
b) Substantially 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)?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-71 through 4.10-74
No No Yes, impact
remains less than significant
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-74 through 4.10-81
No No NA, impact remains less than significant
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 surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-81 and
4.10-82
No No NA, impact remains less than significant
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-82 and
4.10-83
No No Yes, impact remains less than significant with application of adopted Mitigation Measure HYDRO-3 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Napa Pipe EIR
pages 4.10-84 through 4.10-92
No No Yes, impact
remains less than significant with
application of adopted Mitigation
Measures HYDRO- 4 and HYDRO-5 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-92 through 4.10-95
No No Yes, impact
remains less than significant with
application of adopted Mitigation Measure HYDRO-6
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Was Analyzed in Where Impact the EIR Do Any New Circumstances Involve New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Do Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Address/Resolve Impacts?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-95 and
4.10-96
No No NA, impact remains less than significant
i) Expose 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?
Napa Pipe EIR pages 4.10-96 through 4.10-98
No No Yes, impact
remains less than significant with application of adopted Mitigation Measures HYDRO- 7a and HYDRO-7b
3.11.1
Discussion
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
As discussed in the Napa Pipe EIR, wastewater service would be provided to the site by the NSD, which is required to comply with applicable water quality discharge standards. Thus, the Napa Pipe EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
The modified project would not alter the provisioning of wastewater services or treatment of wastewater from that contemplated for the project as originally evaluated. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be required.