CC Resolution 2004-116RESOLUTION NO. 2004-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
32225
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-502
APPLICANT: VINCE D'AMBRA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 51h day of
October, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued said Public Hearing to
the 19t' day of October, 2004 to consider the request of Vince D'Ambra for approval
of Environmental Assessment 2004-502 for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32225,
referred to as the "Project" for the subdivision of 8.08 acres into 29 residential lots
located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street and more particularly
described as:
A.P.N: 762-240-015
r, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
10t' day of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued said Public
Hearing to the 14th day of September, 2004 and adopted Resolution 2004-061
4
recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-502; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the
27th day of July, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on 23rd day of September, 2004, such notice was also mailed to all
landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such
notice; 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 certify said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-116
Environmental Assessment 2004-502
Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: October 19, 2004
Page 2
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation
procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of
the Project, and based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon,
and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, that there could be a
significant environmental effect resulting from this project; however, the
mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant. The
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the Project and or made part of the approval of the project and.
these measures will mitigate any potential significant effect.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-502.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
.drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate 'important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
5.. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental
Assessment.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited -or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
Resolution No. 2004-116
Environmental Assessment 2004-502
Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: October 19, 2004
Page 3
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have
been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City Council.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
.which. the City Council decision is based upon is in the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253.
,_..-. 11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in
order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code § 711.2.
13. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-502 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached
hereto.
Resolution No. 2004-116
Environmental Assessment 2004-502
Vince D'Ambra
Adopted: October 19, 2004
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADOL H, M yor
City of La Quinta California
ATTEST:
JU GREEK, CMC, CI erk
City of La ' Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON / Ity Attorney
City of La Quinta, Califo is
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32225
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 "Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Fred Baker
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. APN: 762-240-015
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Santa Rosa Development LLC
P.O. Box 11335
Palm Desert, CA 92255
,6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
`—` Subdivision of 8.08 acres into 33 single family lots around a central spine road, with access
on Madison Street. Also included is a retention basin along the southern property line. Lots
are. proposed to be a minimum of 7,200 square feet. Overall parcel dimensions are 330 feet by
1,325 feet.
9.' Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
North: Attached single family residential (Medium Density Residential)
South: Avenue 58, single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential and
Golf Course Open Space)
West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
Fast: Madison Street, Single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential
and Golf Course Open Space)
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.
8� �^,p
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
41Ii
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.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
-3-
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. This
corridor is required to include landscaped parkways which reflect the agriculture which
historically occurred in this area. The project will be required to comply with these
requirements The site does not include, nor is it near, a scenic resource. The site is
surrounded on two sides by existing residential development, and on the other two sides
by roadways. The proposed single family homes will be regulated in terms of height by
the City's Zoning Ordinance. No significant impacts to scenic resources are expected to
result from the proposed development.
10 The ultimate construction of single family homes on the site will result in a slight
increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The
City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
-4-
otentrally
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The site has, at some time in the past, been in agriculture, but is not currently farmed, and
Y
has not been for some time. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The
site is a long narrow parcel which is surrounded by development. The site does not
represent a valuable or significant agricultural parcel, given its isolation in a suburban
setting. Impacts to agricultural resources are, expected to be insignificant.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria. pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The Tentative Tract Map proposes 33 single family lots, which could generate up to 316
trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the
following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
316 x 10 = 3,160
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 284.40 7,394.40 1,516.80 - 31.60 31.60
Pounds at 50 mph 0.63 16.32 3.35 - 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 316 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality from moving
emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 213.32 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
-7-
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 Street, the project's perimeter
wall, and the retention basin on Avenue 58 shall be installed immediately
following precise grading.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the ro' ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse affect,
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?
("Biological Assessment...," James Cornett, May
2004)
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?
("Biological Assessment...," James Cornett, May
2004)
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? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
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? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
e) Conflict with any local policies or.
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ('Biological
Assessment...," James Cornett, May 2004)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
-9-
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) A biological impact analysis was completed for the project site The survey found that
the site is disturbed saltbush habitat, impacted by agricultural activity and recent adjacent
roadwork. The animal species found during the survey did not identify any species of
concern. The site is disturbed and surrounded by developed areas, and its loss as
biological habitat will not be significant.
The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed La Quinta 9-Acre Site," prepared by James Cornett,
May 2004.
-10-
Poteetiay
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'15064.5? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
May 2004)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to 'I 5064.5C'Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech,
May 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological
Resources Assessment," CRM Tech, May 2004)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical Archaeological
Resources Survey..." CRM Tech, May 2004)
V. a)-c), e) A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted on the subject property'. The survey
included both records searches and on site investigation. The records searches identified a
number of studies and associated records of both cultural and historic resources in the
area of the project site. The remains of a house, date grove and standpipe were identified
on the project site. Extensive research into the property did not yield any historical
significance for the property or the structures on the property. The structures were
determined to have no significant historical context. The report concludes that no further
analysis or investigation of the subject property is required, but that should resources be
uncovered during earth moving activities, work should be diverted or stopped until a
qualified archaeologist can properly analyse the find.
V. d) A paleontologic assessment was conducted for the project site4. 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.
r--
3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-015," prepared by CRM Tech,
May 2004.
4 "Paleontological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-015," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2004.
-11-
1. A paleontologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving
activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving
activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The paleontologist shall be
required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and
approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
Implementation of these mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
-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?
X
("Geotechnical Engineering Report...," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report...," Earth Systems
Southwest, February 2004)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Engineering
x
Report...," Earth Systems Southwest, February
2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report...," Earth Systems
Southwest, February 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 Engineering Report...," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (MEA Exhibit 8.1)
-13-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical investigation was conducted for the proposed projects Although the site is
not located in an Alquist-Priolo Study Zone, it will be subject to groundshaking during an
earthquake. The City implements the latest versions of the Uniform Building Code, which
include provisions and requirements for the construction of housing in seismically active
areas. The proposed project will be subject to these requirements. The proposed project
occurs in an area subject to liquefaction. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of
about 50 feet during the site investigation. The study finds, however, that although the
site has historically experienced higher water levels in the past, it is unlikely that this
condition will again occur during the life of the project. The study found that the site is
not susceptible to ground subsidence or slope instability. The site is susceptible to wind
and water erosion. The project proponent will, however, be required to conform to both
PM 10 Management and water erosion requirements of the City, which have been
implemented to reduce these impacts. Impacts associated with geological conditions at
the site are expected to be less than significant.
The project site will be connected 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.
"Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Residential Development NWC Avenue 58 and Madison Street," Earth
Systems Southwest, February 2004
-14-
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 ,
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 f
-15-
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) A Phase I environmental site assessment report was prepared for the subject property6.
The study found no evidence of surficial contamination on the site. The survey did find,
however, that because of the site's historic use in farming, it is possible that underground
storage tank(s) occur on the site. An underground tank could result in contamination of
the soils and groundwater in the area. This would represent a potential significant impact
without mitigation. In order to assure that this impact is adequately mitigated, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit on the project site, a geophysical
survey shall be conducted in areas nears buildings or other suspect features occur
on the site, to evaluate whether a UST is still present at the site. Should a UST be
identified, it shall be removed and disposed of in a manner consistent with local
and state standards prior to the issuance of grading permits.
The development of single family homes will not result in a risk associated with
hazardous materials. The City implements, through its solid waste provider, a household
hazardous waste program, which will allow residents to dispose of materials safely.
The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
6 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 8.89 Acre Parcel NWC Avenue 58 and Madison Street,"
prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, January 2004:
-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? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32279,"
P&D Consultants, Inc., April 2004)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
("Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No.
3222511" P&D Consultants, Inc., March 2004)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? ("Retention
Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32225,"
P&D Consultants, Inc., March 2004)
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-87
ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service for single family homes. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan
which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service
area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and
replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The
project proponent will also be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water
is utilized within the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring
that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. A preliminary analysis
of the retention requirements for the site was prepared to address this requirement. The
analysis found that a 0.25 acre retention basin, as planned for the frontage of the site
along Avenue 58, will adequately retain storm flows from the siite. The City Engineer
will review and approve the final 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.
7 "Retention Basin Design Calculations, Tract No. 32225," prepared by P&D Consultants, Inc., March 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 proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use category in which it is
located. Development to the west and north are similar in style and scope to the proposed
project. Residences on the site will be subject to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
The site is not within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan fee area.
-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? ("Noise Impact Analysis
Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates, May.
2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration. or
groundborne noise levels? ("Noise Impact
Analysis Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates,
May 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Noise Impact Analysis Report..._,"
P.A. Penardi & Associates, May 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis
Report...," P.A. Penardi & Associates, May
2004)
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)
-21-
XI. a)-f) A noise impact study was conducted for the proposed project$. The study found that with
the inclusion of the proposed 6 foot wall surrounding the property, the noise impacts for
exterior yards and interior ground floor spaces would meet the City's standards of 65 dBA
and 45 dBA, respectively. Second story spaces, should two story houses be proposed on
lots 18 through 33, would experience interior noise levels of 45.7 to 47.7 dBA, without
mitigation. Since this standard exceeds the City's standard, mitigation is proposed to
reduce the potential impacts associated with interior noise levels for lots 18 through 33,
as follows:
1. Should two story homes be proposed on lots 18 through 33, any window facing or
at an angle to Madison Street shall have a minimum STC rating of 27, as
determined by laboratory tests.
The construction of homes on the site will also generate noise. The site is located adjacent
to residential land uses, which may experience temporary and short term increases in
noise levels during site construction. However, since the proposed project has been
conditioned to construct its perimeter wall prior to the initiation of construction, and the
adjacent projects also have existing perimeter walls, it is expected that these impacts will
be less than significant.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
"Noise Impact Analysis Report for Single Family Residential Development, Tract No. 32225 in La Quinta,"
prepared by P. A. Penardi & Associates, May 2004.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project is currently vacant land, and construction of the project will not
displace an existing community. The development of 33 single family homes is consistent
with the General Plan and Zoning designations on the project site, and will not generate a
substantial population growth in the area. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu
fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits.
-24-
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 33 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.
-25-
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 32225)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 32225)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 32225)
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 33 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. Avenue 58 and
Madison Street are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the
General Plan. The 316 trips expected to be generated by this site daily will not
significantly impact the circulation system.
-26-
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 may eventually be provided bus service as
development occurs.
-27-
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.)
-28-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities -,in-the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The CVWD has
indicated its ability to serve the project's water and sewer needs. The construction of the
proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
-29-
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 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 33 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts
and is consistent with the General Plan.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
-30-
the site will generate PM 10. Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts can be mitigated
through the implementation of mitigation measures as well.
-31-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-32-
.,-:
O
c�
0
U
3
zo
Itt
.N
I
N
••
a,
O�
�N
••pA
•
azE�
riwVO
WV�pC
��O
a
ell
�I
U
a
i
to
N
a
�
i
M
ce
p
N
C'
oN
U
Q
H
cd
o
w
w�a
A
V
W
I\
F
A
U
p�q
�A
�VW
OV
y
IS
a
o
o
d
o
d
0
z
c,,
bo
a
a
bn
'+
O
Obo
y
o
o
o
U
V
U
bn
U
bn
bA
Q
1-4
.,
.�
a
aa.a.aa�b
A
A
A
.A
G7
a
>
00
A
A
A
A
5
b
a
Al
V
U
U A
.�
N
cod
1
N
vOi
Obo
b
CY
0
3
0...
N
cd
o ,�
N a� p
`;
f.,
N "d
N
A
a
Cd
v� -o
�.,
W
En ' Q
E�
A
U pq
�A
a
Ox
VU
W
H
O
•O
U
a
U
a
z
E�
c
cri
N
�
0
A
a
o�
a
a�
ct
z
.
a�
o
to
�a
m
�
c
[..�
W
O U
'bA
cz cz
U to
.O
•
to rl
b
U
CZ
O
cz 4
In.
V
a�
L _
'C'
0 3
E-�
A
4
W
o
�
C4
a�
w a
$-.,
O
�n
c
cd
a�
O to
.00d
a �b
a
a �
o
v7 PO
A
G
a
•�'
UA
p
�°
H
>1
O
N
a�
a�
Ucn
�D
E-�
A
V pq
�A
�w
O�
U
U
U
� a
b
a
C .O
•�
O � U
O
QI Cr U
a
OV
�O
z r
�,
a0
A
�o
0
H
� �
3
.d O
bo
W
U �
C'n
o
Z
^,
d N
o cd