Loading...
CC Resolution 2005-053RESOLUTION NO. 2005-053 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 33597 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-541 APPLICANT: R. T. HUGHES CO., LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 5th day of July, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of R. T. Hughes Co., LLC for approval of Environmental Assessment 2005-541 for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 33597, referred to as the Project for the subdivision of 22.97 acres into 57 residential lots located at the southwestern corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street and more particularly described as: A.P.N: 766-1 10-016-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the — 14t' day of June, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution 2005-024 recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-541; 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 1" day of June, 2005 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 the 24" day of June, 2005; 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. 2005-053 Environmental Assessment 2005-541 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: July 5, 2005 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, there could be a significant environmental effect resulting from this project; however, the mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 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 2005-541. 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. 2005-053 Environmental Assessment 2005-541 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: July 5, 2005 Page 3 7. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant unmitigated 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 2005-541 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. 2005-053 Environmental Assessment 2005-541 R.T. Hughes Co. LLC Adopted: July 5, 2005 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of July, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Osborne ABSTAIN: None DON ADOLPH, ayor City of La Quinta California ATTEST: JUN REEK, CMC, City rk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: AANATIkRINE JEN49fi, City Attorney City of La Quinta, Ca ifornia Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33597 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Nicole Sauviat Criste 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: R. T. Hughes Co., LLC 78900 Avenue 47, Suite 201 La Quinta, CA 92253 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.) The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 22.97 acre parcel into 57 single family lots of 10,000 square feet or more. The site will be gated, and will be accessed from Avenue 60. No access is proposed on Madison Street. Construction of Madison Street will eventually result in a sloped roadway, rising above the southern half of the project site, to clear the Bureau of Reclamation levee located to the south of the site. On site retention is proposed at two locations adjacent to Avenue 60. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Low Density Residential/Avenue 60, vacant and single family homes South: Open Space/BOR levee West: Open Space/BOR levee, single family home East: Medium Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space/Golf course and single family homes 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Reclamation 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/Traf fic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ficant effect on the environment, nificant effect on the :ase because revisions in the :)ponent. A MITIGATED fect on the environment, and an ;ignificant impact" or "potentially gut at least one effect 1) has to applicable legal standards, on the earlier analysis as kCT REPORT is required, but it I. iificant effect on the have been analyzed adequately applicable standards, and (b) 3 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, d upon the proposed project, May 23, 2005 Date -2- 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. 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. A I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X F I. a)-d) The proposed project site is currently vacant. Views from the site are somewhat compromised by the occurrence of the Bureau of Reclamation levee which borders the site on the west and south. Country club development occurs or will occur to the north and east of the site. The proposed tract will result in the construction of single family homes which will be restricted by the Development Code to no more than two stories. The site will have no adjacent neighbors, other than the single family home which occurs to the west. This home's views are to the west and southwest, and the development of the project site will not have an effect on their scenic vistas. There are not scenic resources on the project site, which is currently vacant desert lands. The development of the site will be consistent with the development occurring surrounding the site, and will not impact the visual character of the area. When homes are built on the site, there will be two primary sources of light emanating from the site: landscape lighting and vehicle headlights. Given the isolation of the site, and the proposed location of a block wall, 6 feet in height, around the site, neither of these sources of light are expected to impact surrounding lands. In addition, the City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The ultimate construction of Madison Street from Avenue 60 southerly past the project site will result in a sloping roadway which rises above the southern portion of the project. The plans for Madison Street include a screen wall, located adjacent to the roadway and 6 feet in height, which will screen the project site from the vehicles and associated lights on this roadway. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. rI Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a► Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The site us located in a rapidly urbanizing portion of the City. The General Plan and Zoning designations for the property are Low Density Residential. Lands surrounding the site are currently developing, or are vacant desert. There are no agricultural lands adjacent or near the proposed project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site. No impacts to agricultural resources are expected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 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 X or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively X considerable 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) e) Create objectionable odors X affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The development of the site will generate emissions during the construction of the homes, and during the long term operation of the site as a residential subdivision. Each of these sources of emissions is discussed below. Construction The City, and the Coachella Valley as a whole, are in a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM10, a component of fugitive dust. In order to improve impacts associated with fugitive dust, the City participates in, and implements regional plans for its prevention and suppression, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for construction projects. Construction on the 22.97 acre site is likely to begin with mass grading. Based on SCAQMD factors for the generation of fugitive dust, mass grading would result in the generation of 606.59 pounds per day. This exceeds the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, but also likely over -states the potential impacts, insofar as only a portion of the 23 acres is likely to be actively graded during any one day. Nonetheless, mitigation is therefore required, as follows: 1 . 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Avenue 60, the slope easement area on Madison Street and the project's perimeter wall, shall be installed immediately following precise grading. 6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour The implementation of these mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts associated with grading activities to less than significant levels. Operations The ultimate construction of 57 single family homes on the project site will result in approximately 546 trips per day'. These trips will generate the following emissions. Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 546 x 15 = 8,190 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 1.63 42.31 8.68 - 0.18 0.18 SCAQMD Threshold (Ibs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 220 trips, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air. Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75' F, light duty autos, catalytic. The table demonstrates that the proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance at buildout. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. III. d) & e) The construction of single family homes on the site is not expected to generate objectionable odors, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. 1 "Trip Generation, 7"' Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single family detached. Potentially Significant Less Than Significant wl Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact t 1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: X a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) c) Have a substantial adverse effect X on 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? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) 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? ("TT33597 Biological Resources Assessment," AMEC April 2005) , e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological UL resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) IV. a)-f) A biological resource survey was conducted for the proposed project'. The study included both a literature search and an on -site investigation. The on - site investigation found that the site has been significantly disturbed, and that the primary plant community occurring on the site is Desert scrub, the most common plant community in the region. The survey determined that the site can be considered potential habitat for both Desert tortoise and burrowing owl, although neither species was sighted, nor was sign identified, on the site. To assure that these species are not impacted, mitigation is required, as follows. 1. Within 30 days prior to the initiation of earth moving activities on the site, a qualified biologist shall complete protocol -level surveys for Desert tortoise and burrowing owl. The survey results shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the initiation of any earth moving activity. There is no riparian or wetland habitat on the subject property. The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. 2 "Tentative Tract 33597 Biological Resources Assessment," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, April 2005. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (-Archeological Testing and Evaluation Report" CRM Tech April 2005) b) Cause a substantial adverse X change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Archeological Testing and Evaluation Report" CRM Tech April 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a X unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, X including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005) V. a)-b) & d) Cultural resource surveys have been prepared for the project site 3. The site was surveyed several years ago as part of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan project, at which time a potential prehistoric site was recorded on the subject property. A testing of that recorded site was performed, and determined that the historic component is not significant, being composed of modern target shooting detritus. The archaeological component of the site were excavated, and a number of items identified, consisting primarily of pottery sherds. The study concluded that the artifacts do not constitute a significant resource as defined by CEQA, and that impacts associated with construction of the project would be less than significant. Bone fragments identified at the site are to be repatriated to the appropriate Native American group. The site does, however, have the potential to yield further resources when earth moving activities are conducted for the construction of homes. The study recommends, therefore, that the following mitigation measure be implemented: 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Coral Mountain Expansion," prepared by CRM Tech, November, 2003; and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report Site CA-RIV-7205/H (33- 12956)" prepared by CRM Tech, April, 2005. I 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities on the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The monitor 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. Any resources found on the site shall be properly curated. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that potential impacts associated with cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. V. c) The project site occurs outside the boundary of the prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. No impacts associated with paleontological resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. 1 A Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 X fault, 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? (General Plan pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97- X 106) b) Result in substantial soil erosion X or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97-106) 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 (General Plan pages 97-106) e) Have soils incapable of X adequately 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 pages 97-106) VI. a)-e) The site will experience significant ground shaking in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is located adjacent to the Bureau of Reclamation levee, which carries water flows during storm events. The levee has been constructed to withstand significant seismic events, and is not expected to result in significant impacts to the homes, should an earthquake occur during a rain storm. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and will not be subject to landslides or rock fall hazards. The site is located in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The City requires, as part of the process of securing building permits, site specific geotechnical analysis of each property. The project proponent will be required to submit such an analysis, and to conform to any standards and requirements for liquefaction, should it be identified as a potential impact on the site. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service, and will not require septic tank systems. Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. 1 /_ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZAHUUUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the 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 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 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? ("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," CTL Environmental, May 2003) e) For a project located within an airport 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 private airstrip, would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X 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 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 57 homes proposed for the project site are not expected to generate, store or transport significant amounts of hazardous materials. The homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and similar materials. The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products, and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site4. The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents. The site survey did not identify any area where materials had been spilled or poured onto the soil. No impacts associated with hazardous materials on the site are expected. The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. 4 "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of SW Corner of Madison Street and 60" Avenue," prepared by CTL Environmental Services, May 2003. 10 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant wl Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: I X a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III- 187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year X flood 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 X hazard 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 and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, 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, which protect surface waters from contamination. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No 123.45, an irrigation water line. Prior to development of the site, the line must be relocated to assure that these waters are not impacted by project development. In order to assure that the irrigation water is not impacted by the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent" shall relocate Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 123.45 to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. — Vlll. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. In order to accomplish this, the project proponent has submitted a preliminary hydrology study5, to support the design of the flood control improvements on the site. These include a retention basin located at the northeastern corner of the property, which is proposed to have a capacity of 115,400 cubic feet of storage. The City Engineer will review and approve the hydrology for the project prior to the issuance of any permits for the site, which will assure that the impacts associated with storm waters are reduced to less than significant levels. Vill. e1-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. 5 "Preliminary Hydrology Report Coral Mountain Estates," prepared by Glenmorra Consultants, April, 2005. n 1 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 X use 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 X habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a►-c) The project site is designated for Low Density Residential development on both the General Plan and Development Code maps. The site is vacant, and will not impact an established community. The site is outside the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a 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 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.) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X — X. a) & b) The proposed project site is outside the boundary of areas within the City studied for mineral resources. However, lands immediately north and east are all designated in the MRZ-1 Zone, and it can therefore be expected no. mineral resources occur on the project site. 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 X generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or X generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase X in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or X periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an X airport 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 X of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) � A XI. a)-f) The area surrounding the project site is currently experiences relatively low ambient noise levels. The circulation surrounding the project is not expected to increase substantially, due to the lack of potential development in the area. Noise levels predicted in the General Plan EIR show that acceptable .CNEL standards can be maintained at the project site through design. The proposed project will include two 6 foot walls, and landscaped setbacks, which will reduce on -site noise from Madison Street and Avenue 60. The first wall will be located at the edge of the project, on all sides, including adjacent to the future location of Madison Street. The ultimate construction of Madison Street from Avenue 60 southerly past the project site will result in a sloping roadway which rises above the southern portion of the project. The plans for Madison Street include a second screen wall, located adjacent to the roadway and 6 feet in height, which will screen the project site from the vehicles and associated noise on this roadway. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The construction of the single family homes has the potential to result in temporary and periodically high noise levels associated with these construction activities. The development of the homes on the site will occur during the noisier daytime hours, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. The project is also required, as a mitigation measure under the air quality section, to construct its perimeter wall immediately following grading of the site. There is, however, a single family home occurring immediately west of the project site which could be impacted by construction noise. The home is surrounded by a wall. In order to assure that those impacts are reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. All equipment and construction staging and storage areas shall be located in the northeastern portion of the property, as far from the western property line as possible. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. With implementation of the above -listed mitigation measure, impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. I C 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 X growth 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 57 single family homes will not induce substantial growth, as the project site is designated for the single family development proposed in the General Plan. The construction of the homes will not displace existing housing or people. No impacts are expected. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact I 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) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, 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 and sales 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 in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the X use of 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 X recreational 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 57 units will not significantly impact recreational facilities. In addition, the project proponent will be required to contribute the park land mitigation fees in place at the time of recordation of the final map for the site. These fees are designated specifically for the purchase of land for recreational facilities in the City. no Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - - Would the project: X a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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.) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 111-29 ff.) X c) Result in a change in air traffic 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 X due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 339597) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? .(TTM 339597) f) Result in inadequate parking X capacity? (TTM 339597) g) Conflict with adopted policies, X plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) �A XV. a)-g) The development of 57 single family homes will result in approximately 546 average daily trips on City roadways. The project site is in an area with limited development potential, and is proposing 57 units, when the site could generate up to 92 units. Therefore, the proposed project is likely to result in lower impacts to the circulation system than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. For this area of the community, the EIR found that at General Plan buildout, levels of service would remain at acceptable levels. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The single family homes will be required to provide parking to City standards, which will include 2 car garages. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. �A potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X b) Require or result in the construction of 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.) X c) Require or result in the construction of 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 X sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan I / MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and X local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) 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. ^n Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less: Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- X a) Does the project have the potential to 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 X potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts X that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed ,in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have X environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The proposed project will result in potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. These impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels in this Initial Study. XVII, b) The proposed project will not have any impact on long term environmental goals, insofar as the property is designated for the land use proposed, and impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as the development of single family homes on this site was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and impacts associated with the project are expected to be equivalent or less than those in the EIR. XV11. d) The impacts associated with air quality and noise have the potential to significantly impact human beings. However, mitigation measures included in this Initial Study reduce those 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. Environmental Assessment 2003-483 was used in this Study. 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. ' A zAA a�x luu a�x 0 0U O w A UUi pa a X WUW OU a � .s U U a C7 on q a o� a� VIE-0 t O q b as z H 9 CIO cn >4 Cd o� bo U 'C7 H A U p�q a X �WUW OU a i a Eyw,q U U U an F cU 0 0 a a w� a� �O zr 00 A Ga o kn N_ � O cin U 0 � w d A Uz p�q d A a� aWWTvWW Uv a � O U Q, 0 U 0 U A x o� a� 40 9 th z ~ 4) q a� an 0 F 3 C� bo O b� O .� z cb O rn C3 cam.