Loading...
CC Resolution 2004-083 EA 2004-505 MND CodornizRESOLUTION NO. 2004-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR 'GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-101, ZONE CHANGE 2004-120, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-070 ,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32070, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-799 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-505 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES L.L.C. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 3d day of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of R.J.T. Homes, L.L.C. for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Residential designation, development standards and design guidelines for Specific Plan (SP) 2004-070, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32070 for the subdivision of 15.16 acres into 145 lots, and Site Development Permit (SDP) 2004-799 for five prototypical residential plans and ancillary improvements, collectively (the "Project") generally, located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street and more particularly described as. A.P.N 772-410-021 AND 772-410-022: AND, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th day of July, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of R.J.T. Homes, L.L.C. and adopted Resolutions 2004-046 through 2004-051 approving the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Residential designation, development standards and design guidelines for Specific Plan (SP) 2004-070, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32070 for the subdivision of 15.16 acres into 145 lots, and Site Development Permit (SDP) 2004-799 for five prototypical residential plans and ancillary improvements, collectively (the "Project") generally, located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on -June 28, 2004 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site, and notified all public entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the public hearing date for the City Council on August 3, 2004; and Resolution No. 2004-083 Environmental Assessment 2004-505 RJT Homes L.L.C. Adopted: August 3, 2004 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 28, 2004, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment letters; and WHEREAS, the above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the Findings of the City Council as follows: 1. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project; and that, based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project. 2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-505. 3. The 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. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the. habitat on which the wildlife depends. Resolution No. 2004-083 .._. Environmental Assessment 2004-505 RJT Homes L.L.C. Adopted: August 3, 2004 Page 3 5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. �{ 6. The 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 Project. 7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon. 9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253, and the custodian of those records is the Community Development Department. 11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation -measures during Project implementation. 12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2. 13. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Resolution No. 2004-083 Environmental Assessment 2004-505 RJT Homes L.L.C. Adopted: August 3, 2004 Page 4 14. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for certification. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by 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. That it does hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-505 for the reasons set forth in this . Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 3`d day of August, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Osborne ABSTAIN: None LA DON ADOL H, N4yor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: -Gy. "tgl" - ) JU REEK, CMC, CI y erk City of La Quinta, California (SEAL) Resolution No. 2004-083 Environmental Assessment 2004-505 RJT Homes L.L.C. Adopted: August 3, 2004 Page 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: f It n Zh' M. KATHERINE JENSON, City AtYbrn 4 City of La Quinta, California 1. 2. 3. 4. Environmental Checklist Form Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-101, Zone Change 2004-120, Specific Plan 2004-070, Tentative Tract Map 32070, Site Development Permit 2004-799 Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Fred Baker 760-777-7125 Project location: Southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. APN: 772-410-021 and -022 5. Project sponsor's name and address: RJT Homes, Codorniz, LLC 1425 E. University Drive Phoenix, AZ 85034 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: Current: Neighborhood Commercial Current: Neighborhood Commercial Requested: Medium High Density Residential Requested: Medium High Density Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone, Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential, up to 12 units per acre. Specific Plan: Specific Plan to establish development standards and guidelines for the construction of a residential project, allowing 145 units on 15.16 acres, or a density of 9.6 units per acre, as well as a 0.58 acre common area amenity, consisting of a tennis court, swimming pool, spa, club building with locker and meeting rooms, and an outdoor barbeque area. The outdoor area is proposed to double as a retention basin. Residential units will be detached and attached, two story units. Access will be provided from both Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Interior streets are proposed to range from 29 feet to 37 feet in width. Building heights are proposed to 23.5 feet, with lots ranging from 1,800 to 5,500 square feet. Setbacks are minimal, with street setbacks at 4 feet, and pedestrian setbacks at 2 feet. Site Development Permit: Site Development Permit to implement the development standards and guidelines in the Specific Plan. 4- Tentative Tract Map: Tentative Tract Map to divide 15.16 acres into 145 residential lots, a clubhouse/retention basin lot, and lettered lots for interior streets and driveways. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Avenue 52, vacant (Neighborhood Commercial) South: All American Canal, Single family residences, golf course (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) West: Jefferson Street, Golf course under construction (Golf Course Open Space) East: Vacant (High Density Residential) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature June 18, 2004 Date -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially, Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be 'cited in the discussion. -4- 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) Jefferson Street. is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. Avenue 52 is designated a Secondary Image Corridor in the General Plan. These designations require the implementation of landscaping setbacks and height restrictions adjacent to the roadways, to protect the aesthetic integrity of the area. The Development Code requires that building heights within 150 feet of any Image Corridor be no more than 22 feet. The proposed Specific Plan would exceed this standard, and allow structures up to 23.5 feet within the 150 foot setback area. The Site Development Permit application includes a submittal which would have structures up to 22' 11 1 /2" in height. The tract map proposes buildings as close as 15 feet from the property line on Jefferson Street, and as close as about 20 feet from the property line on Avenue 52. The building mass in the project will vary from single family detached homes, primarily in the southwest portion of the site, clusters of 4 and six units. All units in the project are two story. The proposed Specific Plan request for an increase in the allowable setback of 1.5 feet will not represent a significant increase in the overall permissible height in the setback. Further, since the exceedance will occur primarily in the ridgeline of the pitched roofs, the areas where the standard is exceeded will not involve significant building mass. The potential impacts -5- associated with building height within the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. 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. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land which has been significantly impacted by off -road vehicle use and dumping. A temporary bank building, housed in a converted dwelling unit, currently occurs but will be removed. The parcel is not, nor has it been, in agriculture. No Williamson Act contracts occur on the property. There are no agricultural lands surrounding the property. The area is generally developed, and is not in a rural portion of the City. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed 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 proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow up to 182 residential units on the site, while the Specific Plan proposes 145. In order to provide the most conservative and comprehensive analysis, the higher density has been used in calculating air quality impacts. The potential 179 residential units on the site could generate up to 1,343 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 the project site. "Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 270, Residential Planned Unit Development. -8- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (hounds Der dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1,348 x 10 = 13,480 PMI0 PMIo PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 1,208.70 319426.20 6,446.40 - 134.30 134.30 Pounds at 50 mph 2.67 69.37 14.23 - 0.30 0.30 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,343 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds. Further, the project as proposed will generate only 26% of the trips which could- be generated by the approved commercial project on the site 2. The air quality impacts associated with the residential project, therefore, are considerably lower than those currently approved. 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 BCM4 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 392.83 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a 2 Environmental Assessment 2001-433, Pueblo Plaza. Shopping Center.- -9- 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 hydroseed 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 Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 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 PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level. III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, x either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X -11- 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. -12- 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'l5064.5? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) b) Cause a substantial adverse , change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment...," CRM Tech, March 2004) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological Associates, July 2001) V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey and associated report were prepared for the previously approved commercial project on the subject property3. The assessment found no surficial deposits, but identified the area as a high wind zone which can regularly cover or uncover artifacts. As a result, the report recommends the imposition of the following mitigation measure: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on the project site. 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 officials are responsible for the proper investigation and disposal of remains. 3 "Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," prepared by Archaeological Associates, July 2001 -13- V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 4. 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. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, March 2004. -14- 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? (NIEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (WA 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 not located in an area having a potential for liquefaction hazards. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical -15- analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The project site is located in an area of very severe 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. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X 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 ite which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of.a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency -17- 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 residential units 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 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan 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 I00-year flood X -19- 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. III-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 implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in greater rates of water consumption, due to the residential land uses. Commercial land uses are not significant water users, while residential land uses generally consume larger amounts of water. 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 be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and` construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will 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 area (shown as lot 146), which will be required to accommodate the 100 year storm. The retention area is to be located in the area proposed for the tennis court, and will be located underground. The hydrologic data submitted will require review by the City Engineer to assure that the proposed underground system will accommodate the flows generated by the project site. Also of concern is the route storm flows will take in order to reach the detention area, specifically as relates to the potential of polluting these flows with pool chemicals, since the pool is located immediately south of the tennis court. In order to assure that the potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the City Engineer shall approve a detailed hydrology analysis which includes a comprehensive description of how the retention area will function in the tennis -20- court area. The study shall also address how the storm flows will be directed away from the pool area, to. assure that pool chemicals do not enter the storm water flows. This mitigation measure is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIH. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -21- 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 f) IX. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will not impact any existing community. The requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in the loss of 15.16 acres of Neighborhood Commercial land, and a corresponding increase in Medium High Density Residential land. The General Plan includes policies relating to changes in conditions in the City, and amending the General Plan maps to reflect these changes. The request is consistent with these policies, insofar as the approved commercial project has not developed, and the present applicant believes that a residential product is highly saleable on this parcel. The subject site is located in an area of the City which is rapidly urbanizing, and does not represent leapfrog development. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. -22- 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, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -23- 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? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, October 2003) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, October 2003) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, October 2003) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, October 2003) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would result in residential units on a parcel previously planned for commercial land uses. The corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 is already impacted by high noise levels, and these levels are expected to increase as the General Plan builds out, and traffic, which is the primary noise -24- generator in the City, continues to increase. The commercial land uses currently approved on the project site are not considered sensitive receptors, and the impacts associated with noise at the site for a commercial project are considered less than significant. Residential land uses, however, are sensitive receptors, and noise levels for such land uses must not exceed 65 dBA CNEL exterior, and 45 dBA interior, in order to meet General Plan requirements. A oise study was prepared for the proposed projects. The study found that noise gen rated by traffic on both Jefferson Street and Avenue52 exceeds the City's 65 dBA C L exterior standard under current conditions. The study further found that residences loc ed within 251 feet of center line of Jefferson, and 146 feet of center line of Avenue 52 *11 have unacceptable exterior noise levels, without mitigation, and that any residences located within 140 feet of center line of Jefferson, and 83 feet of centerline on Avenue 52, will exceed interior noise standards, without mitigation. The study recommends a number of mitigation measures, as enumerated below, to lower the potential impacts to less than significant levels. 1. An six foot wall on a 2 foot berm shall be constructed along Jefferson Street, along the entire property line. The wall shall be completed prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit along that street. 2. A six foot wall shall be constructed along Avenue 52, along the entire property line. The wall shall be completed prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit along that street. 3. All units within 140 feet of the center line of Jefferson Street shall be equipped with windows with a minimum sound rating of STC-32. 4. All units within 83 feet of the center line of Avenue 52 shall be equipped with windows with a minimum sound rating of STC-30. 5. A five foot plexiglass and concrete wall five feet in height, shall be erected on the perimeter of all balconies for outdoor living areas located within 251 feet of Jefferson Street, and fronting on Jefferson. 6. A five foot plexiglass and concrete wall five feet in height, shall be erected on the perimeter of all balconies for outdoor living areas located within 140 feet of Avenue 52, and fronting on Avenue 52. 7. Air conditioning units shall be required in all units along Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. The study also analysed the potential impacts associated with construction noise during buildout of the site. The study found that noise levels from construction will be elevated, and that without mitigation, residential units to the east and south will be impacted. In order to reduce these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All construction equipment shall be mufflered and properly maintained during all phases of construction. 2. Stationary equipment and equipment staging shall be located in the northwest quadrant of the site. 5 "Noise Impact Analysis 52°d and Jefferson Residential Development," prepared by LSA, October 2003. -25- 3. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours specified in the La Quinta Municipal Code. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise shall be reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of an air strip or airport. -26- 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) XII. a)-c) The construction of 145 residential units will not generate growth in the City, but will rather accommodate growth pressures caused by commercial and other types of projects in the area. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) 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. -28- 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 development of the site will include a common recreational area, which will provide residents with recreational amenities. In addition, park in lieu fees will be collected to address the project's impacts on the City's recreational facilities. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 32070) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Tentative Tract Map 32070) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative Tract Map 32070) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a change from commercial to residential land uses on the project site. As described in the air quality section above, the project site, with residential land uses, has the potential to generate -30- 1,343 average daily trips. The previously approved commercial center, and General Plan, -- had an estimated 5,180 average daily trips generated from the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment, and associated applications, therefore, will reduce overall impacts to ` traffic in the vicinity of the site, particularly in the long term. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be' served by it. Overall impacts to traffic are expected to be less than significant. -31- 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 providers existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -32- 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. 11c191! 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? XVII. a) All impacts associated with paleontologic resources can be mitigated. The site does not contain significant biological resources. XVII. b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. XVII. c) The construction of 145 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will have a beneficial impact on buildout traffic generation in the vicinity. -34- XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site will generate PM 10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of stringent mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 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. Environmental Assessment 2001-433 was used in review of this application: 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 -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -35- "r 0 �w h 4-4 0 i N O . .0 U o •. CID a � � H W V O It/1�0. IN o0 N 4 i " oN t ow " N c�O�i KM N an a . . +� U a C-4 0 kn " > o U A c- •• O z . Z p4 V F A U p�q �A �WU OU U-o V H ' r. °ter,' • -. •.. �o b b � O O O • O . O �z+ �,j�y Ly y 4 U U H y O CC y CQ vNi .y N y �.+ O O R3 tb ' o N O on � 4o 34 on a aaa�,a,� A A A A o � w� a a c 00 W..*° U V m V A M M GA M N o O b CA '•d NvOi o b N N 3 -o .� pool rA > 0 O -o N "0 cd . . CA N � A a � � v�� ►�ti a W �� a� A z� �A a Ow x UV x w H o 0 V a, nbo 4 i 1�1 N rl 03 d......��� C���b bb A A a w c� co a En to � as to Li to (-� V C V b0 , N Oq 0 0 A U� �A a a �w OV a o H � Uf c. -v a� d Y ^W^ `a • �y O O a a wz a� °o PoEA •bn w V O F�1 Y�I H � b 0 4-04 ; >, c,� co ~ W O > rN •U b H d V p�q �A OV o 0 0 o O 0 0 ao [ ° ,o 0 A ECA c°> o Gn 0 rn 0 CA 0 0 0 0 a aAD N 0 0 z Z y Cd i" � Cd �.' N -d 0 G O N W c0. y 2 .0 N v� a� bay b> o o�.� > a4 o o.-" v 30 30 -d4 03 -ice �o-d �,•o �•� V� 40, 3 b w b b rn °�' a.. y °�,' w° rA a�i 4-4 0 -d >> N p 2 ra , I a vNi 0 po . v M� OM 00 rOi� •8 �. o bo. O N a�i, o O N V7a C Fy Q+ a� o own �o GA .c w o GA .� w o Gi, CZ r U.