HomeMy WebLinkAbout75F - GP AMEND NO. 2004-06
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
~
~
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
JULY 6, 2004
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2004-06 TO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
PROTECTING LOCAL STREETS;
ADOPTION OF AMENDED AND
REVISED PROCEDURES FOR
NEIGHBO D TRAFFIC PLANS.
APPROVED
0 As Recommended
0 As Amended
0 Ordinance on 1 $I Reading
0 Ordinance on 2nd Reading
0 Implementing Resolution
0 Set Public Hearing For
.~
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
81.
Approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, Environmental Review No.
2004-153.
2 .
Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06.
3 .
Adopt a resolution amending and revising rules and regulations for
the approval and installation of Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, Environmental Review
No. 2004-153 and adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No.
2004-06 (Exhibit A) to amend the General Plan Circulation Element
Implementation Program protecting local streets by a vote of 6:1 (De La
Torre opposed) .
DISCUSSION
The protection of local streets from through-traffic to preserve
neighborhood character is one of the goals identified in the Circulation
~ Element of the City's General Plan. In order to implement a mechanism for
~ achieving this goal, in 1992 the City adopted provisions that detail the
rules and regulations for establishing Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans. In response to a legal challenge, in August 2003, the City Council
75F-1
Public Hearing for General
2004-06 July 5, 2004
Page 2
Plan Amendment
repealed the existing procedures and directed staff to develop revised
rules and regulations
The California Vehicle Code permits cities to prohibit entry to and from
streets by means of curbs, barriers and other roadway design features for
various purposes, provided they are implemented pursuant to the City's
General Plan goals and in conformance with rules and regulations that have
been adopted by the City Council. The proposed general plan amendment
provides technical modifications to the provisions describing the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in order to better conform to the
vehicle code. Further, the proposed amendment will eliminate the
requirement for a vote of the residents in the affected area prior to the
implementation of a traffic plan.
Additionally, the subject resolution will implement the revised rules and
regulations for these Neighborhood Traffic Plans. These revised
regulations will replace those previously used by staff and the
Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee (ETAC) when
considering petitions for traffic plans. The most significant
modifications are those that assign the final decision-making
responsibility for plan implementation to the City Council, clarify that
any polling of the residents of the area is only advisory, and eliminate
the reference to a threshold for voter approval. Additionally, th
modifications specify that public safety issues must be addressed in the
traffic plans; establish the standards for conducting community polls; and
incorporate the role environmental review, in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, in the project analysis.
The revised rules and regulations reflect the policy of the City Council
that these neighborhood traffic management plans must reflect a strong
community consensus before they are permanently implemented. Within these
revisions, ETAC maintains a pivotal advisory role. Consistent with the
City's previous practice, neighborhood traffic plans will be developed in
partnership with neighborhood representatives; this process is designed to
maximize community participation and feedback. The plan will then be
submitted to ETAC for review and recommendation to the City Council.
During its review, ETAC will have the discretion of requesting a poll of
the residents in the area of impact. Also, consistent with past practice,
the procedures provide for the elements of a proposed plan to be
temporarily installed in order to permit a study of traffic and other
environmental impacts and to allow the community to understand the effects
of the plan prior to a final decision.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a
Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-153 has been prepared
project
Negative
for this.
75F-2
Public Hearing for General
2004-06 July 5, 2004
Page 3
Plan Amendment
8
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
s&6'ig
Executive Director
P1=2 ]u¡zgency
~;s Ross
, Ex cutive Director,
B blic Works Agency
8
MGM : JM
mgm\plancomm\gpa04-06.pc
8
75F-3
jwf-6/30/04
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2004-06, MODIFYING LANGUAGE IN THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT RELATED TO NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A.
B.
C.
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06, came before the City Council of
the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing July 6, 2004.
The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed
public hearing on June 28, 2004, on General Plan Amendment No. 2004-
06, and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06.
General Plan Amendment No. 2003-06 has been filed with the City of
Santa Ana to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan Land to
modify language related to the Implementation Program for Goal 6 of said
element.
1.
Goal 6 states: "Protect local streets from through traffic to preserve
neighborhood character".
Page A-27 of the Circulation Element contains the Implementation
Program for that goal and states: "Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program- In residential areas that experience
significant commuter traffic on local streets, the City conducts traffic
impact assessment and the neighborhood develops a traffic plan
which includes traffic diverters or other mechanisms to reduce "cut-
through" traffic. Any improvements installed to mitigate commuter
traffic are subject to approval by a vote of the residents in the
affected area."
2.
3.
The Amendment proposes to make technical modification to the
language of the implementation program so as to better conform it
to State law.
4.
The Amendment is consistent with the balance of the General Plan,
and the various elements thereof.
75F-4
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 1 of 3
8
8
8
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the initial study and the negative declaration prepared with respect to this
Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented
at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On
the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can
be fairly argued that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The City Council hereby certifies and approves Negative Declaration No. 2004-153 and
directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Cieri< of the
County of Orange in the manner required by law.
Section 3. Based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing
which includes but not is not limited to: the Staff report and exhibits attached thereto;
and the public testimony; all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. The City Council hereby, approves General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06
to modify language in the Circulation Element Implementation Program for
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to read as follows:
"Neighborhood Traffic Management Program- In residential areas
that experience significant commuter or "cut-through" traffic on local
streets, the City conducts traffic impact assessment and a traffic
plan is developed in accordance with California Vehicle Code
Section 21101 (f) and the rules and regulations contained in
Resolution 2004-054, as they may be amended from time to time,
The traffic plan may include traffic diverters or other roadway
design features to reduce "cut-through" traffic."
The full text of page A-27 of the Circulation Element as modified is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption
by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote
adopting this Resolution
ADOPTED this - day of
,2004.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
7 5F-5
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
City Attorney
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
NOT PRESENT:
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Council members
Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2004-053 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75F-6
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 3 of 3
8
8
8
Exhibit A to Resolution 2004..()53
Revised Text of PaQe A-27 of the Circulation Element
strike-outs and underlinin to denote Ian ua e chan e
Circulation Element
. Neighborhood Permit Parking Program-In residential areas, parking permit
programs are used as a means of ensuring that sufficient on-street parking is
available for local residents by restricting non-resident parking during specific time
periods.
. Parking and Street Maintenance - The City has a comprehensive program for
maintaining major traffic corridors in the City. The program identifies guidelines for
landscaping median and parkway areas, street furniture, lighting., and other street-
scape improvements. The City has also prioritized the relocation of above-ground
utilities underground.
. Roadway Improvement Program- This Circulation Element identifies significant
roadway improvements that are considered as part of its implementation.
Recommendations include the changes to the MPSH identified in Exhibit A-6.
.
Transportation Demand Management - Santa Ana has adopted a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance which is deigned to reduce peak travel
demands associated with commuter trips. Employers of 100 or more persons in
nay new development are subject to the TDM ordinance and are required to
implement programs to aid in reducing peak hour traffic demands based upon
traffic volumes generated by their project. Collectively, these efforts can be
expected to result in lower peak traffic volumes on City streets. The City
continues to support strategies include din the TDM program which can lessen
the need for peak period travel.
. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program- In residential areas that experience
significant commuter or "cut-throuqh" traffic on local streets, the City conducts
traffic impact assessment and tho noighborhood devolops a traffic plan is
developed in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 21101 (f) and the
rules and requlations contained in Resolution 2004- . as they may be amended
from time to time. The traffic planwRiGR may includee traffic diverters or other
mechanisms roadway desiqn features to reduce "cut-through" traffic. ARy
improvoments installed to mitigate commuter traffic arc subject to approval by a
vote of tho rosidonts in tho affected area.
75F-7
(JWF 6/29/04)
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING AND REVISING
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL
AND INSTALLATION NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
PLANS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE
CODE SECTION 21101 (t).
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. California Vehicle Code Section 21101 (t) permits local agencies to install
roadway design features including, but not limited to islands, curbs and
traffic barriers intended to prohibit entry to or from streets for the purpose
of reducing cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods.
B. Vehicle Code Section 21101 (f) also requires such procedures implement
the circulation element of the City's general plan, and to be consistent
with local government's responsibility to provide for the health and safety
of its citizens.
C. Goal 6 of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan calls for
the protection of local streets from through traffic to preserve
neighborhood character. The General Plan calls for Goal 6 to be
implemented in residential areas that experience significant commuter
traffic on local streets through the establishment of "Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plans". In such cases, a traffic study assessment should be
conducted and traffic diverters or other mechanisms should be
implemented to reduce cut-through traffic.
D. Since 1992, the City has maintained procedures for neighborhood traffic
plans pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21101 (t) (the "Existing
Procedures"). In October 2003, the Existing Procedures were repealed in
reaction to federal litigation regarding a traffic plan being implemented
pursuant to said procedures, and Staff was directed to retum with
amended procedures consistent with Goal 6 and the court order. The
following procedures and standards may be used as part of an overall
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 1 of 6
75F-8
8
8
8
traffic control and calming program to protect and maintain the safety and
quality of life of neighborhoods in the City of Santa Ana.
E. On July 6, 2004 the City Council by Resolution No. 2004-053 approved
and certified negative declaration for environmental review 2004-153 for
this Project.
Section 2. Attached here to as Attachment A the procedures for
considering and implementing Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans.
Section 3. The Executive Director of Public Works and ETAC may
adopt guidelines for the City staff and community for the implementation of this
resolution, which should include such things as standards for the types of
roadway design features to be used in neighborhood traffic plans, and details for
the process including conduct of meetings, format for petitions, deadlines for
submittals, etc., not otherwise inconsistent with the terms of this Resolution.
Adoption of these guidelines is not necessary for approval of any Neighborhood
Traffic Management Plans, however.
Section 4. Nothing in this resolution is intended to limit the use of
approved traffic control measures as approved by CalTrans, or street designs
utilized by the Public Works Agency or the City for purposes other than as
described in Vehicle Code Section 21101 (f).
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and
certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2004.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 2 of 6
75F-9
AYES:
Council members
NOES:
Councilmembers
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT:
Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2004-054 to be the original resolution adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 3 of6
75F-10
8
Attachment A
Procedures for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans
Resolution 2004-054
1. The following procedures shall apply whenever it is determined there is a
potential local traffic problem in a residential neighborhood attributable to
cut-through or other non-locally generated traffic.
2. Prior to considering any actions covered by Vehicle Code Section 21101 (f),
City staff shall conduct a study to consider modified traffic controls such as
arterial improvements, stop signs or other traffic control measures, which
would not cause a significant change in the existing traffic pattern. If
warranted by the study, the recommended traffic controls shall be
implemented to determine their effectiveness and acceptance.
3. If traffic control measures set forth above are found to be ineffective and/or
infeasible, either the community may circulate a petition requesting
preparation of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, or ETAC or the
City Council may initiate preparation of a plan.
8
4. In the case of a petition, the petition shall identify the problem and generally
describe a solution. Before circulation, the community shall submit the
proposed petition to City Staff who will determine the area to be petitioned
(preliminary Area of Impact). The petition must be returned within 90 days
with supporting signatures from at least 35% of the dwelling units and
businesses in the preliminary Area of Impact in order to require further City
staff work on the proposal. For non-petition initiated plans, ET AC shall
designate a preliminary Area of Impact.
5. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan shall be developed by Staff in
cooperation with a Neighborhood Traffic Committee appointed by the
petition circulators, or Staff (if the circulators do not designate a
neighborhood traffic committee, or if the process is Staff initiated.)
6. Police and Fire Department representatives shall participate in the
development of the plan, and recommended changes from said agencies
shall be incorporated into the proposed plan prior to submittal to ET AC.
7. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan shall balance technical
feasibility of the plan and perspective of the community, while conforming to
the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 21101 (f) and the Santa
Ana General Plan.
8
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 4 of 6
75F-11
8. When City Staff and the Neighborhood Traffic Committee agree on a draft
plan, Staff shall mail a notice of the proposed Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan to all dwelling units and businesses in the preliminary
Area of Impact, as well as any neighborhood associations whose boundaries
include some or all of the preliminary Area of Impact.
9. City Staff and the Neighborhood Traffic Committee shall present the
proposed neighborhood traffic plan at a neighborhood meeting, and may
revise the plan based on comments received.
10. Thereafter, City staff shall submit the proposed Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan to ETAC for review and approval. conditional approval or
denial.
11. ET AC may direct City staff to conduct an advisory poll of the proposed Area
of Impact. Unless otherwise determined by ETAC, the poll shall be
conducted both before and after temporary installation of the proposed
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. The advisory poll form(s) shall be
mailed to the occupants of each dwelling unit and business in the Area of
Impact, and shall be returned to the City by a predetermined date in order to
be considered.
12. The results of the advisory poll shall be presented to ETAC, who shall
consider the poll results, along with Staff recommendation to determine
whether to recommend to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan to the
City Council.
13. The ETAC recommendation on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
shall be submitted to the City Council to determine whether to temporarily
implement the plan.
14.lf the City Council preliminarily approves the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan, City staff shall implement the plan on a trial basis of up to
six months so as to provide data on the effect and impacts of the proposed
traffic plan on the Area of Impact and other areas of the community.
15. City staff, including Police and Fire departments, shall study the results of
the trial period to determine the effectiveness of the plan, prepare all
necessary studies to comply with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) utilizing traffic data from the temporary installations, and conduct a
second advisory poll (if applicable).
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 5 of 6
75F-12
8
16. City Staff shall submit its analysis and recommendations, along with any poll
results, to ETAC to determine whether to recommend to the City Council to
finally implement the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
17. City Staff shall forward the ETAC recommendation, and supporting
information to the City Council. The City Council shall consider such
information and approve, conditionally approve or disapprove permanent
installation of the proposed traffic plan. If approved, the Public Works
Agency shall install the permanent improvements.
8
8
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 6 of 6
75F-13
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
JUNE 28, 2004
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2004-06 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM PROTECTING LOCAL STREETS
APPROVED
0 As Recommended
0 As Amended
0 Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
0 Applicant's Request
0 Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Melanie G. McCann
-:;f: ~)fiJ'
Executi Director
-;f" Ii;i . (¡r 'j T(tv)v~
nmng Manager
_._.........__.~
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend that the City Council:
1.
Approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, Environmental Review
No. 2004-153.
2 .
Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2004-06.
DISCUSSION
Request of the Applicant
The City of
2004-06 to
Circulation
residential
Santa Ana is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No.
revise the Implementation Program within the General Plan
Element related to the City's goal to protect local
streets from cut-through commuter traffic.
Analysis of the Issues
The Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan serves as the City's
primary guide for transportation planning. Its objective is to articulate
the City's vision and plans for the ongoing development and maintenance of
a comprehensive transportation network. The policies and implementation
actions in the Circulation Element address the transportation needs of
those living, working and visiting the City.
One of the goals of the Circulation Element is to "Protect local streets
from through traf f ic to preserve neighborhood character. " The
Circulation Element calls for this goal to be implemented in residential
EXHIBIT A
75F-14
8General Plan Amendment
June 28, 2004
Page 2
No. 2004-06
areas that experience significant commuter traffic on local streets
through the establishment of "Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans". The
proposed General Plan Amendment makes certain technical modifications with
respect to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in the Circulation
Element. More specifically, these modifications: provide that the city is
responsible to prepare traffic plans; clarify that traffic plans must be
developed in accordance with the California Vehicle Code (Exhibit 1) and
the regulations in Resolution 2004----, and, eliminate the provision
requiring the traffic mitigation to be subject to a vote of residents.
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a
Declaration Environmental Review No. 2004-153 has been prepared
project (Exhibit 2) .
Negative
for this
./'~J~
Melanie G. McCann, AICP
Associate Planner
~cflf!øAJL -
rvíaya D Rosa '
Senior Planner
MGM: JM
mgm\plancomm\gpa04-06.pc
8
75F-15
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
.
Neighborhood Permit Parking Program - In residential areas, parking
permit programs are used as a means of ensuring that sufficient on-
street parking is available for local residents, by restricting non-
resident parking during specific time periods.
.
Parkway and Street Maintenance - The City has a comprehensive
program for maintaining major traffic corridors in the City. The
program identifies guidelines for landscaping median and parkway
areas, street furniture, lighting, and other street-scape improvements.
The City has also prioritized the relocation of above-ground utilities
underground.
.
Roadway Improvement Program - This Circulation Element identifies
significant roadway improvements that are considered as part of its
implementation. Recommendations include the changes to the MPSH
identified in Exhibit A-6.
.
Transportation Demand Management - Santa Ana has adopted a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance which is
designed to reduce peak travel demands associated with commuter
trips. Employers of 100 or more persons in any new development are
subject to the TDM ordinance and are required to implement programs
to aid in reducing peak hour traffic demands based upon the traffic
volumes generated by their project. Collectively, these efforts can be
expected to result in lower peak traffic volumes on City streets. The
City continues to support strategies included in the TDM program
which can lessen the need for peak period travel.
.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program - In residential areas that
experience significant commuter or "cut-through" traffic on local
streets, the City conducts a traffic impact asse~sment and tAe
neighborhood develops a trafficplanj¡;;developedinaccordance'with
Çá)ifQ:rnj~ .ye.hicl~ . Code, :$i.#íqry.2j: 1()1 (f), aM;the: rLi.I~~, .ánd.. regulations
., .,...' ¡¡-.. .. .", ~" .", ''',''''''.'''' ...'. , ,. . : ,',' ., , t" . ,... .,', . , . ',. ... '
(;Qn~~.lp~dnn H~soIW.j91:Ú2QQ~~.. ;\ à~!t~êy ~maý b~; ámenqedfrotn time
fiÙimè':¡tKeJrßff\é!!'p.iå'ri:: whioh i1í~y includes traffic diverters or other
meohaniÐmÐ rÖådwå~"d.e,si9t.iJêätÚl"es to reduce "cut-through" traffic.
I\ny improvementÐ installed to mitigate commuter tmffio are sllbject to
approval by a vote of reÐidentÐ in tho affected arca.
A-27
~!~h
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pul ido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Breit E. Franklin
_OUNCILMEMBERS
laudia C. Alvarez
¡sa Bist
Alberta D. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
~
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W. Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patricia E. Healy
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-201
P.O. BOX 1988 . Santa Ana. California 92702
www.santa~ana.org
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This is to inform the general public that the City of Santa Ana proposes to adopt a
Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Title: Revisions to Procedures
implementation of Neighborhood Traffic
Amendment To the Circulation Element
for
Plans
Preparation
and General
and
Plan
8
Project Description: The proposed project involves a revision to the
City of Santa Ana procedures for the preparation and
implementation of neighborhood traffic plans and an amendment to
the Circulation Element.
Project Location:
Citywide
Project Number:
GPA 2004-06, ER 2004-153
Public Review Period:
6/11/2004 to 6/30/2004
Hearing Date:
6/28/2004
Hearing Location:
City of Santa Ana Council Chambers
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
The Negative Declaration and Initial Study as well as all referenced documents will be
available for public review at the City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency located
at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, Califomia. Please submit any comments on the
Negative Declaration to the City on or before 6/30/2004. Please direct your comments to:
Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator, City of Santa Ana, P.O. Box 1988, M-20, Santa Ana,
CA, 92702.
8
if yelL! have Hny qu:estions or \^/ouk; ¡:;/e hny adrlitinnal inrorrn~n¡oni [¡lease c:onr8(:ì: Uar: Bent
at (714) 667-2700.
EXHIBIT 2
~i= ~'17
CS 50&:2
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pul ido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Brett E. Franklin
COUNCILMEMBERS
Claudia C. Alvarez
Lisa Bisl
Alberta D. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
~
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W. Flelcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCiL
Patricia E. Healy
PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20J
P.O. BOX 1988 . Sanla Ana, California 92702
www.santa~ana.org
NËGÄf'ïvE:r/Ö~fiö-"""
_............:,~",."",.",~~,,,,,~~...... ~.,<.. - """.- "~"'''' ,,,,~,.,,",. r"~"
Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Santa Ana for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study for
the project described below:
Project Number: GPA 2004-06, ER 2004-153
Applicant: City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza
Project Location I Address: Citywide
Project Title I Description: Revisions to Procedures for Preparation and
implementation of Neighborhood Traffic Plans and General Plan
Amendment To the Circulation Element/The proposed project
involves a revision to the City of Santa Ana procedures for
the preparation and implementation of neighborhood traffic
plans and an amendment to the Circulation Element.
And does hereby find:
That the proposed project cannot, or will not, have a significant effect on the
environment. Negative Declaration status is therefore granted for this project. No
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.
Date d 1/wYi
\){)A~
Environmental Coordinator
Signature:
This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative
official, and a Notice of Determination is filed.
Page 2 of37
75F-18
CS 500-2
8
8
8
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ER-2004-153
REVISIONS TO PROCEDUREES FOR PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLANS AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves a revision to the City of Santa
Ana procedures for the preparation and implementation of
neighborhood traffic plans and an amendment to the Circulation
Element.
SETTING
California Vehicle Code Section 21101(f) permits local agencies to
install roadway design features including, but not limited to
islands, curbs and traffic barriers intended to prohibit entry to
or from streets for the purpose of reducing cut-through traffic in
residential neighborhoods. Additionally, Vehicle Code Section
21101(f) requires such procedures implement the circulation
element of the City's general plan, and to be consistent with
local government's responsibility to provide for the health and
safety of its citizens.
Presently Goal 6 of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana
General Plan calls for the protection of local streets from
through traffic to preserve neighborhood character. The General
Plan calls for Goal 6 to be implemented in residential areas that
experience significant commuter traffic on local streets through
the establishment of "Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans". In
such cases, a traffic study assessment should be conducted and
traffic diverters or other mechanisms should be implemented to
reduce cut-through traffic.
PROJECT DECSCRIPTION
The proposed revisions to the to the procedures for the
preparation and implementation of neighborhood traffic plans
would establish both City and community processing requirements
and standards to evaluate and implement neighborhood traffic
management plans to protect and maintain the quality of life of
neighborhoods in the City of Santa Ana.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would make technical
modifications to the text of the Circulation Element regarding
the implementation of neighborhood traffic plans so as to better
conform the preparation and implementation of neighborhood
traffic plans to State law requirements.
75F~1ö
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following is an environmental analysis on the proposed
project based on the City of Santa Ana's CEQA Environmental
Checklist. The analysis incorporates by reference information
from the City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR.
For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level
of impact that would be anticipated to occur from approval of
the proposed project. Future neighborhood traffic plans
implemented under the revised traffic plan procedures and the
amended Circulation Element would be subject to subsequent site-
specific reviews.
I.
AESTHETICS
A.
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
B.
Damage scenic resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a
State highway?
C.
Substantially degrade the existing visual
quality of the site and its surroundings?
character
or
D.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana Urban Design Element and Scenic Corridors
Element identifies a high number of aesthetic resources in the
City of Santa Ana. Specific policies and implementation programs
are provided in the Urban Design Element and Scenic Corridors
Element to provide for the protection of aesthetic resources.
Approval of the proposed project would not result in adverse
impacts to any scenic vista or other aesthetic resources, in
that the proposed project would establish procedures and
requirements for the preparation and implementation of
neighborhood traffic plans and would not directly result in the
development of any structures or involve any activities that
would disturb existing aesthetic resources, introduce
substantial amounts of light and glare, substantially degrade
the visual character of the City or result in activities that
would be in conflict with policies in the Urban Design Element
and Scenic Corridors Element providing for the protection of
aesthetic resources in the City. In accordance with the revised
2
75F'!~ð37
8
8
8
procedures and amended circulation element future neighborhood
traffic plans would evaluated for potential aesthetic impacts.
II.
AGRICULTURE
A.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Statewide Importance to non-agriculture use?
of
Farmland
B.
Conflict with existing
Wil1i~son Contract?
a
zoning
for
agriculture
use
or
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-agriculture
use?
No Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City of Santa Ana contains a
limited amount of Unique Farmlands, Prime Farmlands or Farmlands
of Statewide Importance. There are no existing Williamson
Contracts in the City. A significant impact to agriculture
resources would occur when a project or activity results in the
loss of sensitive farmlands. Approval of the proposed project
would not involve any activities that would cause or facilitate
the loss of any agricultural resources. Therefore, approval of
the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to
agriculture resources.
III. AIR QUALITY
A.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable Air
Quality Attainment PIan or Congestion Management PIan?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana is included within the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and subject to the requirements of
the Clean Air Act at both the Federal and State level. The South
Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the primary planning
document to monitor if air quality standards and objectives are
being achieved in the South Coast Air Basin. The air quality
objectives in the AQMP are based upon growth projections
provided in regional planning programs and local general plans.
A project could be in conflict with the AQMP if it results in
population and growth impacts beyond those projected in regional
3
75F":~137
planning programs and/or local general plans. Approval of the
proposed project would not impact the population and traffic
growth projections established in the City's General Plan and
therefore would not be in conflict with the regional growth
projections and air quality objectives established in the South
Coast Air Quality Management Plan.
D.
Expose Sensitive
concentrations?
receptors
to
substantial
pollutant
B.
Violate any stationary source air quality
contribute to an existing or proposed
violation?
standard or
air quali ty
No Impact
As mentioned previously, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) regulates air quality in the South Coast Air
Basin. Pollutants for which ambient standards have been set are
referred to as criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants include:
Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and
Particulate Matter. The South Coast Air Basin is currently a
non-attainment area for Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Particulate
Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide. The SCAQMD considers an air quality
impact to be significant if it exceeds the thresholds identified
below.
EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Project
Construction Tons/ Operations
Pollutant Pounds/Day Quarter Pounds/Day
Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 550
Reactive Organic
Compounds 75 2.5 55
Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.5 55
Particulate
Matter 150 6.75 150
Approval of the proposed project would not directly result in
any long-term air quality impacts in that the approval of the
proposed amendments would not generate additional amounts of
mobile source or stationary source emissions in the City that
would exceed the threshold for criteria pollutants established
by the South Coast Management District. Additionally, the
proposed project would not involve in any construction
4
'SJ:E,;22
8
8
8
activities that would emit short-term construction related
emissions. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not
result in significant long-term or short-term air quality
impacts. In accordance with the revised procedures and amended
Circulation Element future neighborhood traffic plans would be
evaluated for site-specific air quality impacts.
C.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
No Impact
The Southern California Association of Governments has
determined that the air pollution impacts of any proj ect or
activity that conforms to local growth forecasts would be
consistent with this forecast and the regional air quality
impacts would be adequately mitigated by the Air Quality
Management Plan to a level considered less than significant.
Approval of the proposed project would not be in conflict with
the City's General Plan growth projections and the local growth
forecasts for the Orange County sub region and the regional
emissions budget developed by the Southern California
Association of Governments for the 1999 Air Quality Management
Plan. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not
result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.
E.
Create objectionable
of people?
odors
affecting a substantial
number
No Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not create any
objectionable odors, in that the approval of the proposed
project would not directly result in any activities that would
emit objectionable odors. In accordance with the revised
procedures and amended Circulation Element future neighborhood
traffic plans would be evaluated for site-specific odor impacts.
IV.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A.
Have a substantial adverse impact, 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
5
75P.;2'37
D.
v.
A.
B.
6
California Department
Wildlife Services?
of
Fish and game
or U.S.
Fish and
B.
Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
C.
Adversely impact federally protected wetlands either
individually or in combination with the known or probable
impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
biological resources, such as tree preservation
ordinance?
protecting
policy or
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana is a predominately built out and is a
highly urbanized City. According to the California Department
Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base, there is a very
limited amount of biological resources in Santa Ana.
Biological resources are limited to portions of Santiago Creek
and Centennial Park. A potentially significant impact to
biological resources would occur when a project or activity
disturbs or displaces sensitive biological resources.
Approval of the proposed project would not directly result in
any adverse impacts to biological resources, in that approval
of the proposed project would not facilitate the development
of any land uses in any sensitive habitats or involve any
activities that would disturb or displace any sensitive
biological resources. Additionally, future neighborhood
traffic plans proposed under the revised procedures and
amended Circulation Element would be implemented in urbanized
areas that are void of sensitive biological resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section l5064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
75P~~~7
8
8
8
c.
Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontogical resource or site?
D.
Disturb any human remains,
of for.mal cemeteries.
including those interred outside
No Impact
According to the National Register of Historical Resources, the
City of Santa Ana Local Register of Historical Resources and the
City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element EIR, Santa Ana
contains a high number of known cultural resources.
Additionally, according to the General plan Land Use Element
EIR, Santa Ana also has a high probability for the discovery of
unknown cultural resources. A potentially significant impact to
cultural resources would occur when a project or activity
disturbs or displaces sensitive cultural resources.
Approval of the proposed project would not result in impacts to
any known or unknown cultural resources, in that the approval of
the proposed project would not facilitate the development of any
land uses or involve any activities that would disturb or
displace known or unknown cultural resources. Additionally,
future neighborhood traffic plans implemented under the revised
procedures and amended circulation element would also not
involve any activities that would impact known or unknown
cultural resources. Therefore, approval of the proposed project
would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources.
VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS
A-l.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priol0 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR there
are no active earthquake faults, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones
or landslides within the City. Therefore, approval of the
proposed project would not increase the risks for ground rupture
impacts or landslide impacts.
A-2. Strong Seismic Ground shaking?
7
75Pl'2~7
A-3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana is situated within a highly active seismic
region of southern California. A total of 38 active faults have
been identified within an approximate 60-mile radius of the
City. The Newport/rnglewood Fault located approximately 7 miles
south from the City of Santa Ana is considered to be one of the
most dominant faults in regard to potential seismic shaking
impacts. Along the Newport/Inglewood fault an earthquake on the
magnitude of 6.9 could potentially occur. A seismic event of
this scale could result in significant damage to the City.
Additionally, according to the General Plan Land Use Element
EIR, the potential for liquefaction hazards in the City ranges
from very low to very high. However, the seismic risks in Santa
Ana are not considered significantly different from other areas
in the southern California region.
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
increase the risk for seismic shaking impacts or liquefaction
impacts, in that the proposed project would not directly involve
the construction of new structures that would increase the risk
for seismic shaking impacts or seismically induced liquefaction
impacts.
A-4. Landslides
No Impacts
According to the City's General Plan Land Use
are no landslides within the City. Therefore,
proposed project would not increase the risks
impacts.
Element EIR there
approval of the
for landslide
B.
Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the
10ss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not increase the
potential for soil erosion or sedimentation impacts, in that
approval of the proposed project would not involve any
construction activities that would disturb or uncover existing
soils. The installation of future neighborhood traffic plans
implemented under the revised procedures and amended circulation
8
iS1=:~6
8
8
8
element would be subject to the City's erosion control
requirements.
c.
Would the project result in the loss of a unique geological
feature?
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no known unique geologic features in the City. Therefore,
approval of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
any unique geologic features.
D.
In the project located on strata or soil that is unstable
or that 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.
Where sewers are not available for the disposal
wastewater is the soil capable of supporting the use
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems?
of
of
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, Santa
Ana contains a wide variety of soil types and associated
geotecnical constraints. Approval of the proposed project would
not involve the development of land uses or involve the
construction of any structures that would be subject to
geotechnical constraints. Additionally, approval of the proposed
project would not involve the use of alternative wastewater
disposal that would be subject to geotechnical constraints.
VII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A.
Create a significant
environment through the
of hazardous materials?
or the
disposal
hazard
routine
to the
transport,
public
use or
B.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
hazardous materials, substance or waste within
mile of an existing or proposed school?
or acutely
one-quarter
9
7 5f=~etf37
c.
Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous material sites compiles pursuant to Government
Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not directly result in
the creation of any significant hazards to the public, in that
the approval of the proposed project would not involve any
activities that would involve the handling, regulation, storage
or transportation of hazardous materials. Future neighborhood
traffic plans implemented under the revised procedures and
amended circulation element may involve the handling of
incidental amounts hazardous substances, such oils, solvents and
paints. However, such activities would be subject to local State
and Federal regulations regarding the handling of hazardous
materials. No adverse hazardous substance safety impacts would
be associated with approval and implementation of the proposed
project.
D.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or
where such a pIan has not been adopted, within two miles
where a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impacts
The City of Santa Ana is located approximately one mile
northwest of John Wayne Airport and is included in the Planning
Area of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. According to the
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, there are no
accident potential zones in Santa Ana. However, portions of the
City are in the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Notification Area.
Development projects proposed in the FAA Notification Area are
required to coordinate with the Airport Land Use Commission.
Approval of the proposed proj ect would not have any impact on
any designated accident potential zones or FAA Notification
Areas and would not result in safety hazards to people residing
or working in the City.
Page 12 of37
10
75F-28
8
8
8
VIII. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
A.
Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements?
E.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
I.
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving
waters?
N.
Tributary to an already impaired water body, as
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so,
result in an increase in any pollutant of which
already impaired?
listed on
can it
the body is
R.
Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface
or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana is included within four watersheds, San
Diego Creek, Santa Ana River, Talbert and Westminster. Each of
these watershed areas are under the jurisdiction of the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the
objectives, water quality standards and Best Management Practice
requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and
Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan.
The City of Santa Ana does not contain any impaired water
bodies, as defined by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
However, the City does contain several drainage facilities
convey surface water runoff into bodies of water that are
classified as impaired.
that
Approval of the proposed project would not result in any adverse
water quality impacts, in that the approval of the proposed
project would not result in any activities that would generate
pollutants that would adversely impact water quality. Future
neighborhood traffic plans implemented under the revised
procedures and amended circulation element would be required to
comply with the City's storm water quality protection
requirements to minimize potential water quality impacts.
B.
Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 10wering of
the 10cal groundwater table level.
11
~SÞ~~9
Q.
Have a potential1y significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana receives 66% of its water from underground
water supplies. The underground water basin in the City ranges
from -50-feet to +40-feet above sea level. Presently, the City
pumps underground water from 21 water wells. Fourteen of the
water wells pump ground water into small surface reservoirs. The
remaining seven water wells pump underground water into the
City's distribution system. Approval and implementation of the
proposed project would not impact underground supplies, in that
the proposed project would not involve any activities that would
encroach into the underground water basin, impact the quality of
underground water supplies or prevent the recharge of
underground water supplies.
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
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?
D. Create or contribute runoff water which, would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stor.m water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off?
L. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff?
M. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage
patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes.
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana has a Master Plan of Drainage to guide the
construction of drainage facilities in the City. The existing
drainage facilities in the City include a series of underground
storm drain systems, open storm drain systems, catch basins and
natural drainages. A significant drainage impact can occur when
existing rates of surface water runoff are increased and
existing drainage facilities are unable to accommodate the
additional rates of runoff. Existing rates of surface water
runoff can increase through the introduction of additional
amounts of impervious surfaces, or through changes to existing
drainage patterns. Approval and implementation of the proposed
12
~~~-~o
8
8
8
project would not significantly increase existing rates of
surface water in the City, in that the proposed proj ect would
not introduce additional amounts of impervious surfaces into the
City or result in changes to existing drainage patterns.
Therefore, the approval of the proposed project would not result
in significant drainage impacts.
F.
Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
or other flood hazard delineation map?
on a
Map
G.
Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
H.
Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). Communities participating in the NFIP
must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards,
including identification of flood hazards and flood risks.
Participation in the NFIP allows communities to purchase low
cost insurance protection against losses from flooding. The
flood hazards in the City are depicted on Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. The Flood Rate Insurance Maps indicate that portions of
the City are within 100-year flood hazard areas. Approval and
implementation of the proposed project would not facilitate
development within 100-year flood hazard areas or increase flood
hazards in the City.
J.
Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction.
K.
Could the proposed project result in increased erosion
downstream?
No Impact
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock
surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are
intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff
channels and by the removal of groundcover, which leaves the
soil exposed. Approval of the proposed project would not result
in erosion impacts, in that the proposed project would not
13
r5F~31
involve any construction activities that would disturb or
uncover soils to facilitate erosion impacts. The installation of
future neighborhood traffic plans implemented under the revised
procedures and amended circulation element would be subj ect to
the City's erosion control requirements.
o.
Tributary to other environmental1y sensitive areas? If so,
can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?
P.
Have a potential1y significant environmental impact or
surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland
waters?
S.
Impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat?
Less Than Significant Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no sensitive marine waters, fresh waters or wetlands in the
City. However, the City does contain several drainage systems
that convey drainage flows to sensitive marine resources.
Pollutants conveyed through these drainage systems could
adversely impact sensitive marine resources. Approval of the
proposed project would not result in any activities that would
discharge pollutants into sensitive downstream marine resources.
Future neighborhood traffic plans implemented under the revised
procedures and amended circulation element would be require to
comply with the City's storm water quality protection
requirements to minimize potential water quality impacts to
downstream marine resources.
IX. LAND USE/PLANNING
A.
Physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The proposed project would not directly result in any activities
or the development of any land uses that would physically divide
any community. In accordance with the revised procedures future
neighborhood traffic plans would be evaluated for potential land
use impacts to existing neighborhoods.
B.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
14
75F~32
8
8
8
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project involves revisions to the City's Traffic
Plan procedures and an amendment to the Circulation Element.
Approval of the proposed project would not be in conflicts with
any applicable planning programs or policies in the City.
C.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community plan?
No Impact
According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no habitat conservation plans or natural community plans in
Santa Ana. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not
impact any conservation plans or natural community plans.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
A.
Result in the 1088 of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific pIan or other land use pIan?
No Impact
According to the City's General plan Land Use Element EIR, there
are no locally important mineral resource sites in Santa Ana.
Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not impact any
locally important mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
A.
Exposure of persons
excess of standards
noise ordinance, or
to or generation of noise levels in
established in local general plan or
applicable standards of other agencies.
C.
A substantial pe~anent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.
No Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not increase existing
noise levels in the City, in that the proposed project would not
involve any activities that would emit additional sources of
noise impacts. In accordance, with the revised procedures and
amended Circulation Element, future neighborhood traffic plans
15
75P£33
would be evaluated for noise impacts and compliance with the
City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Santa Ana is located approximately one mile
northwest of John Wayne Airport and is included in the Planning
Area of the Orange County Airport Land Use commission Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. In accordance
with the Environs Land Use Plan, portions of Santa Ana are
impacted by aircraft noise. Approval of the proposed project
would not result in the creations of land uses or activities
that would be in conflict with land use, noise compatibility
standards established in the Environs Land Use Plan for John
Wayne Airport.
D.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without project.
B.
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not result in any short-
term construction noise impacts or groundborne vibration
impacts, in that the approval of the proposed project would not
involve any activities that would emit short-term noise or
vibration impacts. Future neighborhood traffic plans implemented
under the revised procedures and amended Circulation Element
would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance to
minimize construction related noise impacts.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly through extension of roads or other
infrastructure.
No Impact
16
t5~!34
8
8
8
Direct growth inducing impacts are generally associated with
aspects of a project that could remove obstacles to population
growth or other growth such as a major expansion of a wastewater
treatment plant or upgrading of regional master plan
infrastructure and facilities that would facilitate new
development. Indirect or secondary growth inducing impacts
consists of growth inducted in the region by the demand for
additional housing as a result of employment generation, and
demand for goods and services associated with population
increases caused by, or attracted to, an area as a result of new
development. A significant growth inducing impact can occur when
unplanned growth exceeds the ability of the City to provide
essential services. Approval and implementation of the proposed
project would not induce substantial growth in the City, in that
proposed project would not involve the construction of any new
infrastructure systems or expansion of existing infrastructure
systems that would facilitate growth, or involve the development
of any land uses that would create additional demands for new
housing and public services.
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?
No Impact
Based on population estimates from the California Department of
Finance, there were 347,237 residents in the City of Santa Ana
in 2003. Presently, the City has a total of 74,912 dwelling
units with an average household size of 4.65 persons. The Orange
County 2004 projections forecast that by 2005, Santa Ana would
have a population of 350,625 and a total of 75,671 dwelling
units. By 2010 the City's populations is projected to increase
to 359,823 with a total of 76,342 dwelling units. Approval and
implementation of the proposed project would not establish any
policies that would displace existing housing or prohibit the
future development of housing in the City.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection, PoI ice Protection: No Impact
17
t5F~~75
The City of Santa Ana provides fire protection and police
protection services for residents of the City. A significant
impact to fire protection and police protection services would
occur when a project or activity increase the demand for
services beyond the ability of the fire department or the police
department to provide an adequate level of service or involve
the construction of new facilities that could result in
significant impacts to the environment.
Approval of the proposed project would not result in the
development of any land uses or result in any activities that
would increase the demand for fire protection and police
protection services, over the current level of demand in the
City. In accordance with the revised procedures and amended
Circulation Element, future neighborhood traffic plans would be
evaluated for potential impacts to fire protection and police
protection services.
Schools: No Impact
Educational services for Santa Ana residents are provided by the
Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School
District, Tustin Unified School District, Orange Unified School
District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District. A
significant impact to school services would occur when a project
or activity increase the demand for school services beyond the
ability of existing school facilities to provide an adequate
level of service and requires the construction of new school
facilities that could result in significant impacts to the
environment. Approval and implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the development of any land uses or result
in any activities that would increase the demand for school
facilities, over the current level of demand in the City.
Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to the school
facilities in the City.
Parks, Other Public Facilities: No Impact
The City of Santa Ana presently operates 35 facilities within
its parks and recreation network, along with several public
school grounds. The park and recreation facilities within the
City of Santa Ana include 342.5 acres of parklands, which is
equivalent to approximately one acre per 1,000 residents.
According to the City's General plan Land Use Element EIR, the
City's current goal for parkland is 2.0 acres per 1,000
residents. Based on the Cities current parkland goal and
existing parkland to population ratio, additional parkland is
18
7~~jt
8
8
8
needed to meet the park needs of the community. A significant
impact to park services would occur when a project or activity
increases the demand for additional park facilities. Approval
and implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the development of any land uses or result in any activities
that would increase the demand for park facilities or services,
over the current level of demand in the City- Therefore, no
significant impacts would occur to park facilities in the City-
XIV. 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.
No Impact
As mentioned above, additional parkland would be needed in Santa
Ana to meet current and future park and recreation needs of the
community. Without additional parkland and recreational
facilities provided, residents would continue to use existing
recreational facilities in the City. A significant impact to
recreational facilities would occur when a project or activity
increases the demand for additional recreational facilities
beyond the ability of the City to provide adequate recreational
facilities or require the construction of new recreation
facilities that could potentially impact the environment.
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
result in the development of any land uses or result in any
activities that would increase the demand for recreation
facilities or services, over the current level of demand in the
City. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to
recreational facilities in the City.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A.
Cause an increase in traffic, which is- substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system?
19
1'SF -"37
B.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
D.
Substantially increase hazards to a design feature
E.
Result in inadequate emergency access
F.
Result in inadequate parking capacity
G.
Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana circulation system consists of a series of
local streets, arterials and major regional highways. A
significant impact to the circulation system would occur when
the traffic generated from a project reduces the level of
service of a roadway or intersection to a level considered not
acceptable, results in pedestrian safety hazards, inadequate
emergency access and inadequate parking facilities. Approval of
the proposed project would not directly result in additional
amounts of traffic on the City's circulation system or result
increased demands for parking facilities. In accordance with the
revised procedures and amended Circulation Element, future
neighborhood traffic plans would be evaluated for potential
traffic, circulation, emergency access and parking impacts.
C.
Result in a change in
either an increase in
location that results
air traffic patterns, including
traffic levels or a change in
in substantial safety risks?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana is located approximately one mile
northwest of John Wayne Airport and is included in the Planning
Area of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport
Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. According to the
Environs Land Use plan for John Wayne Airport, there are no
accident potential zones in Santa Ana. Approval of the proposed
project would not result in any activities that be in conflict
with the Environs Land Use plan for John Wayne Airport or would
result in any changes in air traffic patterns that would
increase safety risks in the City.
20
~SF238
8
8
8
XVI. UTILITIES
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?
A.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
D.
Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
E.
Result in the deter.mination by the 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 providers existing commitments.
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana provides water service and wastewater
service in Santa Ana. The existing and future water and
wastewater demands and supplies for Santa Ana are provided in
the City's Urban Water Management Plan. The projected water and
wastewater demands are based on build out of land uses in the
General Plan. Additionally, the Orange County Sanitation
District operates several trunk lines in the City- Wastewater
generated from the City is treated at Orange County Sanitation
District Reclamation Plant No.1 in the City of Fountain Valley.
A potentially significant impact to water and wastewater service
would occur when a development project or an activity increases
the demand for water service and wastewater service beyond the
water and wastewater projections in a City's Urban Water
Management Plan or when a project or activity requires the
development of new water and wastewater distribution and
treatment facilities and potentially significant impacts to the
environment could occur. Approval and implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the development of land
uses or result in activities that would increase demand for
water and wastewater beyond the water and wastewater projections
established in the City's Urban Water Management Plan or require
the construction of new distribution system or treatment
facilities.
21
75F139
B.
Require or result in the construction of new stor.rn water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
increase existing rates of surface water runoff or change
existing drainage patterns that would require the construction
of new drainage facilities.
F.
Is the project served
per.rnitted capacity to
disposal needs?
by a landfil1 with sufficient
accommodate the project's solid waste
G.
Comply with federal, state and 10cal statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact
The City of Santa Ana through a private company provides solid
waste collection service in the City. Solid waste is transported
to transfer stations before ultimately being disposed of at the
Bowerman Landfill. The Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept
8,500 tons per day and is anticipated to close in year 2024.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
mandates that all cities and counties in California divert fifty
percent of solid waste generated from landfill disposal. To
comply with AB 939, the City of Santa Ana has prepared a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element that describes various waste
reduction and recycling programs to reduce the City's demand for
solid waste disposal in landfills.
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
result in the development of any land uses or result in
activities that would increase the demand of solid waste
disposal over current levels of demand in the City. Nor would
the approval and implementation of the proposed project be in
conflict with the solid waste reduction programs in the City's
Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
22
75~~40
8
8
8
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.
No Impact
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
result in the development of land uses or result in activities
that would adversely impact sensitive wildlife and plant species
or sensitive cultural resources.
B.
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable?
No Impact
Approval of the proposed project would not result in any
individually limited impacts to the environment and therefore
would not result in any cumulative impacts to the environment as
well.
c.
Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either
directly or indirectly?
No Impact
The proposed revisions to the procedures for the preparation and
implementation of neighborhood traffic plans would establish
both City and community processing requirements and standards to
evaluate and implement neighborhood traffic management plans to
protect and maintain the quality of life of neighborhoods in the
City of Santa Ana. The proposed General Plan Amendment would
make technical modifications to the text of the Circulation
Element regarding the implementation of neighborhood traffic
plans so as to better conform the preparation and implementation
of neighborhood traffic plans to State law requirements.
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not
result in adverse impacts to human beings.
XVIII DETERMINATION
Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented
in the above environmental evaluation and cited references, I
find that the proposed project could not have a significant
23
Pa'5F.241
~f^
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
PLANNING DIVISION
I.
Project Title: General Plan Circulation Element AmendmentJRevisions to Procedures for Preparation
and Installation of Neighborhood Traffic Plans
II.
Project Numbers: GPA.2004-06, ER 2004-153
III.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Santa Ana Planning Division
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
IV.
Environmental Coordinator and Phone Number:
Dan Bot!
(714) 667-2719
V.
Project Location: Citywide
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that:
A. Fi The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
(,- DECLARATION will be prepared.
B. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c.D
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
D.D
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 (EIR No. -) pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
E. 0
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier and only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do
not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR
shall be prepared.
F. 0
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. - ) has been prepared earlier; however,
subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one
or more si nificant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared.
June 3. 2004
Date
5i ature
print~
db\Env Fonn CEQA Chklst
~~2
Page 1 of 1
8
8
8
~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
I.
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
Impacf' 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).
II.
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.
III.
"Potentiaily 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 EIR is
required.
IV.
"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.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. Aesthetics - Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 ø:
B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 ~
to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings
within a state highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ~
or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ~
in the area? 0 0 0
db\El1v Form CEQA Chklst
Page 1 of 12
ATTACHMENT B
1a6Far43
m¡œ&OOA.i
ANA ¡
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agricultural 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 California Resources
Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains
detailed maps of these and other categories of
farmland.)
0
0
0
0
0
~
~
~
III. Air Quality - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
B.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Contract?
C.
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in ioss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
A.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion
Management Plan?
B.
Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or proposed air quality
violation?
C.
Result in a cumulatively considerable 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 emission which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
D.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
7ijF~4
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
D
0
D
0
0
~
ø'
ø
~
Page 2 of 12
8
~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
E.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. Biological Resources - Would the project:
A.
Have a substantial adverse impact, 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 Garne or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
B.
Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian
habitat or natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
8
C.
Adversely impact federally protected wetlands
(inciuding, but not limited to. marsh, vernal 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?
D.
Conflict with any local policies
protecting biological resources,
preservation policy or ordinance?
or ordinances
such as tree
V. Cultural Resources - Would the project:
A.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
B.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to define Section 15064.5?
c.
Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique
paleontogical resource or site?
8
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
"'6F~45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
D
No
Impact
(
~
~
ç.(
M
M
M
?(
Page 3 of 12
on,A
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
D.
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project:
A.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss. injury. or
death involving:
1.
Rupture of an known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent 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?
2.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
3.
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4.
Landslides?
B.
Would the project result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
c.
Would the project result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature?
D.
Is the project located on strata or soil that Is
unstable or that 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.
Where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
'~46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
~
X
D
~
D
D
D
No
Impact
~
D
~
D
D
ø:
D
ø:
~
9(
Page 4 of 12
8
~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
VII. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials - Would the project:
A.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
B.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
c.
Be located on a site which is located on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
8
D.
For a project located within an airport iand use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles where 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?
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project:
A.
Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
B.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (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)?
8
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
'~47
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
~
øz
0
No
Impact
A
~
~
0
0
A
Page 5 of 12
~fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
c.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area. including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
D.
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted run-off?
E.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
F.
Place housing within a 1 DO-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 OD-year floodplain structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
H.
Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
I.
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters? Consider water quality
parameters such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water
pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens.
petroieum derivatives, synthetic organics,
sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
substances, and trash)
J.
Result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction?
K.
Could the proposed project result in increased
erosion downstream?
Result in increased impervious surfaces and
associated increased runoff?
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
L.
ATTACHMENT B
'Ta6far48
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
J(
~
}8(
0
0
0
Jf
ø
;(
~
No
Impact
0
0
0
~
Œ(
%
0
D
0
D
Page 6 of 12
8
~'A
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
M.
Create a significant adverse environmental impact
to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow
rates or volumes?
N.
Tributary to an already impaired water body. as
listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list: If
so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant of
which the water body is already impaired?
o.
Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas?
If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive
conditions?
P.
Have a potentially significant environmental impact
on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or
wetland waters?
a.
Have a potentially significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
R.
Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable
surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
8,
S.
Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
IX. Land Use and Planning- Would the project:
A.
Physically divide an established community?
B.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy.
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
X. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
A.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
8
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CECA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
PJ!¡5F'-49
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
J(
~
~
,è(
D
~
)g[
0
~
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
~
0
0
~
0
~
~
No
Impact
Page 7 Qf 12
mY~~ANTN
. ANA-.
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
XI. Noise - Would the project result in:
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
groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 ievels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without 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?
XII. Population and Housing - Would the project:
A.
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and business) 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
necessitating the construction of
housing elsewhere?
of people,
replacement
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
'6F~O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Uniess
0
~
0
¡k(
~
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
0
~
0
0
J(
J.\1
~
No
Impact
Page 8 of 12
8
"fA
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
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 rations, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public service:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
8
Other public facilities?
XIV. 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?
XV. Transportation I Traffic
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 ration on roads, or congestion
at intersections?)
8
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CEQA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
'~51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
).1
¿(
flf
~
~
~
A
;(
No
Impact
Page 9 of 12
III'Y.ŒSANTN
ANA '
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
B.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
D.
Substantially increase hazards 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, bicycie racks)?
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
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 environmentai effects?
D.
Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
E.
Result in the determination by the 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?
Issues & Supporting Information Sources
db\Env Form CECA Chklst
ATTACHMENT B
"6F~52
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MitigaÌlon
Incorporated
0
0
0
D
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
D
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
Œ(
~
);i
$
¡,](
~
R
¡g(
~
~
No
Impact
Page 10 of 12
anfA
8
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
F.
Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
sold waste disposal needs?
G.
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
8
8
A.
Does the project have the potential to 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 impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
C.
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
dblEnv Form CEQA Chklst
Af~~;rT B
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
~
0
D
0
P(
D
0
0
ftf
0
D
D
ß(
D
0
0
~
D
0
Page'1 Df 12
75F-54