CC Resolution 2004-079RESOLUTION NO. 2004-079
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 32201.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-504.
APPLICANT: CHOICE ENTERPRISE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quintja, California, did,
on the 20" of July, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a request
by Choice Enterprise for Environmental Assessment 2004-504 for, a Tentative Tract
Map 32201 to subdivide ± 7.41 acres into 24 single-family lots and miscellaneous
lots, generally located at the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60,
more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 766-080-010 & 011
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map 32201 has complied with the
4-- requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as amended, in that Environmental Assessment 2004-504 was
prepared and determined that although the project could have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project
that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
City Council did make the following mandatory findings to justify certification of
said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned
to mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than
significant levels.
Resolution No. 2004-079
Environmental Assessment 04-504
Choice Enterprise
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 2
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends in that, the Environmental Assessment imposes
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the proposed project in that the site will
be developed with less intensity than the current land use designations under
the General Plan.
6.. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that -will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, - in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential, or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption
of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-504 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
Resolution No. 2004-079
�. Environmental Assessment 04-504
Choice Enterprise
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 3
3. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-504 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist attached hereto and on file in the Community
Development Department.
4. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 201h day of July, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON AD PH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU S. CREc , CMC, City C rk
Ci of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-079
Environmental Assessment 04-504
Choice Enterprise
Adopted: July 20, 2004
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. fvl"KA(THEB(NE JENSON, Cit ttorney
City of La Quinta, California
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning
Quality
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent: A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Si
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
e.
l a
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply -does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a. less than significant level (mitigation measures
��
from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
proj ect.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources:: Aw source list should be attached, and other sources used or
- individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. The Plan
requires the implementation of enhanced parkway landscaping and aesthetic
improvements. These requirements will be implemented by the City as the site develops,
through the site development permit process.
The ultimate construction of homes on the site will result in single and/or two story
residences of limited height. The City restricts building heights in residential areas. The
site is not adjacent or near any significant physical features or mountain ranges. No
impacts to aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site will result in a slight
increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The
City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land, which has been significantly
impacted by off -road vehicle use and dumping. The parcel is not, nor has it been, in
agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts occur on the property. Agricultural lands occur
to the east, further on Avenue 60, but the site's location adjacent to the Andalusia at Coral
Mountain Specific Plan, the Trilogy Country Club project and the Bureau of Reclamation
dike physically limit the potential for agricultural activity in the area. No impacts to
agricultural resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
.projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
'
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The Tentative Tract Map will ultimately result in the construction of 24 single family
homes, which could generate up to 258 trips per day`. Based on this traffic generation,
and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be
generated from theproject site.
— — ----1 "Trip Generation,, Oh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
258 x 10 = 23,580
PMI0 PM10 PMI0
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 232.20 6,037.20 1,238.40 - 25.80 25.80
Pounds at 50 mph 0.51 13.33 2.73 - 0.06 0.06
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 258 AD'T'. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality resulting
from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval.for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 662.64 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydro -seed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways* on Madison Street and Avenue 60 shall be
installed with the first phase of development on the site, as shall the project's
perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
'
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for any of the species
mapped in the General Plan. The site has been impacted by off road vehicle use,
grubbing and other activities, and contains little native habitat. The proposed project site
is not located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? (`Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment," Archaeological
Advisory Group, April 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological
Advisory Group, April 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
Assessment," CRM Tech, June 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group,
April 2004)
V. a)-b) & d) Phase I and Phase II cultural resource surveys were completed for the project site'. The
Phase I investigation recommended the completion of a Phase H study, based on the
potential historic resources identified at two locations on the site. The Phase H testing
program found that there were not significant resources remaining on the site, and that no
further impacts associated with cultural resources are possible on the site. The Phase H
study concludes that impacts to cultural resources from development on the site will be
less than significant. However, in order to assure that potential impacts to archaeological
resources are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented.
1. An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing, earth moving and
trenching activities. The archaeologist shall' stop or redirect activities to
adequately investigate potential resources.
2 .. "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Map 32201," prepared by Archaeological Advisory'
Group, April 2004. Also "Phase II Archaeological Test Program for Tentative Tract Map 32201...," prepared by
Archaeological Advisory Group, May 2004
The project contractor is required by state law to report a finding of human remains,
should such a find be made during project grading. Law enforcement and tribunal
officials are responsible for the proper investigation and disposal of remains.
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 3. The study found that
the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found mollusk shells on the property, which date back to the Holocene period.
Development of the site could, therefore, result in significant impacts to paleontologic
resources without mitigation. In order to assure that these potential impacts are mitigated
to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving
activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The paleontologist shall be
required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and
approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
3 "Paleantological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004. ^
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
'
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The site is located in an area having a potential for liquefaction hazards.
The City Engineer. will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in-
conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that
impacts from ground shaking and liquefaction are reduced to a less than significant level.
The project site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation
measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts
associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
The site is not subject to landslides, nor does it have expansive soils.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject: .
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a, plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
'
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emer enc
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of single family homes on the proposed project site will not result, in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These
regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project
itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIH. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the ro'ea.
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p.11I-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 f:
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-87 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would -exceed the capacity of
.existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-87 ff.)
f). Place housing within a 100-year flood
X _.
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. I1I-87
ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water .
service for residential units, both for domestic water and landscaping irrigation. The
CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan, which indicates that it has sufficient
water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented
or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures, which will
result in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will also be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water
is utilized within the homes. The applicantwill also be required to comply with the City's
NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface
waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality -and quantity will be
less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed project
includes a retention basin (shown as lot 13), which will be required to accommodate the
100-year storm. The City Engineer will review and approve the drainage analysis for the
site, prior to the issuance of any permits. These City requirements are expected to lower
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations
assigned to it. The project site is currently vacant, and will not divide an existing
community. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the
Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss -of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone. The MRZ-1 Zone includes areas
where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or
where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. Therefore, the site is not
considered to have potential for mineral resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
EIR p. III-144 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
r-- XI. a)-f) The project site is in an area of the City, which is currently relatively quiet. Further,
buildout of this area, due to the isolated nature of the site, should not result in excessive
noise levels. The project proponent proposes a perimeter wall around the property which
will serve to lower potential noise impacts from passing traffic by 6 to 10 dBA CNEL.
-------_ -- - Noise levels on the project site are expected to be well within the City's exterior noise
standards of 65 dBA CNEL for sensitive receptors, and impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
The construction of homes on the site will result in temporary and periodic increases in
ambient noise levels at the site. Surrounding development is isolated from the site by
walls or streets, however, and is at sufficient distance to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels without mitigation.
Overall, impacts associated with noise at and around the site are expected to be less than
significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
X.H. a)-c) The development of single family homes will be consistent with General Plan and Zoning
standards and will add to the options available to those seeking housing in the
community. The development of 24 homes will not induce growth in the City. The site is
currently vacant, and no housing or people will be displaced.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XHI. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax, which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu
fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those
services.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? (Application
materials)
XIV. a) & b) The construction of 24 residential units within the project will be supported by the
payment of the City's parkland fee, to mitigate any additional impact to City parks.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TR.AFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EK p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EK p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that .
results in. substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative
Tract Map 32201)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32201)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32201)
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The development of 24 homes has the potential to generate 258 trips per day. This trip
generation is consistent with that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, since the project is
consistent with the land use designation assigned in the General Plan. The General Plan
EIR identified acceptable levels of service on surrounding project roadways at buildout of
the General Plan.
The project will be required to provide on -site parking through garages as required by the
Development Code. The project does not include unsafe design or inadequate emergency
access, and has been reviewed by the Fire Department. The project site can be integrated
into the SunLine Transit route system as development continues to occur in the area.
Overall impacts to traffic are expected to be insignificant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X ,
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Vt TTf _ \ • It • _ _
_
�, • u. a'1 1-111 1111PUcAa associated wim cuiturai resources have been mitigated by the completion of a
Phase H Testing Program. The site is isolated and highly disturbed, and does not provide
significant habitat for biological resources.
XVH. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents.
XVH. c) The construction of 24 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts
and is consistent with the General Plan.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site
4 will generate PM 10, Section Q, above, includes a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specif c conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
O
�
N
�U
b�
crso
N
N
O
• 0
.-.
�--�
0
N
o
�
ao
r,
�0
.�U
0
o
z
.�
��
pa
�
�
H
' "VA
pia
O,ZV�
wVtipp�,,
.
N
N
M
cla
o
N
0
,�
W
Oz-1�
..
zaU
un
F
A
d�
TWWA
�x
�w
OV
A
Cn
a
v�
COO
cl
.,
o
c
0-4
x
9
Q
a
_�
0-4
cl
~
~
-S �
0
b
co
U
•
Ia.
}.,
QD
�,
000b
+N'' b
to
00
a
aaaaa�o
A
A
A
A
a
O
w0
c
A
•�'�
A
A
�
A
•�
U
U
m
U A
Aq
pQ
pq
A
0.0
to
t
to
to
.-�
o 4-3
0.0
c
�;
o
Cd
u
.�
C
U)
o
c
p4
3 'd
0-4
.�
to
CIS
W
CIS
Cdco
rA
:.
�
�
A
a
s
� ro
a.
• w
:
ar
ar r�
v� � �
e
A
V p�q
�A
p; U
U�
�
o
a�
ao
A
a
w c�
a�
0
ONO
z
oz
A
b
a
a
U
o
�
U
O
u
cd
E�
Q,� ao
cn