CC Resolution 2004-093RESOLUTION NO. 2004-093
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-508
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32279
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-508
DUC HOUSING PARTNERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 17t' day of August, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Duc Housing Partners, Inc. for Environmental Assessment 2004-508
prepared for Tentative Tract 32279, generally located on the north side of Avenue 58,
approximately 2,100 feet west of Madison Street, more particularly described as
follows:
APN 763-240-01 1
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2004-508 for this Tentative Tract Map in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The
Community Development Director has determined that the project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment; however, the mitigation measures will
reduce the impacts to less than' significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact is recommended to be certified; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 13T" day of July, 2004, hold a public hearing to consider this request, and
adopted Resolution 2004-043, recommending certification of this Environmental
Assessment; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-093
Environmental Assessment 2004-508
Duc Housing Partners, Inc
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 2
1. The proposed applications 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
2004-508.
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.
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.
4. The proposed 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.
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.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly of indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified 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.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-508 and said
reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. 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).
Resolution No. 2004-093
,..__ Environmental Assessment 2004-508
Duc Housing Partners, Inc
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 3
10. 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.
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. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-508 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file
in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-508 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 17th day of August, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Lim 2
ON DOL 40a�r
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2004-093
Environmental Assessment 2004-508
Duc Housing Partners, Inc
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU . GREEK, CMC, C y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. K THERINt JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
City Council Resolution 2004-093
Environmental Assessment 2004-508
Adopted: August 17, 2004
1. Project title:
2.
3.
4.
Environmental Checklist Form
Lead agency name and address:
Tentative Tract Map 32279
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
Project location: North side of Avenue 58, approximately 2,100 feet west of Madison Street.
APN: 772-270-016
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Duc. Housing Partners, Inc.
14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H
Los Gatos, CA 95032
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
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.)
Subdivision proposed to allow 31 single family lots on 9.71 acres, with a central, gated cul de
sac street and three retention basin areas. The lot is long and narrow (approximately 330 feet
wide by 1,324 feet in length), and a single row of lots is proposed on each side of the center
cul de sac street. Lot sizes are proposed to range from approximately 10,000 to 11,900 s.f.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Single family residential, golf course, (Low Density Agriculture)
South: Avenue 58, vacant, (Low Density Residential and Golf Course Open Space)
West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
East: Vacant (Low Density Residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\stan\ttms\tt 32279 ea 2004-508 ea doc.doc
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A 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
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.
-3-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Avenue 58 is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor according to the General Plan. This
corridor is required to include landscaped parkways which reflect the agriculture which
historically occurred in this area. The project will be required to comply with these
requirements The site does not include, nor is it near, a scenic resource. The proposed
project will result in single family homes on lots of approximately 10,000+ feet in size.
The City regulates height in residential zones, so that the maximum potential height for
the homes would be two stories. Given the size of the proposed lots, the homes will not
create a significant impact to views in the area.
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.
-4-
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) '
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site is vacant desert land. There are no Williamson Act contracts on
the property.' Agricultural lands occur further east and south, but not adjacent to the
project site. The site is located in an area of the City which is urbanizing, and represents a
logical extension of development in the City. Impacts to agricultural resources are
expected to be insignificant.
-5-
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 proposes 31 single family lots, which could generate up to 297
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, Single Family Detached category 210.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
297 x 10 = 23,970
PMIo PMIo PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 267.30 69949.80 13,425.60 - 29.70 29.70
Pounds at 50 mph 0.59 15.34 3.15 - 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 297 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. The project's potential impacts to air quality from moving
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 256.3 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.
-7-
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 Avenue 58, and the project's perimeter
wall, shall be installed immediately following precise grading.
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 single family homes and -will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-8-
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
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
-9-
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 currently partially developed, with one single family house,
and has therefore been considerably disturbed. The subject property is not located in a
recommended survey area for sensitive species identified in the General Plan. Lands to
the north and west are already developed, and lands to the east have been disturbed.
Lands to the south are isolated from this property by Avenue 58. The property is therefore
isolated habitat, and is not expected to contain sensitive species. There is no known
riparian or wetland habitat on the subject property. The proposed project site is located
outside 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
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
'
May 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
May 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological
Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, May 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey..." CRM Tech, May 2004)
V. a)-c), e) A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on the subject property2. The survey
included both records searches and on site investigation. The records searches identified a
number of studies and associated records of both cultural and historic resources in the
area of the project site. The on site investigation was completely negative. The house on
the subject property is not historic. The report concludes that no further analysis or
investigation of the subject property is required, but that should resources be uncovered
during earth moving activities, work should be diverted or stopped until a qualified
archaeologist can properly analyze the find. The Historic Preservation Commission at its
meeting of June 17, 2004 required the following mitigation measures be implemented to
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level:
1. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to
the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit.
2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to . the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the project.
2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-011," prepared by CRM Tech,
May 2004.
-11-
3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes
and records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
4. That the Native American Heritage Commission, Torres -Martinez Band of
Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Indians be consulted for a search of their files to determine the presence of Native
American cultural resources.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
V. d) A paleontologic assessment was conducted for the project site 3. The study found that the
project site is within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found that disturbance of the site could result in a significant impact to paleontological
resources. In order to assure that these impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
L. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as
likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they
are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments
that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow
removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained
shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving permit, or before any
clearing of the site is begun.
2. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.
3. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be
submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by
the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all
recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted
will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological
resources.
3 "Paleontological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-011," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2004.
-12-
4. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City. Packaging
of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the
paleontological industry.
Implementation of these mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
-13-
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? (MEA Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The proposed project site is not located in an Alquist Priolo Study zone, but will
experience significant groundshaking in the event of an earthquake in the Coachella
Valley. The site is in an area of potential liquefaction. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site specific geologic analysis, including liquefaction, as part of the
building permit process, to assure that any potential hazard is remedied through
construction techniques. The soils on the site are not expansive, and that the site will not
be subject to landslides. The project site will be connected to sanitary sewer service, and
-14-
soils will not be impacted by septic tanks. Impacts associated with soils and geology are
expected to be less than significant.
The project site is located in an area of 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.
-15-
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
-16-
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessment reports were prepared for the subject
property4. The Phase II study was required to determine the nature of four areas of stained
soil on the property. The property had many years ago been in agriculture, and the
presence of organochlorine pesticides was suspected. The Phase II determined that
although trace amounts of pesticides were present in the soil, they were likely remaining
from many years ago, and no further study was warranted. The site is otherwise clear of
hazardous materials. The development of single family homes will not result in a risk
associated with hazardous materials. The City implements, through its solid waste
provider, a household hazardous waste program, which will allow residents to dispose of
materials safely.
The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessor's Parcel Number 762-240-011," and letter report "Phase
II Samplings and Analysis" dated April and May, 2004, respectively, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
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? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32279,"
P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004)
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?
("Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No.
32279," P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004)
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? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32279,"
-18-
P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004)
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. 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 single family homes. 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 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. A preliminary analysis
of the retention requirements for the site was prepared to address this requirements. The
analysis found the need for three basins, which will receive water through the central cul
de sac. The City Engineer will review and approve the 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
5 "Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32279," prepared by P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004..
-19-
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, spdcific 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 land use category in which it is
located, and the lots are designed to be similar in size to approved maps located in this
area. The site is currently 'generally vacant, with only one residential structure, and
development on the site will have no impact on an existing community. The site is not
within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Plan fee area.
b) The General Plan requires a minimum 250 feet between driveways along Avenue 58. As
designed, the project will be 112f feet from the driveway to the east, and I I0± feet from
the driveway to the west. In order to assure that these impacts are mitigated to a less than
significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. Direct vehicular access to Avenue 58 from lots with frontage along Avenue 58 is
restricted, except for the access point conditioned in these conditions of approval.
The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map.
The applicant is hereby conditioned to make a good faith effort to establish a joint
access to his/her development either with the easterly or westerly abutting
property owner. If such attempt(s) with the abutting property owner are
unsuccessful, the applicant is conditioned to locate the access point at the easterly
property line and provide access to the access drive for future development of the
-20-
easterly property. The final access point shall be approved by the Public Works
Department.
Implementation of these/ this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
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.
-21-
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)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project will include the construction of single family homes, which are
considered sensitive receptors to noise. The area in which the project is located, however,
is not an area of the City where General Plan buildout noise levels are expected to be
elevated. Furthermore, the proposed project includes the construction of a 6 foot high
perimeter wall, which will lower noise levels within the project. In addition, the two
-22-
retention basins proposed for the southern portion of the site will cause the first housing
"—' units on the site to be further set back from Avenue 58. Impacts associated with exterior
noise sources are expected to be less than significant.
i
The construction of homes on the site will also generate noise. The site is located adjacent
to residential land uses, which may experience temporary and short term increases in
noise levels during site construction. However, since the proposed project has been
conditioned to construct its ' perimeter wall prior to the initiation of construction, and the
adjacent projects also have existing perimeter walls, it is expected that these impacts will
be less than significant.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
-23-
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 proposed project is currently vacant desert lands, with one residential unit, and
construction of the project will not displace an existing community. The development of
31 single family homes is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations on
the project site, and will not generate a substantial population growth in the area. Impacts
are expected to be negligible.
-24-
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.
-25-
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 31 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.
-26-
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 EI& 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 EI& 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 32279)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32279)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32279)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The construction of 31 homes will not have a significant impact on the City's circulation
system. The density proposed for the site is consistent with the General Plan designation
for the property, and was therefore analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Avenue 58 is
-27-
expected to operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the General Plan. The
297 trips expected to be generated by this site daily will not significantly impact the
circulation system.
The project proponent will be required to provide on -site parking for the homes in the
form of garages. The design of the tract does not include any roadway hazards. The site is
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and may eventually be provided bus service as
development occurs.
-28-
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.)
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.)
-29-
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 CVWD has
indicated its ability to serve the project's water and sewer needs. The construction of the
proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
-30-
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?
c) 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)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having the potential for paleontological resources.
However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a
less than significant level.
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 31 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts
and is consistent with the General Plan.
-31-
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 PM 10, and the site
will generate PM 10. Section III), 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 -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-32-
3
a
0
0
N
00
�n
d
a�
-d
o
z
o
r-I
z
a
O
w
W U
cl,
�a
d 064
Q, o
CIS
U
N
M
vi
to
N
N
'
N
O
U
••
••
p
Iwo
z
x06,
W
w
E-�
is
eA
a a�
�x
UV
fY,
-o
o
C
•�,
•�;
o
0
w
y
-v
a�i
a
o»
V
a
Ono
�
°
°"
Cd
c
CAN.
(A
Cd
an
.,
0
G7
o
o
c
.0
.0
CA
o
�€
o
o
c
U
...
.52
a
u
u
�
a`b
O
y O
O to
C
bA
C
bq
Q
b o
by
C
a
a
a. a c,a, bo
A
A
A
A
a
wz
�
a�
�
.
w z
a
o
aC,
a
aci
as
E
Oy p
c
,c
A
:'�'
A
A
A
A
W
C
c
C
C
C
C
r
_'
10
U
U
w
U Q
GA
C
a
z
C
cd
�
v
�" O
O
• i0.�
cd
C i0 v�i
bOU
�
� C
CA
N
.b •� ,
.
co
Ono
F
O
O
`~
°'
0 >,
�
3�
v�
4)
bo
•° 3 3
to
•°
'b
64
cod
�
m
C
L
o
�
C
0 a,
�
Via,
>
�•C13
,3
'd
N
...
3
-�
_" a
O
�. � a
•v
d a
W
cd
. • a�
W
Q
A
z °q
�w
av
OV
U
.
d
w�
a
U
a.
c
�n
•
c
0 0
G7
c cis
a,
� o
O a4
r-
o .
a. an
wz
z
�p
U
oz
a L1
to
s
co
E"�
0 co
'
a
COO
a
.. -c cobn
-v .c
3 a�
r
s
L
c o
.. �'�'
.c o
a�
CZ
o Sao o'Ecd
c
0"��rArA
tcz
O
c�
o
-C
"C
U
cl
v
rA
O
�, cu c�
U
.O 'cn
a)
O0.
'�
L
O _N SJ
'�
CO U ..
L
a�
O
E cE4.,
E >
cts
O E °
E
.� .�
U
CA
�,
° 'n °.E
� cz
(A-0 MQ....
�.�
u,3...
' cd vi
.9) ao
o
3 °
Cd
o•o
a ao
En
c � o
3 0.
o
a�
E
a
O -o & O
•.. b`b o
os E y N �
0 U
O C.O O �•�
-- co E o .�
O b4 a0i 4-4
E.�.c ° ao
y t�
v,
S s C
O U
ao E
• E
0 0
8V�
a� E•o
O cd U
o
0, � 4.4
c, O
cd
0 C+* C 4''
bo O O O
'W
.� a .W
C O
U C
>00¢
zoU
.N
co
.� 0
P U .�
.�
b •�
U
U O
a�
E
Q
>
o
U
U
.0 v
cl
V �
Cp
a)
O
ch
F
A
�w
av
Ox
UU
U
a
U
W
Cd
a
F'
bb
a
Q
a
E
c
G7
z
�
°
o
F
�-
a,
a
Cd
0
0
a
a
as
Cd
a �
o
w�
3
x
a
0
.�
'a
C Q
z
z
U U V U
al O cd
._
E 2
C. Q •C
O U O
>
�+-�
O O
^n
Mr��l
o
° _ 3
�., a, a.
a
G. .�
,� a,
.d
Cz
co
E
°'.�
CIO
v�
o X•c '�
un o.�
(L).Cd
ch
�b
�
'
,••, a��
���.�>3a3
d
^, o
o �, o . _
-� oA
sz 3
�'
an o
a� o
a a, a -o
0 0
•�
'..
co
V5
Co
E c,
_, (L)
ct m o
cd
b