CC Resolution 2004-098RESOLUTION NO. 2004-098
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-495, FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31852
CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-495
APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 17th day of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Ehline Company, for certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-495,
prepared for Tentative Tract 31852, located on the northwest corner of Avenue 52
and Madison Street, more particularly described as:
LOT 2 OF TR 6682, BOOK 88, PAGES 42/43 OF MAPS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
,.._, did, on the 27th day of July, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-495, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31852, a request to subdivide f 8.5 acres into 14 single-family
residential lots and several lettered lots; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
adopted Resolution 2004-056, recommending adoption of Environmental Assessment
2003-495; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community
Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment
2003-495) and has determined that, although the proposed Tentative Tract 31852
could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will
mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, the La
Quinta City Council did make the following findings to justify their certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-098
Environmental Assessment 2003-495
Ehline Company
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 2
1. The proposed Tentative Tract 31852 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in
any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards
when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project
will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause 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. The site has been identified as having
the potential for cultural and paleontological resources. However, mitigation
measures have been incorporated which will reduce these potential impacts to a
less than significant level.
2. 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.
3. The proposed Tentative Tract 31852 will not have the potential to achieve short
term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental . factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment. The proposed project supports the long term goals
of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City
residents.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract 31852 will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in
the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process.
Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures
proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development
patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
The construction of 14 residential units will not have considerable cumulative
impacts and is consistent with the General Plan.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract 31852 will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed
under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
Resolution No. 2004-098
,,..... Environmental Assessment 2003-495
Ehflne Company
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 3
6. There is no substantial evidence in light- of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-495 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgment of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
9. The location and custodian of City 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 constitute the findings of the City
Council in this case; and
2. That is does hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2003-495 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development
Department.
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
Resolution No. 2004-098
Environmental Assessment 2003-495
Ehline Company
Adopted: August 17, 2004
Page 4
DON ADOL q-May
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
J U N REEK, C C, Cit;r erk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
1NAL KATHE IN LJENSON, City orney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31852
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3.. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 52. APN: 772-270-016
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Ehline Company
81480 National Dr.
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very 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.)
Proposed subdivision of 8.47 acres into 14 single family lots of 20,000 square feet or more,
and lettered lots for retention, streets and landscaped parkway.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Agriculture, (Very Low Density Agriculture)
South: Avenue 52, golf course and single family residential, (Low Density Residential and
Golf Course Open Space)
West: Vacant desert lands (Very Low Density Residential)
East: Agriculture
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -1-
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.
• - June 24, 2004
Signature Date
PAReports - CC\8-17-04\TT 31852 Fhline\EA Checklist.doc
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 statewhere 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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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) The proposed project site is located on an Agrarian Image Corridor (Madison Street), and
a Secondary Image Corridor (Avenue 52), according to the Goneral Plan. These corridor
have landscaped parkway requirements to which the applicant will be required to comply.
The site does not include, nor is it near, a scenic resource. The proposed project will
result in single family lots on approximately 1 /2 acre lots. 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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline. EA Checklist.doc 4-
PotentiaUy
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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? (43eneral 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 on the north side of the site, and to the east, across
Madison Street. The development of the proposed project will not affect the ability of
these surrounding parcels to continue in agriculture. Development is located to the north
and west of these lands, and they represent isolated locations for farming.
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
less than significant.
SACity ClerMesolutionsThline EA Checklistdoc -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 will ultimately result in the construction of 14 single family.
homes, which could generate up to 134 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.
1 "Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
134 x 10 = 19340
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 120.60 3,135.60 643.20 - 13.40 13.40
Pounds at 50 mph 0.27 6.92 1.42 - 0.03 0.03
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbsJday) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 134 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime mining 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 223.6 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM10 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.
SACity Clak\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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 Madison and Avenue 52 shall be installed
with the first phase of development on the site.
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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
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,
SACity C1akVteso1utions\Ehhne EA Checklist.doc -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 has been significantly disturbed by past agricultural activities
and illegal dumping. The site is not located in an area of sensitivity for any of the species
of concern mapped in the General Plan. Vegetation on the site consists of species
common to the Valley floor, and non-native species. The site is surrounded on two sides
by roadways, on one side by an orchard, and on one side by vacant but graded lands. The
site does not provide significant habitat value, and is not a wildlife corridor. The proposed
project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the ro'ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in ' 15064.5? (Phase I
Archaeological and Paleontological Survey
Report on Tract 31852..." L&L,Environmental,
April 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Phase I
Archaeological and Paleontological Survey
Report on Tract 31852..." L&L Environmental,
April 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Phase I Archaeological and
Paleontological Survey Report on Tract
31852..." L&L Environmental, April 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Phase I Archaeological and
Paleontological Survey Report on Tract
31852..." L&L Environmental, April 2004)
V. a)-c), e) A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on the subject property. The survey
included both records searches and on -site investigations. The records searches identified
a number of previous historic and prehistoric finds within one mile of the project site.
The on -site survey did not identify any resources on the site. However, because of the
potential for buried resources on the site, the survey recommends that an archaeological
monitor be present during earth moving activities, to assure that potential impacts are
reduced to a less than significant level, as follows.
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 Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving
or clearing permit, whichever occurs first. Monitors shall include a representative
of the Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
2 "A Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852..." prepared by L&L Environmental,
April 2004.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\Ehhne EA Checklist.doc -11-
The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities, should resources be
uncovered. A report of any findings, as well as appropriate curation of materials,
shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of building permits on the site.
The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the
project.
2. 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 building permit for the property.
Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts to cultural
resources shall be reduced 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.
1. On- and off -site monitoring 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 the City prior
to issuance of the first earth -moving permit, of before any clearing of the site as
begun.
Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.
2. 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 Ibid
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc
-12-
3. 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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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?
X
("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed
Residential Development NWC Avenue 52 and
Madison..." Sladden Engineering, April 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Proposed Residential Development
NWC Avenue 52 and Madison..." Sladden
Engineering, April 2004)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investigation
X
Proposed Residential Development NWC
Avenue 52 and Madison..." Sladden
Engineering, April 2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Proposed Residential Development
NWC Avenue 52 and Madison..." Sladden
Engineering, April 2004)
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
("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed
Residential Development NWC Avenue 52 and
Madison..." Sladden Engineering, April 2004)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -14-
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Proposed Residential Development
NWC Avenue 52 and Madison..." Sladden
Engineering, April 2004)
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical investigation was conducted for the proposed project4. The study found
that the 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. Borings were taken
on the site to determine if a liquefaction hazard exists. No groundwater was identified to a
depth of 50 feet. The study therefore concludes that the site is not subject to liquefaction.
The study further found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and that the site will
not be subject to landslides. The study will be connect to sanitary sewer service, and 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 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.
4 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development NWC Avenue 52 and Madison Street..." prepared by
Sladden Engineering, April 2004.
SACity C1erMesoluti6nsThline EA Cheddist.doc -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
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -16-
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of single family residential units on the proposed project site will not
result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements
the standards of the 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.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -17-
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? ("Preliminary
Drainage Study Tentative Tract No. 31852"
prepared by Hacker Engineering, November
2003.)
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?
("Preliminary Drainage Study Tentative Tract
No. 31852" prepared by Hacker Engineering,
November 2003.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -18-
sources of polluted runoff? ("Preliminary
Drainage Study Tentative Tract No. 31852"
prepared by Hacker Engineering, November
2003.)
fl 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 residential units, commercial uses and landscaping. 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
drainage study was prepared to address this requirement for the proposed projects. The
study analysed the potential water generated in a 100 year storm, and developed
recommendations for the size of the on -site retention basin. The retention basin is shown
on the Tract Map, immediately north of Avenue 52. The City Engineer will review and
approve the drainage analysis for the site, prior to the issuance of any permits. These City
requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
5 "Preliminary Drainage Study Tentative Tract No. 31852," prepared by Hacker Engineering, November, 2003.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use category in which it is
located, and the lots are designed to be similar in size to approved maps located to the
east. The site is currently vacant, and 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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -20-
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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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? ("Tentative Tract 31852
Preliminary Acoustical Study," prepared by RK
Engineering Group, April 2004)
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) An acoustical study was completed for the proposed project6. The study found that noise
levels for lands immediately adjacent to both Madison Street and Avenue 52 will exceed
the City's exterior noise standards. Specifically, the study found that noise levels on lots
6 "Tentative Tract 31852 Preliminary Acoustical Study," prepared by RK Engineering Group, April 2004.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -22-
adjacent to Avenue 52 will be about 68.0 dBA CNEL, and noise levels at lots on Madison
Street will be 68.6 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Since noise impacts are linear, the
study recommends the installation of a 5 foot wall along both roadways, which will
reduce noise levels to between 57.9 and 63.3 dBA CNEL, depending on location. In order
to assure that the noise levels meet City standards, therefore, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
1. A perimeter wall of at least 5 feet in height shall be installed immediately
following precise grading of the site. The wall shall be of solid construction, and
shall not have any openings or breaks.
The construction of homes on the site will also generate noise. The site is not, however,
located adjacent to any sensitive receptors. Impacts associated with construction noise are
not expected to be significant.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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 Tract Map is currently vacant desert lands, and construction of the project
will not displace an existing community. The development of single family .homes on lots
of approximately 1/2 acre 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..
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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.)
XIIL 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.
SACity C1erk\Resolutions\Ehline EA Checklist.doc -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 14 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.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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 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 31852)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31852)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31852)
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 14 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 analysed in the General Plan EIR. Madison and
SACity C1erkVtesolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -27-
Avenue 52 are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the
General Plan.
The project map proposes a secondary access point for emergency services off of Avenue
52. This access point will assure that emergency vehicles have a secondary access to the
site. 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, and will eventually be provided bus service as
development occurs.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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.)
SACity ClerkVtesolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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 construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -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?
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) The site has been identified as having. the potential for cultural and 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 14 residential units will not . have considerable cumulative impacts
and is consistent with the General Plan.
SACity C1erkVtesolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -31-
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 PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been
mitigated above 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.
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.
SACity C1erk\ResolutionsThline EA Checklist.doc -32-
N
0
b
w
O
o
o
U
000
3
�
0
0
o
z
U
N
++
Ow
�
F
"pA
Z
OwWO
064
v��pyw
N
00
"-+
M
I
o
U
�,
N
>
c
U
00
z�
ZOno
p�V
H
Ewa
0
a
a
H
A
V
p�q
�A
a�
V
OV
U
p
b
,o0-4
cop
W
0-4
�n
v�
b4
�
o
Div
ca
°
y ° y °
a
w�
�
v' 0-4a
A
er
CIO
a
Op
c
A
A
�a
6-4
O
tz.
U
4-b
U
m
UA
GQ
CA
Z
°
cd
a '�
v
O
N
p O
0-4
.S
i.,
y
Cl*
a
co
w
�. 4
5
.- N
~
O
O
N
� A,
3 'd
CIO
Ooj°
Q
any
°
a
y
CA
A
a,
v�
cis
E-�
A
�A
TWA
a
�W
OV
�
o �
a
z
cz
°A o
0
a
a
�
0
a
UA
z
W
c
cz
O
cz
1�
..4 o
U
CZ
Cif
O cz>
cz'2 cz N
E,y
O b4
+C; 0
0ca
O
E-�
A
V�
�A
�w
OV
d
a
H
o
•U
U
�
or
�3
z
°
40.
Hcz
�b
b
a� y
•U
a
oz
z�
oz
ct
b
0
�
3
�1 Q
O
COO
O
ar