Loading...
CC Resolution 2004-149RESOLUTION NO. 2004-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-091, ZONE CHANGE 2003-112, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-074 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES AND WESTPORT LA QUINTA, L.P. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 71h day of December, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for Environmental Assessment 2003-470 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2003-091, Zone Change 2003-112, Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Specific Plan 2004-071 and Site Development Permit 2003-762 which allows a senior retirement community, located at the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN'S 646-070-013 AND 770-040-012 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 91h day of November, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. for Environmental Assessment 2003-470 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2003- 091, Zone Change 2003-1 12, Conditional Use Permit 2003-074, Specific Plan 2004- 071 and Site Development Permit 2003-762 and recommended certification by adoption of Resolution 2004-084; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 27, 2004, for the City Council meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: Resolution No. 2004-149 Environmental Assessment 2003-470 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: December 7, 2004 Page 2 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-470. 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. Potential. impacts associated with cultural and paleontologic resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed- development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of senior residential housing will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan build -out. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. Resolution No. 2004-149 Environmental Assessment 2003-470 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quints, L.P. Adopted: December 7, 2004 Page 3 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-470 and said reflects their independent judgment. 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. 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 2003-470 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-470 reflects the CouncH's independent judgment. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 7tn day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Mayor Adolph NOES: Council Member Sniff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2004-149 Environmental Assessment 2003-470 Pacific Retirement Services and Westport La Quinta, L.P. Adopted: December 7, 2004 Page 4 n." Na".. DON ADOLP , Mayo City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JU S. CREE4CC.City Jerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: C M. AT ER E JENSON, ' � Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 03-091, Zone Change 03-112, Specific Plan 04-071, Conditional Use Permit 03-074, Site Development Permit 03-762, La Paloma Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quints 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The Northeast and Southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50. APN: 646-070-013 and 770-040-012 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Westport La Quinta LP 3801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 805 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Pacific Retirement Services 1200 Mira Mar Medford OR 97504 6. General plan designation: Current, northeast corner: Low Density Residential Proposed, northeast corner: Medium High Density Residential :Current, southeast corner: Office Proposed, southeast corner: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current, northeast corner: Low Density Residential Proposed, northeast corner: Medium High Density Residential :Current, southeast corner: Office Commercial Proposed, southeast corner: Medium Density Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project includes lands on the east side of Washington Street, both north and south of Avenue 50. The project proposes the development of 216 assisting living units, 20 skilled nursing beds and 18 dementia care beds on a total of 21 acres. A number of applications have been filed, as follows: General Plan Amendments (GPA) and Zone Changes (ZC): On the northeast corner of Washington Street, a GPA and ZC from the current designation of Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential on 14.01 acres of land. On the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, a GPA and ZC from the current designation of Office to -1- Medium Density residential on 7.67 acres of land. Specific Plan: A Specific Plan which establishes the design standards and guidelines for a 254 unit retirement community, consisting of independent and assisted living units, skilled nursing units, and a dementia unit. Most of the buildings are proposed to be two story in height. Access to the northeast portion of the site is proposed on both Washington Street and Avenue 50. Access to the southeastern site is also proposed on both streets. The access points on Avenue 50 are offset, and would be separated by a median on Avenue 50, so that direct vehicular access could not be gained from one side to the other. Interior driveways circle each site, and are proposed to be 26 feet wide. Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit is required to allow "congregate care facilities" in the Medium High and Medium Density Residential category. Site Development Permit: A site development permit is required to allow the construction of the facility based on the standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Northeast Corner: North: Existing single family homes (Low Density Residential) South: Avenue 50, Vacant desert lands included in project (Office) West: Washington Street, Existing single family residential, golf course (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Watercourse/Flood Control) Southeast Corner: North: Avenue 50, Vacant desert land included in project (Low Density Residential) South: Vacant desert land, La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Office, Watercourse/Flood Control) West: Washington Street, Existing single family residential, golf course (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Avenue 50 and La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Watercourse/Flood Control) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance - Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the �-- environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed .project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. October 31, 2004 Signature Date RI! EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation. Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. -4- 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -5- 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) Washington Street is a Primary Image Corridor as defined by the General Plan, while Avenue 50 is designated a Secondary Image Corridor. These designations require that enhanced landscaped setbacks be provided. Additionally, the City requires that height restrictions be implemented adjacent to the roadways. The proposed project will include single story development closest to Washington Street, and two story development for he balance of the site. The northern site is located adjacent to single story residential development on its northern boundary. The buildings along the northern boundary will be set back at least 55 feet from the property line, and are generally not massed on this line. These buildings will be a maximum of two stories in height. Single family development, should it have occurred Qn the site, could also have been two stories in height. There are no significant natural features on the site. Impacts associated with visual resources are not expected to be significant. The construction of the proposed project will cause an 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. Further, residential lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. Impacts will not be significant. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. There are no agricultural activities within several miles of the project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) 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, Project Study) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Project Study) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The emissions from vehicles have the greatest impact on air quality in the City. The proposed project is estimated to generate up to 617 average daily vehicle trips'. This trip generation level is very low due to the nature of the senior care facility. Should the project not be built, the General Plan Amendment could generate up to 260 multi -family residential units. These units could generate up to 1,724 daily trips if the project were a market project. In order to calculate the most conservative potential impacts, the calculations provided below are based on 1,724 daily trips. "La Paloma Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004. ''— Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total- No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 1,724 x 15 = 25,860 PM10 PM10. PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 2,327.40 60,512.4012,412.80 - 258.60 258.60 Pounds at 50 mph 5.14 133.58 27.40 - 0.57 0.57 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1724 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 maximum potential units on the project site would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts associated with vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (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 BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate dust during grading. Under mass grading conditions, the site could generate up to 572.35 pounds of dust per day while grading is active, without mitigation. 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. -9- 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. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 10. Landscaping of the landscaped parkway on Washington Street and Avenue 50 shall be completed immediately following precise grading of the sites. 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 is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant. Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) 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? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as *a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IV. a)-f) Both sites have been significantly impacted by roadway development and surrounding development. The northern site is surrounded by roadways on two sides, existing single family development on the north, and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel on the east. The southern site is triangular in shape, and has streets on two sides and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel on the third. The sites are sparsely vegetated, and isolated, and do not provide significant habitat. The sites are not within a special study area for species of concern in the General Plan. No impacts associated with biological resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Only the northern site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan's fee mitigation area. Development on that portion of the project will be required to pay the fee in place at the time of development. -12- 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, September 2004) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15 ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) V. a)-b) & d) Cultural resources studies were completed for both proposed project sites2. The investigations included both records searches and field investigations. Southern Site A scatter of historic/modem refuse and prehistoric isolates were found on the southern project site. The study further determined that although impacted, the southern site may yield sub -surface resources, and that the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: l . A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present on site during . any earth moving activities. Should the monitor identify a resource, he shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities until such time as the resource can be properly identified and processed. The archaeological monitor shall be required to prepare a report at the end of earth moving activities and file such report with the Community Development Department. 2 "A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of 7.63 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Avenue 50 and Washington Street, City of La Quinta," prepared by McKenna et al., January 19, 2000. Also "Cultural Resources Report Desert Club Manor Project," prepared by CRM Tech, April 1998. -13- Northern Site A potentially significant location was recorded on the site, CA-RIV-6074, which requires further investigation, in order to assure that the potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to assure that potential impacts to CA-RIV-6074 are reduced to less than significant levels: 1. Prior to any earth moving activities on the site, a Phase II investigation shall be conducted for CA-RIV-6074. The results of the investigation shall be provided in a report to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. The implementation of these mitigation measures shall ensure that all potential impacts associated with cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. V. c) Neither site occurs within the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No impacts to paleontologic resources are expected. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (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 proposed project is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City implements the most stringent provisions of the Uniform Building Code for seismically active zones. These provisions will apply to the proposed project. The site is not located in an area with a high potential for liquefaction, and is some distance from any hillsides, so is not subject to. landslides. The mitigation measures provided under air quality will assure that potential soil erosion from wind are mitigated. The potential impacts associated with soil -15- erosion due to rain storms will be addressed in the preparation of final grading plans for the site. The soil type on and in the vicinity of the project are not considered expansive. The proposed project will be connected to CVWD sewer systems, and will therefore not require septic tanks. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -16- 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? (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 -17- emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will consist of a senior living facility, and is not expected to generate hazardous materials. In the nursing care section of the facility, requirements imposed by the County of Riverside for health care facilities will be implemented if required. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be insignficant. The site is not located in a wild land fire area. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact - Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- 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, -18- 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 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. 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, 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) Both sites are located adjacent to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, a regional flood control facility managed by CVWD. The City will allow discharge of storm flows into the Channel, with approval from CVWD, without retention on the site. The project proponent ,_.., is proposing to implement such a direct discharge on the project site. CVWD has standards and requirements for such discharge to assure that waters are not polluted when they enter the channel. These standards will be implemented for the proposed project, assuring that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. -19- VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. 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 will result in 254 senior living units on 21 acres. The current General Plan designations for the two properties could result in approximately 56 single family homes on the northern site, and approximately 107,000 square feet of office space on the southern site. The proposed Medium High and Medium Density Residential land use designation could result in up to 260 apartments or similar multi -family residential land use. The intensity of the two sites will change, increasing on the north side, and decreasing on the south side. The location of the proposed project is highly impacted, and is not ideal for Low Density Residential development, due to noise and traffic. The increase in density, and the configuration of the project, are likely to result a more appropriate housing product on the northern site. The location of offices on the southern site is appropriate for a major arterial roadway. However, the development of offices on the site has not occurred, and the proposed project may be a higher and better use of the property. The General Plan supports the development of a variety of housing . types throughout the City. The proposed project does not occur elsewhere in the City, and will provided another living option for City residents. The development of apartments, should the project not go forward, would similarly provide another residential option for City residents. -20- The northern project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the appropriate fee at the time of development. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," Urban Crossroads, July 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) -22- XI. a)-f) A noise impact analysis was conducted for the proposed project3. The study found that the development of the project will result in both short term (construction) and long term (operational) noise impacts which could be significant without mitigation. The study found that the current noise environment at both project sites currently exceeds the City's standards for residential development, ranging from 68.6 dBA CNEL on Avenue 50 to 71.6 dBA CNEL on Washington Street. On the northern project site, no outdoor living areas are proposed in proximity to the street, and therefore no mitigation is required. On the southern site, however, outdoor living areas for the cottages are proposed, which would be subject to unacceptable noise levels if not mitigated. The study further found that interior noise ' levels will exceed acceptable City standards, for the cottages located on the southern site. Mitigation measures proposed below will reduce these impacts to within City standards. The proposed project will also generate noise during its construction. Although the potential impact is short term and temporary, it can be uncomfortable for adjacent residents. In the case of the proposed project, single family residential units are located immediately north of the northern site. Mitigation measures are included below to reduce the potential impacts to these residents to less than significant levels. In order to mitigate noise levels on the project site to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. A six foot wall on a one foot berm shall be constructed on Washington Street, adjacent to the southern portion of the site. The wall shall be of solid construction, with no breaks or openings. 2. A six foot wall shall be constructed on Avenue 50, adjacent to the southern portion of the site. The wall shall be of solid construction, with no breaks or openings. 3. A windows closed condition shall be provided for all buildings on the southern site shown on Exhibit U A of the noise impact analysis as requiring this condition. A mechanical. ventilation system shall be provided for all these units. 4. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and mufflered, and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 5. Stockpiling and staging areas, as well as servicing and fueling of equipment for the northern site shall be located adjacent to Avenue 50. 6. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 7. A final noise analysis shall be completed when final lot layout and pad elevations have been completed to assure that the wall requirements are sufficient to meet the City's standards. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip. "La Paloma Retirement Community Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The development of the project site will not induce substantial growth, either with the construction of the proposed project, or under a multi -family development scenario. The sites are currently vacant, and development will displace no one. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ' public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will have no impact on schools. The project will be required to pay the City's park fees for development of off site park facilities. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will contribute park fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATIONMUFFIC -- 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)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Urban Crossroads, July 2004) 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? (Site Plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Site Plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) -27- XV. a)-g) A traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project4. The study analysed the impacts of a senior care facility as described above. The study did not analyse the potential impacts associated with development of up to 260 multi -family residential units. The traffic study found, as stated under the air quality section, that the proposed project will generate 617 average daily trips. The study further found that studied intersections will operate within City standards with and without the proposed project, and concluded that impacts of the proposed project on traffic levels would be less than significant. The study also analysed project design and turning movements into and out of the facility, and found that they could be hazardous, without mitigation. The study did not include analysis of the proposed project as a multi -family development, should the General Plan Amendment be approved and the proposed project not constructed. As described above, a multi -family project has the potential to generate 1,724 daily trips, or almost three times that estimated for the proposed project. Should the General Plan Amendment be approved, and the project not built as expected, the potential traffic impacts could be significant, without mitigation. The site is located within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Given the independent living portion of the project, residents are likely to utilize transit if available. In order to assure that project impacts are adequately mitigated, the study includes several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Driveways on Washington Street shall be restricted to right -in -right -out access only. 2. Driveways on Avenue 50 shall be restricted to right -in -right -out -left -in only. 3. A 100 foot long east -bound left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 50 to allow safe access to the northerly site driveway. 4. A 100 foot long west -bound left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 50 to allow safe access to the southerly site driveway. 5. Any project proposed for the project site which is not a senior care project shall be required to prepare a traffic impact analysis which is project specific and reflective of the project proposed. With implementation of these mitigation measures, overall impacts to traffic are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. 4 "La Paloma Residential Development Traffic -Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2004) -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -29- XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 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 the potential to impact cultural resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types to future City residents, and is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. -31- XVII. c) Development of the proposed project is likely to have lower cumulative impacts than the current General Plan designations overall. The increase in residential density is off -set by the decrease in commercial office lands. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to ' adversely affecthuman beings, due to air quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures provided in this report reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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- G Cd 0 U Cd ,.t 0 0 o c o z o O Z a qtt O .� W ° a QF �wwcn Cd 0 0 a� cn comma � 0 •mac o a a c� c a CY cts 0 cd •�' o o, ai , O ib1D�d� o +ram, a, L7UUA��� .. O z� z a� I�1 A U W d E+ Q U p�q �A av ox UU a .ad .= o cqsod ri W � c G7 o c c o o a EA W co cd u cd j+-o +.* tb E a a`aao,-tb A Q ACc a a� a A ad C cd co z "' O o °' . c. off, Cd U U CQ Uz cd E„ ... Cd a� � � 1-4o i � ' o -v Cd °'• � � • cy `� Z. o �, � o r.� 3 -o o o � a� o- o A c g �... U a b c $" o c. c U c cd d N 3 E .� o o, F [w A A a� a� UU �U a Cd a � • rFr C]. � U y an c z ,r- C E Cd O G4 cd Cl. bA a O • a O Q • i, a a as v� F rig F > a� zz o Q zz O A w00 w UA o UCd v� a� ��� L�� ° 1. (� ^ �w 0 p bA 40. as COO) 00 �� U O boat A4 E � • en LVN C,3 as Ux F A �A a� a U Ox UU Q w F O C C C U rA c rA z0-0 U U �+CIS Cd U F � � O O O O O ' U. �. O i.. O • L. a o� ch Cd co co z a0 Q Q Q �o Q z � ¢ O cz ° 0 CAco C .O •O � s s x c �U C C � C O V U U � C C A A CL, a�i aCi aCi A A A C C C o � a� c. y � C O O �+ O > Q C L: O U v� W Q V p�� A a� U Ox UU . d � O O O U y s s s rA s ��"•• c� C C j 3 enL- ONO� (A A A A A > zz 0� rA m Q a a a V A o v OC ONO _ o N Zn 0+0 •�` C O y 0 0 {..