Loading...
CC Resolution 2007-016RESOLUTION NO. 2007-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2006-081, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 35060 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-873 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-579 LAING LUXURY HOMES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 6th day of February, 2007 and continued to the 20" day of February, 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2006-579 for Laing Luxury Homes, prepared for Specific Plan 2006-081, Tentative Tract Map 35060 And Site Development Permit 2006-873, located at northwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 (extended) more particularly described as: APN 760-240-014 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of January, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2006-579 for Laing Luxury Homes, prepared for Specific Plan 2006-081, Tentative Tract Map 35060 And Site Development Permit 2006-873, located at northwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 (extended); 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 certifying said Environmental Assessment: 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 2006-579. 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 ran a of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California Resolution No. 2007-016 Environmental Assessment 2006-579 Laing Luxury Homes Adopted: February 20, 2007 Page 2 history or prehistory. Potential impacts associated with biological and cultural resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant paleontological resources. 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. Mitigation measures are included to assure no impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. 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 74 residential units 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 noise impacts. Noise impacts have been addressed through construction of perimeter walls, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 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 City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-579 and said Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). Resolution No. 2007-016 Environmental Assessment 2006-579 Laing Luxury Homes Adopted: February 20, 2007 Page 3 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 2006-579 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 2006-579 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 201" day of February, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None V ' 4 L DON ADOLPH, M or City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2007-016 Environmental Assessment 2005-579 Laing Luxury Homes Adopted: February 20, 2007 Page 4 ATTEST: VERONICA J. M�TECINO, CMC, City City of La Quints, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: RINE JEN,60VCity Attorney City of La Quinta, daWornia Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Specific Plan 2006-081, Tentative Tract Map 35060, Site Development Permit 2006-873 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Les Johnson 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 (extended) APN: 760-240-014 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Laing Luxury Homes 895 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 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.) Specific Plan to establish the design standards and guidelines for the development of 74 attached and detached single family homes on 28.33 acres. The Specific Plan also proposes that each lot be permitted one primary residence and 3 guest suites. The total potential units allowable in the Specific Plan is 288. The Specific Plan includes architectural and landscaping design guidelines, as well as infrastructure plans. Two types of housing are proposed: `Haciendas' will include 25 homes on a minimum of 10,320 square foot lots, and 49 `Bungalows' will have minimum 6,290 square foot lots. The Haciendas are proposed to be one-story homes along the southern and western property boundaries, and the Bungalows are proposed to be two stories in the center of the site. The Tentative Tract Map will allow the subdivision of 28.33 acres into 74 residential lots, as well as lots for private streets, retention basins, and open space or recreation lots. The Site Development Permit will allow the construction of the residential units on the subdivided lots. The project will be accessed by a central drive which will be gated. A second access point to Washington Street is being provided at the northeast corner of the site that will be shared with St. Francis of Assisi Church. CEQA analysis was previously conducted for this site under EA-2004-522. The acreage considered under that environmental assessment is consistent with that currently under review. The layout and product type, as well as design standards, have changed from the previous review. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant desert lands, parking lot and St. Francis of Assisi Church (Low Density Residential, ) South: Existing single family residential in Laguna de Is Paz (Low Density Residential) West: Vacant desert lands, hillside (Open Space) East: Washington Street, Vacant partially improved lands (Community Commercial) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District 90 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 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) ave been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEgLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon it proposed project, nothing further is required. 1 I I ZJ o Date -3- 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," maybe 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 -4- 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 wl 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 designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. As such, special landscaping and setback requirements will be applied to the project site. The proposed project includes retention areas immediately west of the Washington Street right of way. These retention areas are proposed to be approximately 150 feet in width, and will provide an open space area along Washington Street. The proposed project will include two story homes through the core of the site, with 25 single story lots along the south and west boundaries of the site. The site is immediately east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa mountains, which occur to the west. The two story units will therefore reduce views of the lower foothills for pedestrians and travelers along Washington Street. Due to the height of the Santa Rosas, however, the mid -range and peaks of the mountains will still be visible. Impacts to scenic vistas are therefore expected to be less than significant. The site is currently partially developed, with the remains of the Arts Foundation project. The developed area consists of terraces for exhibits, parking lots and un-maintained landscaping. A stabilized sand dune is located on the northwest corner of the site. The proposed project will re -grade the site to eliminate the below -grade parking lot, and will remove the sand dune. The site, when developed, will be at elevations 4 to 12 feet higher than the Laguna de la Paz project immediately south. Since the site rises in elevation from east to west, the greater grade differential will occur in the southwestern portion of the site. Within Laguna de la Paz at this location, is open space and perimeter roadway. The closest residential structure is over 100 feet southeasterly. The distance will allow residents within Laguna de la Paz views of the mid -range of the mountains, and the mountain tops, but views of the toe of slope will be blocked. However, the residences in El this area of Laguna de Is Paz have front yards and garages facing west and north, while the back yards face east and south. Therefore, these residences' primary views will not be impacted by the proposed project. Overall impacts will be less than significant. The primary source of light and glare upon build out of the site will be from automobile headlights and landscaping lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Lighting of the hillsides will be prohibited by mitigation measures associated with biological resources, below. Impacts will be less than significant. it Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 11. 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 X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) ]I..a)-c) The project site is located in an urbanized section of the City, and is not located near agricultural land uses. The closest agricultural lands are several miles to the south and east of the site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site, and the zoning of the property is Low Density Residential. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources associated with the proposed project. -8- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PMIO Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) M. a), b) & c) An air quality analysis was completed for the proposed project. The analysis was based on the assumption that as many as 128 residential units (74 main residences and 74 guest units) would be constructed on the site. The Specific Plan, as currently proposed, allows for three guest houses in addition to the primary residence on each lot. Therefore, it can be estimated that the air quality impacts associated with operation of the proposed project after build out of the project could be twice that described in the air quality analysis. To that end, the operational impacts are characterized on that basis below. Construction Impacts The analysis found that during grading of the proposed project, equipment emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, but without mitigation, fugitive dust emissions would be exceeded. The City requires the preparation of PMIO management plans for all construction projects. These plans implement the 2002 PMIO Plan by requiring the use of best available management measures in the grading of project sites. The plan to be prepared for the proposed project will be required to demonstrate I "Air Quality Analysis Canyon Ridge Residential Development," prepared by LSA Associates, December 2006. 19 that impacts associated with PM10 during grading are reduced to less than significant levels. This City requirement will assure that impacts associated with fugitive dust are reduced to less than significant levels. The analysis further found that construction emissions, including VOC emissions resulting from architectural coatings and asphalt paving, would be below thresholds of significance. Long Term Impacts As previously stated, the analysis conducted for the project assumed that up to 148 units would be constructed on the project site, while the Specific Plan allows up to 296 units. However, even if doubling the resulting emissions during operational activities of the project, impacts will be below thresholds of significance as established by SCAQMD, as demonstrated in the Table reproduced below from the air quality impact analysis. Table 1 Project Build Out Dail Emissions 148 units bs/da Source Dail Emission Rates CO ROC NOX SOX PM10 Stationary Sources: Summer 5.94 10.46 1.88 0.05 0.02 Vehicular Traffic: Summer 171.29 13.41 23.8 0.10 18.39 Subtotal Summer 177.23 23.88 25.68 0.16 18.41 Stationary Sources: Winter 1.05 9.76 2.47 0.00 0.05 Vehicular Traffic: Winter 203.96 16.63 28.48 0.11 18.39 Subtotal Winter 205.01 26.39 30.94 0.11 18.44 SCA MD Threshold of Significance 550 75 100 1 150 150 As demonstrated in the Table, even if 296 units were built within the project, thresholds of significance would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than significant. III. d) & e) The project will consist of residential units and will not result in 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 theproject: 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. 78 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? ("Biological Assessment..." James Comett, 2000) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ("Biological Assessment..." _ James Comett, 2000) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ("Biological Assessment..." James Cornett, 2000) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("Biological Assessment..." James Comett, 2000) 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? (General Plan I1- MEA, p. 78 ff.) IV. a)-f) Biological resource analysis was conducted for the previously approved La Quinta Arts Foundation projece. hi addition, a follow up investigation was conducted in February 2005 for the previously approved tract map, which followed the Arts Foundation approval3. These analyses, combined with consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, resulted in a series of mitigation measures in association with the project's adjacency to the Santa Rosa mountains. Since preparation of these mitigation measures, conditions have not changed, portions of the site have been developed for Arts Foundation facilities which have since been abandoned, and the mitigation measures described below still apply. The biological resource analysis, which included on -site surveying of the project site, found that the Palm Springs ground squirrel does occur on site. The Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, desert tortoise and the flat -tailed homed lizard were not detected. The proposed project will result in the loss of desert habitat. The project site is, however, isolated and already impacted by urban development, including development to the north, south and east, and illegal dumping activities which have occurred on -site. There are no wetlands or riparian areas on the project site. The proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, the project proponent shall be required to contribute the mitigation fee in place at the time that building permits are issued. The western edge of the property occurs within the boundary of critical habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The proposed project does not propose the construction of homes on the hillsides. The construction of facilities for drainage along the western property line will require excavation along the western property line, at the toe of slope, which has a potential to impact bighorn sheep. The proposed grading plan, however, limits activities to only the property itself, not the open space lands located immediately to the west. The project will be conditioned to require the presence of a grading monitor whenever grading operations occur in this area of the project site, in order to assure that the grading activities do not encroach into the open space lands. In order to assure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. No blasting, ripping or excavation shall be permitted above the toe of slope, as defined in the La Quinta Municipal Code, between January 1 and June 15 of any year. 2. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) for the proposed project shall monitor the project site any signs that bighorn sheep are entering the site. The HOA shall request a list of indicators used to identify sheep presence from DFG prior to grading of the site. The HOA shall take steps to ensure that any observations of bighorn sheep on or near the project site are reported to DFG and the City immediately. If information suggests that bighorn sheep are entering the project 2 "Biological assessment and Impact analysis of the proposed La Quinta arts Foundation Center," prepared by James W. Comett, April 1999 and 2000. 3 "Canyon Ridge Biological Survey," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, February 2005. -12- site, the HOA shall construct, at its expense, an 8-foot fence between the development and the hillside. The fence shall not contain gaps of greater than 11 centimeters (4.3 inches). The Foundation shall notify DFG immediately upon receipt of the information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the project site, and seek any further guidance DFG has to offer regarding the construction of the fence. The fence shall be constructed within three months of the receipt of information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the project site. If requested to do so by DFG, the HOA shall, at its expense, construct temporary fencing to the specifications of DFG to prevent bighorn sheep from entering the project site pending construction of the fence. Any and all fencing constructed will be subject to the City's Hillside Conservation Overlay District. 3. The project developer shall submit a plan, approved by a biologist, which demonstrates that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on the site will not be harmful wildlife. 4. All exterior lighting shall be aimed away from the hillside. 5. The project landscaping plan will not expose wildlife to toxic materials. All exotic or toxic plans, such as Oleander and Prunis, and plants which are known to invade or degrade bighorn sheep habitat, such as tamarisk, fountain grass, shall be strictly prohibited. The landscape plan shall be approved by a certified biologist, which approval shall state that the proposed landscape materials are not known to be harmful to wildlife. Prohibited plant materials shall be included in the CC&Rs and provided to each homeowner adjacent to the hillside. 6. The project proponent and HOA shall design its project so as not to facilitate persons to enter onto the hillsides from the project site. To the extent that any portion of the project site begins to be used by persons to enter into the hillsides, the HOA shall post notices discouraging such use. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. 13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Signiflcant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? ("Archaeological Investigations..." ASM Affiliates, 2000) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? ("Archaeological Investigations..." ASM Affdiates, 2000) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V. a)-b) & d) Three cultural resource investigations have been conducted for the project site4. The first consisted of a site investigation and report, which recorded a potentially significant site, and recommended further analysis. The second consisted of an on -site excavation of the recorded site. A follow-up investigation was conducted in 2005, The project site includes three previously recorded sites, and one site recorded during the first site survey in 1998. Testing and data recovery had previously been completed on the three recorded sites in 1991. Careful grading and on -site monitoring were recommended in the first study. The second study, completed to report on the testing and data recovery at CA- RN-6214. This process concluded that the site is not significant beyond the recovery performed for the study. Because there have been previously deeply buried sites found in this area under sand dunes, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving or excavating activity on the undeveloped portions of the site, especially the dune in the northwest comer. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified. The project site is not known to have been used as a cemetery or burial ground. California law requires that any remains uncovered by grading activity be immediately 4 "A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the La Quints Arts Center Project,"; and "Archaeological Investigations of CA-RIV-6214...," prepared by ASM Affiliates, December 1998 and April 2000, respectively; "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Canyon Ridge Project," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2005. -14- reported to law enforcement authorities, which take the responsibility of notifying Native American tribes if the remains are found to be historic. This requirement will assure that there will be no impact to human remains as a result of the proposed project. V. c) The project site is outside the traditional lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No paleontologic resources are expected on the site. -Is- Potentially Signifcant 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 fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (MEA Exhibit 6.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-e) The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The homes to be built on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The site has been previously developed in its eastern portion, and will require filling. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that the filling of the site will be completed in a manner which results in proper compaction of the site. -16- The proposed project is located adjacent to an area subject to landslides and rockfall. No development is planned, however, on the slopes of the hillsides. The project proponent has included a rockfall barrier along the western property line. Impacts from these hazards are expected to be insignificant. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed. The site is located in an area of severe blow sand potential. The PM10 Management Plan required by the City to control fugitive dust is designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level. -17- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No 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? ("Phase I Enviromnental Site Assessment," Anacapa Geoservices, 2006) 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? "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," Anacapa Geoservices, 2006) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) -18- 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) VIL a)-h) The construction of the proposed homes will not have an impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous substances generated in the home. The site is not listed in state and federal databases for contaminated sites. The site is not located in an area which is subject to wildland fires. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIIl. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR v. 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. 111-187 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.) 0 Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance -20- 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) VIH. 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 for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The proposed project was considered in this analysis, insofar as it is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and General Plan land use designations were used by CVWD in determining potential demand for domestic water. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The proposed project is required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -site, per City standards. The project site is located immediately east of the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains. As a result, the project site currently accepts considerable up -slope flows during a storm event, in addition to the storm flows generated on the site itself. When the proposed project is constructed, areas which are currently in natural desert or permeable cover will be covered by impermeable surfaces. This will result in increased storm flows, and increased velocities of such storm flows. In order to assure that the proposed project retains these storm flows, and does not impact down -stream properties, the City Engineer has required the preparation of a hydrology analysis which describes the improvements required to assure the retention of the 100 year storm on site. The hydrology analysis has in turn led to the design of an on -site drainage system which consists of a series of surface drainage ditches along the western property boundary, which convey off -site flows to drainage structures within the proposed project. These drainage structures will convey water through the site through an underground system, which will also include catch basins throughout the site to collect on -site flows. The drainage system will ultimately discharge into the retention basins at several locations. The retention basins have a capacity of 9.01 acre feet, which will contain the 100 year storm, with a freeboard area at the top. The hydrology study demonstrates that the retention basins are adequately sized to retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on site. The City Engineer will continue to review the analysis as final plans are prepared, and must approve the final hydrology study prior to the issuance of permits for development of the -21- site. This requirement will assure that impacts associated with storm flows will be reduced to less than significant levels. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX, a)-c) The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with this designation, and proposes the construction of 74 single family homes, when up to 113 could be allowed. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a guest house on a single family lot. The proposed Specific Plan includes provisions for the construction of up to three guest houses on each lot. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to allow variations in City standards, and creative development. The addition of the guest houses within the project boundary is not expected to significantly alter the character of the single family residential neighborhood created by the proposed project. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The project proponent will be required to contribute fees in effect at the time of issuance of permits in compliance with that Plan. -23- 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 Enviromnental 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 consists primarily of coarse sands. The site is located in a fully urbanized area of the City, on a major roadway, and is not considered suitable for mineral resources. -24- 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 X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (`Noise Impact Analysis," LSA 2006) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? "Noise Impact Analysis," LSA 2006) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (`Noise Impact Analysis," LSA 2006) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA 2006) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) A noise impact study was completed for the proposed projects. The study found that the noise levels currently on Washington Street exceed the City's standards for sensitive receptors, and are 71.0 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline. The study further found that the noise level at this location at General Plan build out will be 73.6 dBA CNEL. Since the project is proposing residential structures, the noise levels must be mitigated to "Noise Impact Analysis Canyon Ridge," prepared by LSA, December 2006. -25- an exterior level of 65 dBA CNEL, and the interior noise levels must not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. As currently planned, units closest to Washington Street will be approximately 190 feet from the center line of Washington, and will experience noise levels of 69 dBA CNEL without mitigation. This noise level exceeds the City's standard, and represents a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as described below. The study further found that if second floor balconies are proposed on the units closest to Washington Street, they will also experience noise levels in excess of the City's standard, and will also require mitigation to reduce the noise impact to a less than significant level. Finally, the study found that the interior of residences within 1,076 feet of the center line of Washington will experience noise levels in excess of 57 dBA CNEL with windows open. This is also a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. Noise will be generated during project construction. Construction equipment, particularly that used during the grading process, can generate noise levels over 85 dBA for short periods. The proposed project is located immediately north of the existing Laguna de la Paz residential development. It is likely that the grading of the site will result in noise levels which exceed the City's standards. Although construction noise is temporary, periodic and short-term, it is a potentially significant impact to the adjacent residents, which requires mitigation. 1. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the Municipal Code. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly functioning and maintained mufflers. 3. All storage and staging areas, as well as equipment servicing areas, shall be located along the northern property line of the proposed project. No storage or staging shall be permitted adjacent to Laguna de Is Paz. 4. A six foot wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the site on Washington Street. 5. Second floor balconies facing Washington Street shall require a 6 foot high perimeter barrier. This barrier can consist of CMU, Plexiglas, or a combination of both. 6. Air conditioning and ventilation systems shall be required for all units located within 1,076 feet of the Washington Street center line. With implementation of thesemitigation measures, impacts associated with noise at the site are expected to be less than significant. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X . in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The construction of 74 single family homes will not induce substantial population growth, but will instead accommodate normally occurring growth patterns in the area. The site is currently partially developed but vacant, and no one will be displaced. Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be non-existent. -27- 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.) XIlI. a) Build out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees and park in lieu fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. The proposed project will be required to provide for parks through adherence to the City's Quimby Ordinance, which requires the payment of in lieu fees for future parks acquisitions. -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation facilities throughout the City. The addition of 150 people to the community will not significantly impact existing recreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project includes a 0.47 acre "recreation lot" which is proposed to be an open green without specific facilities. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X pattems, 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)? (TTM 5060) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 35060) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 35060) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) The proposed project is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan. Under this designation, a total of 113 housing units could be allowed on the site. The Specific Plan proposes the development of 74 single family homes. The site will generate approximately 708 average daily trips, which are well within the trip generation analyzed in the General Plan EIR. That document found that traffic on Washington Street at build out of the General Plan would operate at an acceptable level of service. Since the proposed project will generate fewer units than originally envisioned, the impacts -30- associated with the proposed project are expected to be slightly lower than previously analyzed, and will be less than significant. The proposed project includes a secondary access point at its northeastern comer, which will provide adequate emergency access to the site. The Specific Plan includes a provision for tandem parking within garages for the proposed project, which is a variation from the City's zoning standards. However, the Specific Plan does not propose a reduction in the parking standards overall, so parking will be consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The project is not located in proximity to an airport or airstrip. The proposed project occurs on Washington Street, which is currently served by SunLine Transit. Residents and their guests will therefore have direct access to public transportation. Overall impacts to traffic are expected to be less than significant. -31- 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.) -32- 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 offset for the cost of providing services. The City's solid waste franchisee will transport waste generated by the project to thhe Flom Hill transfer station, where it will be consolidated and transported to one of several landfills in the region. All these landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Signiflcautw/ 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 biological resources. These impacts have been mitigated above to a less than significant level through the mitigation measures included in this document. Similarly, impacts associated with cultural resources can be mitigated to less than significant levels, as enumerated above. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and is therefore consistent with the goals of the General Plan for the property. The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, also a goal of the General Plan. XVII, c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. As previously stated, the traffic generated by the proposed project will be less than that -34- anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Similarly, the reduction in potential units on the site will reduce impacts associated with air quality, noise, and other environmental issues impacting the community. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. XVH. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to noise impacts. These impacts have been mitigated in this document to less than significant levels. -35- 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 2004-522 was used in the preparation of this report. 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. -36-