CC Resolution 2003-129RESOLUTION NO. 2003-129
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-095 AND ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT 2003-078
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA .
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-485
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 16" day of December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-485 for General Plan Amendment 2003-095 and
Zone Change Amendment 2003-078 to allow High Density Residential uses in the
Commercial Park land use area with a Conditional Use Permit;
. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to allow High Density
Residential uses in the Commercial Park land use area within La Quinta;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on
November 13, 2003, and December 4, 2003, and further caused the notice to be
filed with the Riverside County Clerk on October 21, 2003, in accordance with the
CEQA Guidelines. The public comment period began on November 14, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 25" day of November, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-485 for General Plan
Amendment 2003-095 and Zone Change Amendment 2003-078, ' and on a 5-0
vote, adopted Resolution 2003-103 recommending certification to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the Findings of
r- the City Council.
Resolution No. 2003-129
Environmental Assessment 2003-485
Adopted: December 16, 2003
Page 2
2. The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and
processed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's implementation procedures. The City Council has independently
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative
Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the City-wide Amendment, and that, based upon
the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of
proceeding for this Amendment, there is no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record that there are significant adverse environmental effects as a
result of the Amendment.
3 The Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in. that no significant
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-485.
4. The 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 additional environmental analysis will
occur during site -specific development projects.
5. There is no evidence before the City that the Amendment will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends based on review of the City's General Plan EIR.
6. The Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
7. The 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 Project.
8. The Amendment will not have the environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services based on review of the City's General Plan EIR.
Resolution No. 2003-129
Environmental Assessment 2003-486
Adopted: December 16, 2003
Page 3
9. The City Council ' has fully considered the proposed Negative Declaration and
the comments received thereon.
10. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the City Council.
11. The location of the documents which constitute _the record of proceedings
upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman,
Community Development Director.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the
Amendment has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is
defined in Fish and Game Code §711.2.
13. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
14. The Negative Declaration is hereby certified by the City Council.
15. The Community Development Director shall cause to be filed with the County
Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15075(a) once
accepted by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of December, 2003, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1W 4iL4.- -
DON ADO H, lWayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2003-129
Environmental Assessment 2003-485
Adopted: December 16, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU . GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M.'KATHQWE ZJENS044,"'City Attor y
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Environmental Assessment 2003485 for General Plan Amendment 2003-095
and Zone Code Amendment 2003-078
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Greg Trousdell
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Citywide
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 off -site features necessary for its
•— implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The City is considering an amendment to the General Plan and Municipal Code (Title 9)
which would allow High Density Residential land uses in the Commercial Park land use
designation and 'zoning district, respectively. The text amendments would allow multi -family
development at densities up to 16 units per acre, with approval -of a Conditional Use Permit,
in the Commercial Park land use designation, subject to the development standards in Section
9.30.070.
The change is being considered as a result of a request for construction of 192 apartment units
on a 10 acre parcel (CUP 03-081 and SDP 03-788) located approximately 650 feet south of
Highway 111, and east of Dune Palms Road. The Initial Study for the apartment project is
being processed separately, due to project redesigns, which require that the project review be
delayed (EA 2003-484).
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
Not applicable. The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments would apply Citywide.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc 4-
J
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 NIITIGATED
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.
ity Development Director
PAGreg T\SR CC GPA095 CP DISTRICT\EA 03-485 Final - GPA95.doc -2-
November 12, 2003
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.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chklst.doc -3-
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.
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
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? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will not impact aesthetics,
scenic vistas or light and glare in and of themselves. Individual project proposals will still
require review under the site development and conditional use permit processes to assure
that they are compatible. Structures in the CP District are restricted to 35 feet in overall
height. No impacts associated with aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of
implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chklst.doc 4-
'California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
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, site photos.)
H. a)-c) The 'Commercial Park designation and zoning district occurs only on lands located
immediately adjacent to Highway 111. No agricultural lands occur in proximity to these
lands, nor are there any Williamson Act contracts on lands in this area.
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 quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chkist.doc -5-
III. a)-e) The Amendments will not impact air quality. The ultimate development of any site for
apartment uses within the Commercial Park land use designation will require additional
review under the requirements of CEQA.
As stated above, the GPA and ZCA were initiated due to an applicant's request for a
multi -family project on Dune Palms Road to the south of Highway 111. The primary
source of pollution in the City is the automobile. A traffic study was completed for the
above -referenced multi -family project'. It has been estimated that 200 units on
approximately 11 acres would generate average daily trips (ADT) of 1,326 ADT. By
comparison, if an office complex were built on this property, 1,583 ADT trips could be
expected'. A similar trip generation was analyzed in the General Plan EIR for this
property, since office development was generally assumed for commercial park uses. It
can therefore be expected that the potential impacts associated with multi -family
development on air quality in the region would be generally less than those from office
development, which is currently the primary land use in this land use designation.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). Projects proposed in this land use category will be required to
implement the Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan, which implements much stricter measures for
the control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue. These
measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These
individual projects will be analyzed and may include mitigation measures if necessary to
reduce potential impacts associated with PM 10 generation on any given site.
Finally, the proposed change in land use designation will require the processing of a
conditional use permit for high -density apartment projects in this designation, to assure
that potential land use conflicts associated with adjacent and previously existing light
industrial uses do not occur, particularly as it relates to air quality emissions. This level of
review will assure that residents of future projects will not be negatively impacted by
industrial or quasi -industrial emissions which may be located adjacent.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
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
1 "Traffic Impact Study La Quinta Family Apartments Project..." prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, September, 2003.
2 "Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on 30% lot coverage on 11 acres, category 710,
General Office Building. The number of apartment units was reduced to 192 on October 24, 2003.
S:\City Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -6-
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
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element)
IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Development Code text amendment will not, in and of
themselves, have any impacts on biological resources. Individual projects which may be
proposed will be reviewed to assure that they are not in a survey area, as defined by the
Environmental Resources chapter of the General Plan. Should surveys be required, they
will be performed as part of the project -specific CEQA review.
SACity ClerklResolutionslPH 2 EA Chklst.doc -7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Sect. 15064.5? (General
Plan Cultural Resources Element)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Sect. 15064.5?
(General Plan Cultural 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 Cultural
Resources Element)
V. a)-d) The Amendments will not, in and of themselves, have any impacts on cultural or
paleontological resources. Individual projects which may be proposed will be reviewed to
assure that they are not in a sensitive area, as defined by the Environmental Resources
chapter of the General Plan. Should cultural resource surveys be required, they will be
performed as part of the project -specific CEQA review.
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)
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chkist.doc -8-
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 GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, be impacted by geologic hazards.
Individual projects will be reviewed by the City Engineer to assure that they comply with
current standards for seismic zone construction, as is currently the case for all
development projects. These individual analyses, and the associated mitigation measures,
which may be required, will assure that impacts to individual projects are adequately
addressed.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project.
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
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? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
S:\City Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -9-
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
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? (General Plan Land Use
Map)
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? (General Plan
Land Use Map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
-evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
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? (General Plan Land Use Map)
VII. a)-h) The GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, be impacted by hazardous materials.
Individual projects will be reviewed to assure that they comply with current standards for
household hazardous waste, and that they are not located adjacent to hazardous waste
generators. This review, and the potential implementation of mitigation measures, will
assure that potential impacts are adequately addressed.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
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 that 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
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Master Environmental
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chkist.doc -11-
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 GPA and ZCA will not, in and of themselves, impact water resources. Individual
projects which may be proposed will require additional review under CEQA, including
water demand analysis, and associated compliance with City water conservation
standards in construction and landscaping.
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? (Aerial photo)
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 proposed General Plan Amendment will allow the construction of high density
residential land uses in commercial areas, which will improve the jobs/housing balance in
the City, and potentially add to the inventory of affordable housing in the City. In
addition, the Commercial Park designation has been applied to lands adjacent to the
City's primary arterials, and in close proximity to Highway 111, where transit routes are
available. Proximity to alternative transportation is also encouraged in the General Plan.
The GPA therefore enables the City to facilitate goals, policies and programs already in
place in the General Plan.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -12-
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 Commercial Park lands in the City are in areas already developed and not designated
for Mineral Resources. The GPA and ZCA will have no impact on these resources
regardless of the development which occurs there.
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. 111 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)
SACity.Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chklst.doc -13-
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)
XI. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will have no impact on noise
levels in and of themselves. 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.
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.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -14-
XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Code Amendment will facilitate the
development of additional high -density dwelling units in the City. The City's
Redevelopment Agency has identified a need for 1,672 affordable housing units in the
City by 2004, and has secured 894 of these units. Additional projects, which are proposed
as affordable, including the project on Highway 111 and Dune Palms referred to above,
will help the City meet its affordable housing needs in the short term.
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 and Zone Code Amendments will not impact public services directly.
Projects proposed on any site will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. These projects will generate property tax which will offset the costs
of added police and fire services. These projects will also be required to pay the mandated
school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -15-
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?
(Application materials)
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? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The GPA and ZCA will not directly impact recreational facilities. Private and common
recreation space is required under the Development Code for multi -family developments.
The City will review individual projects to assure that they meet these standards.
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
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -16-
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 proposed GPA and ZCA will not directly impact traffic and circulation. However, as
stated above under Air Quality, high density land uses appear to generate fewer trips than
office land uses. As such, the construction of apartments rather than offices on any of
these sites could reduce traffic impacts associated with General Plan buildout, and
provide a beneficial impact.
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
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsTH 2 EA Chklst.doc -17-
available to serve the project from
X
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 and Zone Code Amendment will not directly impact
public utilities and services. Additional review will be required for individual projects
which may be proposed for any site under this designation. This analysis will include
review to assure that adequate electricity, water, solid waste and wastewater are available
at the time of development.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. 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?
a:xuty aerK\Hesolutions\PH 2 EA Chklst.doc -18-
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 and Zone Code Amendments will have no impact on biological
resources. Specific projects will be required to provide site -specific resource analyses, as
required by the General Plan.
XVII.b) The proposed GPA and ZCA have the potential to achieve both short term and long term
goals, by providing additional affordable housing in close proximity to public
transportation, shopping and schools.
XVII. c) The General Plan and Zone Code Amendments will not exceed those impacts identified
in the General Plan EIR, and may result in slightly lower impacts to air quality and traffic
and circulation.
XVII. d) - The GPA and ZCA will not have any direct environmental effects on human beings.
Additional environmental review will be required for individual project to assess the
impacts associated with specific sites. These reviews will assure that potential impacts are
adequately mitigated.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\PH 2 EA Chkist.doc -19-