CC Resolution 2004-031RESOLUTION 2004-031
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QU1NTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-099.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-501
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 24' day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2004-501 for a General Plan
Amendment to add a new program to the Traffic and Circulation Element to
establish a circulation program for Augmented Major Arterials within the City.
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2004-501, and has determined that the proposed project would not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and therefore, a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to approve said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in
that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant adverse
impacts on the site.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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 rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory in that the installation of signals on
Augment Major Arterials would occur in already developed areas, and would
not impact biological and cultural resources.
Resolution No. 2004-031
Environmental Assessment 2004-501
City of La Quinta
March 16, 2004
Page 2
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed General Plan
Amendment will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat on which the wildlife depends in that the Environmental
Assessment did not identify any wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, in that the General Plan Amendment will potentially
provide a safer traffic flow on the City's streets.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in
the area will not be significantly affected by the General Plan Amendment in
that vehicular trips will not be increased or exceed the impacts identified in the
General Plan.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects
that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in
that additional environmental reviews will be required for individual projects to
assess the impacts associated with specific sites.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the proposed
General Plan Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-501 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
Resolution No. 2004-031
Environmental Assessment 2004-501
City of La Quints
March 16, 2004
Page 3
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-501 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist attached hereto and on file in the Community
Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of March, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
J . GREEK, CMC, Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
U. KATHE INE JENsdN, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
La 11'-�
DONALD ADOL H, yor
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-501
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: City-wide (text amendments to General Plan)
5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or oil site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The proposed General Plan Amendment will add a new program to the Traffic and
Circulation Element to allow for signalized intersections for Augmented Major Arterials. The
two segments of roadway that are designated as Augmented Major Arterials are Washington
Street between the Whitewater Channel and Avenue 48 and Highway 111 between
Washington Street and the western City limits. The new Program would apply only to that
portion of the Augmented Arterial on Washington Street between Highway 111 and Avenue
48. The new program to the Traffic and Circulation Element would readas follows:
"Program 2.3.A: On Augmented Major Arterials, the minimum intersection
spacing shall be 2,600 feet in residential areas, and may be 950 feet for
commercial frontage, provided pre -incorporation intersections are
accommodated first. The design speed shall be 60 miles per hour (mph).
Left turn median cuts may be authorized if the turn pocket does not interfere
with other existing or planned left turn pockets. Right in/right out access
driveways shall exceed the following minimum separation distances (in all
cases, distances shall be measured between the curb returns):
-- more than 250 feet on the approach leg to a full turn intersection;
-- more than 150 feet on the exit leg from a full turn intersection;
-- more than 250 feet between driveways.
All access configurations shall be subject to City Engineer review and
approval."
The new program is a result of future developments along Washington Street between
Highway 111 and Avenue 48.
-1-
g. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
Not applicable. The General Plan Amendment would apply City-wide on Augmented Major
Arterials.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None.
-2-
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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality.
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find 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 proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) 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) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, 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.
Signature
Z//3A W
Date
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
-4-
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Project description)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Project description)
I. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment will not impact aesthetics, scenic vistas or light and glare
in and of themselves. The proposed Amendment will only affect the distance between
signalized intersections on Augmented Major Arterials. Individual project proposals will
still require review under the site development and conditional use permit processes to
assure that they are compatible. No impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to
occur as a result of implementation of the General Plan Amendment.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the roject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
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? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(Project description)
II. a)-c) Augmented Major Arterials in the General Plan consist of Washington Street and
Highway 111. No agricultural lands occur in proximity to these streets, nor are there any
Williamson Act contracts on lands in this area.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description)
III. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment will not impact air quality. Modification of the City
General Plan standard will not increase trips on City roadways, and may actually improve
vehicular emission levels, due to a more orderly and smooth -flowing traffic system. No
construction will be required beyond the installation of traffic signals, so no impacts to
PM 10 are expected to result. The proposed Amendment will not impact air quality in the
City or region.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, 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?
(General Plan Biological Resources Element)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan Biological Resources Element)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
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? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological .
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
-9-
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on biological resources.
Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed
areas, and would not impact habitat.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5? (General
Plan Cultural Resources Element)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
General Plan Biological Resources Element.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? General Plan Biological Resources
Element)
V. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on cultural or paleontological
resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already
constructed areas, and would not impact resources.
-11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on geology and soils.
Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed
areas, where soils have been adequately compacted. Construction would meet City
seismic standards, and would therefore be sized to withstand significant groundshaking.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
.Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Project description)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Project description)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Project description)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
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? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two 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? (Project description)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Project
description)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (Project description)
-13-
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (Project description)
VII. a)-h) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on Hazardous Materials.
Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed
areas, and will not increase the number or types of trips generated on these roadways. The
addition of traffic signals may have a traffic calming effect, which would represent a
beneficial impact in its potential to reduce the potential for accidents and accidental spills.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project -
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
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)? (General Plan
EIR P. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
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? (General Plan
Environmental Hazards Element)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
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?
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
Environmental Hazards Element)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-15-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on Hydrology or Water
Resources. Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already
constructed areas, and will not require water.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Project description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
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? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on land use. or planning. The
amendment modifies only the standard requiring specific linear separation between traffic
signals. The potential area affected is very limited, since Augmented Major Arterials are
only designated on portions of Washington Street and Highway 111. The Public Works
Department will have discretion in granting individual project requests based solely on
site specific analysis, which will include the compatibility of a signal with surrounding
development and conditions.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on mineral resources.
Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed
areas, and would not impact potentially productive lands.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (MEA p. 11 l ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
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? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XL a)-f) The General Plan Amendment will have no impact on noise levels in and of itself. The
ultimate development of any given site will be reviewed separately under CEQA, and
analyzed for both impacts associated with the proposed project on adjacent development;
and the impacts of adjacent development on the proposed project. The City will impose
mitigation measures should these impacts be potentially significant. The additional
review under CEQA will ensure that impacts can be reduced to a less than significant
level.
• -19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff.)
XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on population and housing.
Installation of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed
areas, and would not impact development patterns or land use designations.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result 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 acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on public resources. Installation
of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and
would not impact the provision of municipal services.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Project description)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Project description)
XIV. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on recreation. Installation of
signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and would
not impact City parks.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
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)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed,. either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not significantly impact transportation or traffic. The
amendment modifies only the standard requiring specific linear separation between traffic
signals on Augmented Major Arterials. The potential area affected is very limited, since
Augmented Major Arterials are only designated on portions of Washington Street and
Highway 111. The City Engineer will have discretion in granting individual project
requests based solely on site specific analysis, which will include the potential impacts on
levels of service and traffic safety.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment 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?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment will not have any impacts on utility providers. Installation
of signals on Augment Major Arterials would occur in already constructed areas, and
would not impact their facilities or ability to service.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/.
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of 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 the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
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
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The General Plan Amendment will have no impact on biological resources. The addition
of signals will occur in areas which are already developed, and where no habitat occurs.
XVII.b) The proposed General Plan Amendment has the potential to achieve both short term and
long term goals, by potentially providing a safer traffic flow on the City's streets.
XVH. c) The General Plan Amendment will not exceed those impacts identified in the General
Plan EIR, and will not increase vehicular trips.
XVII. d) The General Plan Amendment will not have any direct environmental effects on human
beings. Additional environmental review will be required for individual projects to assess
the impacts associated with specific sites. These reviews will assure that potential impacts
are adequately mitigated.
-25-