HomeMy WebLinkAbout1668 (2)
RESOLUTION NO. 1668
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
PROPOSED CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City recently conducted a Transportation Master Plan study to
evaluate future growth in the City, identify existing and future transportation deficiencies
and recommend circulation system changes and future transportation improvements;
and
WHEREAS, the results of the Transportation Master Plan study affect the
General Plan Circulation and Transportation Element and require an amendment to
update the document; and
. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 23, 2002, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality
Act, the Development Services Department performed an initial study for the proposed
General Plan amendment and prepared a Negative Declaration. Said initial study did
not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
.
-:1.-
.
.
.
SECTION 1.
That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report dated April 23, 2002 is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation and Transportation Element to reflect
the following:
1. New names for the Circulation System Street designations (Exhibit 1).
2. The change of designation for eleven (11) streets from the previous plan
(Ex~ibit 3).
3. An updated circulation system map with new street designations and eleven
street designation changes (Exhibit 4).
4. A revision to the Circulation and Transportation section text to identify the
changes and the future deficiencies (Exhibit 5).
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1668 was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 23, 2002 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
-2-
.
.
.
ATTEST:
,
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
-3-
,
EXHIBIT 1
ARCADIA CIRCULATION SYSTEM
ARTERIAL DESIGNATIONS
TABLE 3-1
ARTERIAL LANES ROW DIVIDED CURB TO CURB
Major 8 200' YES 160' to 180'
Major (Modified One-Way) 3 80' NO 56' to 64'
Primary 4/6 100' to 106' YES 84'
Secondary 4 84' NO 60' to 68'
. Secondary (Modified) 2 80' NO 40' to 56'
Collector 2 64' NO 40' to 48'
.
~
EXHIBIT 2
COMPARISON TABLE OF STREET DESIGNATIONS
CURRENT PLAN
PROPOSED PLAN
8 Lane Divided Major Arterial
5 Lane Divided Primary Arterial
4 Lane Divided Primary Arterial
4 Lane Undivided Secondary Arterial
3 Lane One Way Major Arterial Modified,One Way
2 Lane Divided Secondary Arterial Modified
. 2 Lane Undivided Collector
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 3
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT
CIRCULATION SYSTEM CHANGES
Previous
Roadwav Limits Desil!llation New Desil!llation Reason
Second Ave. Huntington Dr. to Duarte Rd. Two-lane Undivided Modified Secondary Arterial Increased Traffic
Baldwin Ave. Foothill Blvd. to Orange Grove Ave. Two-Lane Undivided! Secondary Arterial Unifonnity
Four Lane Divided
Baldwin Ave. Huntington Dr. to Camino Real Ave. Four"Lane Undivided Primary Arterial Increased Traffic
Foothill Blvd. Second Ave. to East City Limits Four"Lane Undivided Primary Arterial Increased Traffic
Campus Dr. Holly Ave. to Santa Anita Ave. Not Included Secondary Arterial Functional USe
Sierra Madre Blvd. Santa Anita Ave. to West C.L. Not Included Collector Functional Use
Colorado Blvd. Colorado PI. to East C.L. Not Included Collector Functional Use
Sixth Ave. Live Oak Ave. to North C.L. Not Included Collector Functional Use
Tenth Ave. North C.L. to South C.L. Not Included Collector Functional Use
Michilinda Blvd. Sunset Blvd. to North C.L. Two-Lane Divided Removed Not Within City
Grandview Ave. Santa Anita Ave, to West CL Collector Removed Not Within City
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 5
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT
TEXT AMENDMENT
(Revision to page 3-2, 'replaee last paragraph)
Issues
Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the FoothiII Freeway (1-210),
regional.arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The Functional Classification of
the City's arterial and colIectorroad system is defined in Table 3-1. The existing system
is capable of serving the current traffic volumes' at an adequate level of service on typical
weekdays and weekends. The circulation system identifYing the network ofarteriaIs and
collectors isl shown on figure 3-1. A few streets have been identified as needing an
enhanced street section to handle projected traffic volumes from future planned
development. In accordance with the Functional Classification System (Table 3-1) and
the Circulation System (Figure 3-1) some streets such as Baldwin Ave., Foothill Blvd.
and Second Ave. will require additional dedications.
(Revision to page 3-9, first paragrdph, replaee last sentence)
Six intersections have been identified as falling below level of service D in the future
buildout condition. Those intersections are:
N. Baldwin Ave.! 1-210 Westbound Ramps & Foothill Blvd.
Baldwin Ave. & Duarte Rd.
Santa Anita Ave. & 1-210 Eastbound Ramps
Santa Anita Ave. & Huntington Dr.
Santa Anita Ave. & Duarte Rd.
Michilinda Ave. & Sunset Blvd.
The Transportation Master Pian Study prepared in May of2001, anaIyzed the
deficiencies and proposes various improvements at each of intersection to bring'them into
conformance with the LOS D requirement. The intersection ofMichilinda Ave. and
Sunset Blvd. is only partially within the limits of the City of Arcadia and improvements
could not be implemented solely within the City limits to mitigate the deficiencies.
Therefore, the City will work cooperatively with the County to determine. future
improvements to solve the deficiencies. The five intersections in the City of Arcadia will
be monitored closely to ensure acceptable levels of service are maintained. Future
development proposals will be reviewed by the City to ensure that they are consistent
with maintenance of the adopted level of service standards. Where impacts are created
by new development. The City will require the developer to mitigate the impacts through
either construction or fair share contributions to master planned projects.
.
.
.
.
File No.: GP 2002-002
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
GP 2002-002 - Proposed Circulation and Transportation Amendments to the General Plan for the
following:
. Adqptlon of formal defined street section designations by name that describe right-of-way
width and curb-to-curb width;
. Revisions to the Circulation System Map to conform with the new street section designations;
. Changes to the roadway sections on certain streets within the City; and
. Revisions to the General Plan text to incorporate these changes and a discussion of the
future deficiencies identified in the Transportation Master Plan Report.
B. Location of Project: City-Wide
C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project:
City of Arcadia, Development Services Department, Engineering Division
The City Council 0 Planning Commission 0, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project
and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the City Council,
including the recommendaiton of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project
will not have a siglnificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the City
Council's findings are as follows:
The City Council 0 Planning Commission 0, hereby flnds that the Negative .Declaration reflects its
independent judgement. A copy of the Initial StUdy may be obtained at:
Community Development Division
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5423
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record of
proceedings upon which the City based Its decision to adoptthis Negative Declartion are as follows:
Community Development Division
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5423
Date:
Date Posted:
Staff
4/01
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
General Plan Amendment 2002-002
2. Project Address:
N/A i
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Development Services Department
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5442
. 4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
Engineering Division
240 Ii1/. Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Philip Wray, City Engineer (626) 574-5411
6. General Plan Designation: N/A
7. Zoning Classification: N/A
8. Description of Project:
File No. GP 2002-002
Proposed Circulation and Transportation amendments to the General Plan for the
following:
.
-1-
CECA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
File No. GP 2002-002
. Adoption of formal defined street-section designations by name that describe
right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width;
. Revisions to the Circulation System Map to conform with the new street section
designations;
. Changes to the roadway sections on certain streets within the City; and
. Revisions to the General Plan text to incorporate these changes and a
discussion of the future deficiencies identified in the Transportation Master Plan
Report.
9. Other public agencies whose approVal is required:
N/A
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.
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation I Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of
Significance
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] 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
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
-2-
CEOA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
File No. GP 2002-002
[] 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 significant effect on the
environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially
Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to
analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed.
[] 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
b:ecause all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards
and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
:~~a /me"tSeN~' DepamM"
~ Date: March 19.2002
Signature
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 such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within 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).
-3-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
File No. GP 2002-002
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 related as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17 "Earlier Analyses"
may be cr.oss-referenced).
I
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
Environmental Impact Report, or other CECA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section
15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
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.
-4-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect ona scenic vista?
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed transportation and circulation amendments to the
General Plan will provide better definitions and descriptions of
street section designations as well as incorporate changes into
the plan addressing future deficiencies identified in the
Transportation Master Plan Report The amendments will not
result in any changes to scenic vistas or highways.
2.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts
to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the Califomia
Resources Agency, Department of Conservation. maintains
detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.)
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 individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
3.
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:
Potenijally
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Then
Significant
With
Miligaijon
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
CEQA Checklist
4
03/15/02
.
.
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project
a)
b)
Have a substantial advenie effect on a scenic vista?
Damage scenic resources. including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new sou roe of substantial light or glare. which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed transportation and circulation amendments to the
General Plan will provide better definitions and descriptions of
street section designations as well as incorporate changes into
the plan addressing future deficiencies identified in the
Transportation Master Plan Report. The amendments will not
result in any changes to scenic vistas or highways.
2.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts
to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model prepared by the Califomia Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program In the Califomia
Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintain
detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.)
b) Conflict with exiSting zoning for agricultural use, ora Williamson
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
3.
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:
.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
l:2l
l:2l
l:2l
l:2l
l:2l
l:2l
l:2l
CEOA Checklist
4
03/15/02
File No.: GP 2002-02
. Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation impact Impect
Incorporation
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air D D D [gJ
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to D D D 181
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the D D D [gJ
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)?
J
d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spor' D 0 0 181
(primarily carbon monoxide)?
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 0 D 181
concentrations?
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of D 0 0 [gJ
people?
. The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Pian
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) D based on the future buildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. These text changes will not have a direct Impact on
air quality. Specific improvements may be subject to further
CEQA review.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, 0 0 D 181
any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14
of the Califomia Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or
in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or
17.12)?
b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through D D D 181
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 Califomia Department of Fish
and Game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habijat or 0 0 0 181
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
. plans. policies. and regulations or by the California Department of
CEOA Checklist
5
03/15/02
.
.
. c)
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or
in combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling, hydrologiCal interruption,
or other means?
e) Interfere su bstantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? l
1) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan. Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to, better deflne
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes interse~ons that may fali below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildoutand proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. These text changes'WiII not have a direct impact on
air quality. Specific improvements may be subject to further
CEQA review
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signiflcance of a
historical resource which Is either listed or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high
probability that it contains information needed to answer
Important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically
recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?
Disturb or destroy a.unique paleontological resource or site?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
WIth
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
I:8J
I:8J
IEJ
IEJ
IEJ
I:8J
o IEJ
CEOA Checklist
6
03/15/02
File No.: GP 2002-02
.
PotenUal1y
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
MlUgaUon
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, Including those intenred outside of 0 0 0 I2J
formal cemeteries?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future bulldout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement There will be no impact on cultural resources.
Specific improvements may be subject to further CEQA review
I
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 0 0 181
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 0 0 0 I2J
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?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 I2J
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 [gJ
iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 181
v) Landslides? 0 0 0 [gJ
vii) Wildland fires, Including where wildlands are adjacent to 0 0 0 [gJ
urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 0 181
topsoil?
c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 [gJ
d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that 0 0 0 181
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result In on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks 0 0 0 I8l
to life or property?
. CEQA Checklist
7
03/15/02
File No.: GP 2002-02
. Less Than
Potentielly Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
1) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater Is 0 0 0 [gJ
the soil capable of supporting the use of septic ta,nks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes Intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildout and proposes various future
Improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. .Specific improvements may be subject to further
CECA review' especially as it relates to geology and soils.
7; VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 [gJ
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 [gJ
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or 0 0 0 [gJ
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 [gJ
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment
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 0 0 0 [gJ
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?
1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 0 0 0 [gJ
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 0 0 0 ~
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
. h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death 0 0 0 ~
CEQA Checklist
8
03/15/02
.
.
.
Involving wildland flres, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbaf1lzed areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments isto better deflne
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that t:lescribes intersections that may fall belOW level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. Specific improvements may be subject to further
CEQA review:
I
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
stanClardsor waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deflcit in aquifer volume or a towering of the loca,l
groundwater \able level (i.e., 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 pattem of the site or area,
inclUding through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would resu~ 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 surface runoff in a
manf1er which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Cneate or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or plannedstormwater drainage systems to
control?
I) Place housing within a 1 OO-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 1 OO-year floodplain structures Which would impede
or redinectflood flows?
The purpose of the proposet:l GP amendments is to better define
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact .
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impect
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
CEQA Checklist
9
03/15/02
File No.: GP 2002-02
. Less Than
Potentially Significant Lass Then
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that.describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on thefutui'e buildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. Any future improvements would be made to existing
streets and would be subject to further CEQA review.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D IZI
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 0 0 0 IZI
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 0 0 0 IZI
communities conservation plan?
. The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. Proposed improvements would enhance the
physical development of the commmunity. Specific street
improvements may be subject to further CEOA review.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 0 0 0 IZI
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral 0 0 0 IZI
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and Include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future build out and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. Specific improvements may be subject to further
CEQA review. There would be no impact on mineral resources.
. CEOA Checklist
10
03/15/02
..
11. NOISE - Would the project result in:
.f)
a)
Exposure of persons' to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
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
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?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose PMple residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? . .
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance wiih the LOS 0
requirement. If street improvements are required in the future,
there could be some short-term impact as a result of any potential
construction, however, specific improvements may be subject to
further CEQA review.
12. 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 roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
~Igniflcant
Wrth
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
D.
o
o
o
o l8'J
No
Impact
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
l8'J
CECA Checklist
11
03/15/02
.
.
.
The purpose of the proposed General Plan Text Amendment is to
address future buildout of the City. However, the proposed
changes would not induce growth, but would respond to the
needs of future growth in the future.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
a)
Would the project result In substantial adverse physical impacts
assoclated with the provision of new or physically altered
govemmental, 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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildout and proposes various future
Improvements to bring them Into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. The proposed amendments would not have an
impact on public services, but provides guidelines for addressing
future growth within the City. Specific improvements may be
subjecl to further CEQA review.
14. RECREATION
a) Would the project 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 might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Potentielly
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
With
Mnigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
CEQA Checklist
12
03/15/02
.
.
.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF/C - Would the project:
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 established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
I
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an
increase, in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards 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 supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposed GP amendments better define the City's street
designations and include text in the General Plan that describes
Intersections that may fall below level of service (LOS) 0 based
on the future bulldout and proposes various future improvements
to bring them into.conformance with the LOS 0 requirement.
Specific improvements may be subject to further CEQA review.
16. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o IZI
No
Impact
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
CEQA Checklist
13
03/15/02
File No.: GP 2002-02
. Less Then
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 0 0 0 I2?J
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expandEid
entitlements needed?
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may 0 0 0 I2?J
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the projecfs projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 0 0 I2?J
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments is to better define
the City's street designations and Include text in the General Plan
that describes intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future blJildout and proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement. Future projects that may result to address future
traffic impacts would require further CEQA review, including
--. compliance with NPDES and SUSMPS.
MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 0 0 I2?J
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 Califomia history or prehistory?
The GP amendment will have no impact on the quality of the
environment since any future improvements would be made to
existing streets.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the 0 0 0 I2?J
disadvantage. of long-term, environmental goals?
The GP text amendments will have no short or long term
environmental impacts. Any future improvements that might
result in addressing the goals In the GP would require further
environmental review.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 0 0 0 I2?J
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
. that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
CEOA Checklist
14
03/15/02
-
.
.e
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
There should be no cumulative impacts as a result of the
proposed General Plan Text Amendments.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The purpose of the proposed GP amendments Is to better define
the City's street designations and include text in the General, Plan
that'describe~ intersections that may fall below level of service
(LOS) 0 based on the future buildoutcand proposes various future
improvements to bring them into conformance with the LOS 0
requirement Specific improvements may be subjectlo further
CEQA review.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
File No.: GP 2002-02
Less Than
Significant
WIth
MI~getlon
Incorpore~on
o
less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No
Impact
~
CEQA Checklist
15
03/15/02