CC Resolution 2004-108RESOLUTION NO. 2004-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32742.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-515
APPLICANT: VILLAGE BUILDERS 98
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 5" day of October, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request by Village Builders. 98 for certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-
515 for Tentative Tract Map 32742 to subdivide ± 14.54 acres into 40 single-
family lots and miscellaneous lots, generally located on the west side of Monroe
Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55, more particularly described as
follows:
APN: 767-580-015
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 14" day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Village Builders 98 for certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 for Tentative Tract Map 32742 to subdivide
± 14.54 acres into 40 single-family lots and miscellaneous lots, generally located
on the west side of Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55;
and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements and rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that Environmental
Assessment 2004-515 has been completed and determined that although the
project may have a significant adverse effects on the environment, mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level; and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended
for certification; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-108
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 - Village Builders 98
Adopted: October 5, 2004
Page 2
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the site has been previously graded, and
potential impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources have
been mitigated to a less than significant level. The majority of the site is
covered in weeds, and that significant habitat is absent. Also, the project site
is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Plan, therefore, impacts to biological and cultural
resources are less than significant.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends in that the subject site is covered in weeds, and
significant habitat is absent from the site. The site is physically suitable for
the proposed land division and currently, development exists in the immediate
area which has reduced the amount of habitat suitable for any fish or wildlife
habitat.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
the proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's
residents, a goal of the General Plan. Significant effects on environmental
factors will be reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project in that the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the
project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
Resolution No. 2004-108
_., Environmental Assessment 2004-515 - Village Builders 98
Adopted: October 5, 2004
f
Page 3
6. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect the human
population 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. However, a
number of mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the potential
impacts on air quality as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-515 and
said Assessment 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).
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, 92253.
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 2004-515 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department
and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 5t' day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
Resolution No. 2004-108
Environmental Assessment 2004-515 - Village Builders 98
Adopted: October 5, 2004
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Mayor Adolph
NOES: Council Member Sniff
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
D6NALDADOLPH,lMayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
J . GREEK, CMC,Plerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. K HERI JENSON, Cit Att rney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32742
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: West side of Monroe Street, approximately 150 feet south of Avenue 55.
APN: 767-580-015
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Village Builders 98, LP
121 Spear Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105
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.) y .
Tentative Tract Map to divide a 14.54 acre parcel into 40 single family residential lots, as
well as lots for retention and streets. Streets within the project are proposed to be private. The
lot size ranges from 9,200 s.f. to just over 15,000 s.f. Access will be provided on Monroe
Street with no secondary access.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant, Single -Family Residential (Very Low-Density.Residential)
South: Single -Family Residential, golf course (Low -Density Residential, Golf Course -OS)
West: Single -Family Residential (Low -Density Residential,)
East: Monroe Street, Vacant, Agriculture (Low-Density'Residential/Agriculture/Equestrian
Overlay)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-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.
Signature
-2-
August 23, 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) Monroe Street is not designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. There are no
significant scenic or topographic features on or near the subject property. The
construction of single-family residential units on the site will not impact scenic vistas,
and, is consistent with existing and proposed surrounding development. Impacts.
associated with aesthetics are expected to be insignificant.
The primary source of light and glare upon build -out of the site will be from automobile
headlights. With the construction of 40 residential units, this impact is expected to be less
than significant. The lots' landscaping will also generate limited lighting increases. The
City regulates lighting levels through a Dark Sky Ordinance 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
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The project site is vacant land, with single-family residences located on the western
extremity of the site. The site is not in agricultural use, nor are there Williamson Act
contracts on the land. The area to the east of the site does have scattered agricultural
activity. However, the project site, being only about 14.5 acres, is not a viable site for
substantial agriculture. Impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be negligible.
-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) Automobile emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the City. It is
expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most significant
generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in 40 single-family homes,
which have the potential to generate up to 383 trips per day'. Based on this traffic
generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following emissions can be
expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6 h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
383 x 10 = 39830
PMIo PMI0 PMIo
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 344.70 89962.20 11,838.40 - 38.30 38.30
Pounds at 50 mph 0.76 19.78 4.06 - 0.08 0.08
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,055 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 for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
�... The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 90.82 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The perimeter of the site has been landscaped,
which will aid in reducing the blowing sand impacts on adjacent properties. 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.
-7-
III. d) & e)
l . Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaping on the Monroe Street parkway shall be installed immediately
following project precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
The project will consist of residential units 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, either
X
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 (Letter dated July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
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? (Letter
dated July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
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? (Letter dated July 7, 2004, J.
Cornett)
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? (Letter dated
July 7, 2004, J. Cornett)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
M
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) A letter was prepared by James Cornett for the proposed project. The letter indicates that
the project site was surveyed for burrowing owls, and that none were sighted. The letter
further states that the majority of the site is covered in weeds, and that significant habitat
is absent.
The project site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
-10-
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,
June 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,
June 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources
Assessment... CRM Tech, June 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resources analysis was completed for the proposed project site 2. The analysis
included both records searches and on -site investigation. The on site investigation did not
identify any resources. However, because of the high sensitivity of the area, the potential
for buried resources is high. Should these resources be uncovered during project grading,
impacts could be significant. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities
on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the first house on the project site.
V. c) A paleontologic survey was prepared for the proposed project site 3. The study found* that
the project site is within the historic lake bed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The study further
found mollusk shells on the project site. Development of the site could result in
significant impacts to paleontologic resources without mitigation. In order to assure that
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004
3 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, June 2004.
-11-
these potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented.
l . A surface collection of mollusks shall be completed prior to initiation of any earth
moving activity on the project site.
2. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all earth moving and trenching
activities in areas of undisturbed lakebed soils. The paleontologist shall be
empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate
potential resources. The paleontologist shall be required to submit to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report
on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. The homes to be built on the site will be required to meet the City's and the
State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements
for seismic zones. The City Engineer - will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
-13-
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
The project site is located in an area subject to liquefaction. Depending on the depth to
groundwater, special construction methods may need to be implemented on the project
site. In order to assure that this potential impact is mitigated to less than significant levels,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to the
City Engineer, for review and approval, a liquefaction study which determines
whether the project will be subject to liquefaction. Any recommendations made in
the study shall be implemented in project construction.
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to rockfall or landslides. The site
does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the
CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed.
The site is located in an area of moderate blow sand potential. The mitigation measures
included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the ro'ect:
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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 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 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
-15-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 f )
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 40 homes on the subject site will not have an impact on hazards and
hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs
through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous
substances generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
-16-
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? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-17-
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-
187 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 development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan.which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water
conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of
water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within
the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. A preliminary
hydrology study was prepared to assess the needs of the project site 4. The study found that
a system of pipes through the site, leading to a retention basin at the southeastern
boundary of the project, will be sufficient to retain on -site flows. The City Engineer will
also review final plans to assure that these conclusions are still applicable prior to the
issuance of grading permits. Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore
not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
4 Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MSA Consulting, July 2004.
-18-
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 project site is designated Low -Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with this designation.
The project site is not within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-19-
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.
-20-
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 MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 1.11 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 MEA p.
111 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 result in a total of 40 single family units. The project will be
surrounded by a block wall, which will reduce noise levels on the site. Noise levels on
Monroe in this area of the City are not expected to exceed the City's standards, because
of the limited traffic generated in this area.
-21-
Noise will be generated during project construction. Sensitive receptors are located
adjacent to the project site to the south, surrounded by a 6 foot block wall, and single-
family residential units occur approximately 150 feet to the north. During construction,
the adjacent units may experience a periodic increase in noise levels. The wall on the
southern project will provide attenuation of the noise intrusions to a great extent. In
addition, the project is required to construct its wall immediately following site grading
(please see Air Quality section, above). This will provide attenuation for the single family
residences located northerly of the site.
Impacts associated with noise at the site are expected to be less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The construction of 40 homes will not induce substantial population growth. The site
includes two mobile homes which will be removed prior to construction. This does not
represent a significant displacement of either housing or people. Impacts associated with
population and housing are expected to be negligible.
-22-
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)Build-out 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.
Build -out 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 development impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to public services.
-23-
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 project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TR.ANSPORTATION/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)? (site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 32742)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32742)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The development of the 40 homes will generate about 383 daily trips. The project is
consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and was therefore analyzed
as part of the General Plan EIR. The traffic on Monroe at build -out of the General Plan
-25-
was expected to remain at acceptable levels of service in that analysis. Impacts associated
with traffic are expected to be less than significant.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-26-
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.)
-27-
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 the cost of providing services. The construction of
the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
-28-
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 previously graded, and potential impacts associated with cultural and
paleontologic resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
INT
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.
-30-
4-4
O
0
y
W
w
0
cd
ai
44
0
-d
'CA
o
N
to
�
�;
o
00
�
�
O
O
F
�
"
O
A
azz�
.�
W(ua
�a,aaA�
N
M
a
0
o
N
b
�
�
C4
t
o�
a
..
O
z�
H
Z
�
g
U
�
Ono
W
z
Ono
G7
F
Ono
3
O
ONO
z
O
U
0
a
W
A
zm
,<A
�W
VV
y
O
O
O
O
aCycd
c
❑
C
y
y
V)
EA4-4
c
�
o
G7
O
O
v
.0
.0
y
y '
C)
U
�
c
ul
c
o
U..,
...
a
u
0
ao
U
4a0
y, 00
=
bo
bo
bA
a
w �
�
a�
E
z '�'"
A
cc
Cd
aoi
...
a�i
a
=
W
�
w
c
�
�
c
oA
V
U
m
U A
GC1
C=A
b4
�
O
z
,.
00
o
bo
...
�, C43
-v
.� mA
-u
W
°c.
o b
-o
ar
oo ,j�
U
a
o
Con + a�
W
d
A
z oa
�W
ax
UV
d
w
•�
a
U
a.
�
o
z
co
C
Cd
1.0
o
an
Q
a
�
Q
W
z z
Q.
Q
d
0o
Q
a�
w�
a
Cd
.
GA
U A
..
to
rA
�
0-4�
�
•�
°
U
•bA
C/�
,�
C
a
"C
0
0 co
11.
z
O
�..1
.a
c j (U
rc
0 —cl 3
W
d
A
z�
A
dw
Ox
VV
d
a
o
w
a
C;
'
0
U
Q�
CA
z
�-
C
H
03
0
0
a.
0
z
as
7o
0EZ
a
•
�n
a
w
U
O
.0 ,
a w
4C.)
O
o
cd
a�
•U
"O