Loading...
CC Resolution 2007-035 Griffin Ranch EA 2006-577 (SP 2004-074 Amend 1)RESOLUTION NO. 2007-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GRIFFIN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34642 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-577 TRANSWEST HOUSING WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 17'hday of April, 2007, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, to consider adoption of Environmental Assessment 2006-577, prepared for Specific Plan 2004-074 Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract 34642, (hereinafter "Project"), located generally on the south side of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street, and west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 15, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission did, on the 27' day of March 2007, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2006-577, prepared for the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27" day of March, 2007, after thoroughly considering the Environmental Assessment, the staff report and presentation, the presentation by the Applicant, public testimony and written submissions, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-012, recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2006-577, prepared for the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2006-577) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be adopted; and, Resolution No. 2007-035 Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch April 17, 2007 Page 2 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did make the following findings to adopt 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 2006-577. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Development of the site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontological resources. However, the mitigation measures included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. 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. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 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 addition of 90 residential units to the existing project will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. Resolution No. 2007-03 5 Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Rench April 17, 2007 Page 3 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and development of the site will generate PM10; however, several mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality have been incorporated into the project approval. 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 2006-577 and said reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 7&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 in this case; 2. That is does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2006-577 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 17`h day of April, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: Resolution No. 2007-035 Environmental Assessment 2006-577 Transwest Housing, Griffin Ranch April 17, 2007 Page 4 AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None V W 4r�4 DON A OLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHE E JENSO ty Attorney City of La Quinta, Cali is Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Specific Plan 2004-074, Amendment #1, Tentative Tract Map 34642, Griffin Ranch 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: South side of Avenue 54, between Madison and Monroe Streets. APN 767- 320-007, -009, -014, -015. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Trans West Housing 47120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential Residential 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 Specific Plan Amendment proposes the addition of 45 acres to approved Specific Plan 2004-074, which is currently under development. The addition would provide design standards and guidelines for the development of 45 acres of land into single family residential lots, as well as lots for open space and streets. The parcel will be integrated into the balance of the Griffin Ranch Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment will permit the enlargement of the clubhouse to a range of 20,000 to 35,000 square feet. The Specific Plan amendment also includes the modification of lot size minimums from the previously approved 12,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet. Lot sizes under the amended Specific Plan will range from 11,000 to 40,000 square feet. The amended Specific Plan will result in the construction of up to 393 single family residential lots on 244 acres. The Tentative Tract Map implements the Specific Plan amendment by subdividing the land into 90 single family residential lots of at least 10,990 square feet, as well as lots for storm water retention, open space, streets and landscaping areas. The adopted Specific Plan, and associated applications, were analyzed under Environmental Assessment 2004-526, which was approved at the time of Specific Plan approval. Subsequent review and approval, under Environmental Assessment 2006-574, was undertaken for the approval of an associated equestrian facility, approved earlier this year. That Environmental Assessment is the basis of this document. Mitigation measures included in the original document, and still germane based on the analysis contained herein, are maintained in this document. Throughout this document, cumulative analysis is provided. That is to say that the impacts associated with the project currently under consideration have been added to those in the original proposal, in order to assure comprehensive review. The original Specific Plan proposed 303 single family residential lots ranging in size from 12,000 to 40,000 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surrounding: North: Avenue 54, single family residential and golf course South: Existing single family home, lands in agriculture East: Monroe Street, agricultural lands West: Madison Street, single family residential and golf course 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, of participation agreement) Coachella Valley Water District 51' 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) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 3 -/a- a1 - Date -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequate supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following eai question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sourc show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the proje falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expo 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 o site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then tl checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less th, significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR required. 4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where tl incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significa Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigatic measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant lev (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 CEQ process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaratio. 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 we within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant i applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated 4 refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specif conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informatic sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to tt page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used < individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; howeve lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to 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 -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quints General Plan Exhibit X 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) 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)-c) The project site is currently partially developed as the construction allowed on the approved Specific Plan is under way. Madison Street and Avenue 54 are designated Agrarian Image Corridors in the General Plan. As such, the project is required to provide enhanced landscaped parkways along both streets to meet the standard of this designation. The proposed addition to the Specific Plan will continue the landscaping and trail proposed along Avenue 54. On Monroe, a 20 to 45 foot wide landscaped parkway, to include a trail, is also proposed along the entire property boundary. The proposed project will include single family homes of up to two stories in height. The size of the lots (from 10,990 to 40,000 square feet) and the limitation of single story development within 150 feet of Madison or Monroe Streets or Avenue 54 will limit the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the _project. The residential, low intensity character of the project, and the enhanced parkway and trails provided on the perimeter of the site, will serve to limit visual impacts associated with the project site. The overall impacts associated with development of the site are expected to be less than significant. There are no significant scenic resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. d) The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. The City standard, combined with -5- the nature of the land use proposed, will assure that impacts are less than significant. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. I11-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use, Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is located adjacent to single family residential development and golf course on the west, north and portions of the south boundary. Portions of the amendment area, lands to the southeast, and lands to the east have been or are in agriculture. The site is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the City, and is not currently under Williamson Act contract. The loss of the 45 acres of agricultural use within the project site will not be significant. The proposed project will not prevent the continued use in agriculture of lands to the southeast and east. However, in the long term, this area of the City is expected to develop according to the General Plan land use designations assigned to the property, and to build out in residential developments of varying sizes. Overall impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be insignificant. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa< 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 net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nort- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- c) An air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The analysis include both the amendment area and the cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan plus th amendment area. The analysis found that the proposed project will not exceed an SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction or operational and sourc emissions at project build out. The study did find that during construction, dependin on the amount of construction not only on the project site but on other sites in the area thresholds of significance could be exceeded, and mitigation measures, as show below, were recommended. The study also included carbon monoxide hot spot analysis, which found that projet build out would not result in hot spots. In order to reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with air quality, th following mitigation measures shall be implemented: "Griffin Ranch SP 2004-074 Amendment 1 and Tentative Tract No 34642 Air Quality Impact Analysis," prepare by Endo Engineering, July 2006. -8- 1. A Fugitive Dust Control Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 2. The project proponent shall comply with all SCAQMD Rules, including but not limited to rules 403, 1108 and 1108.1, and 1113. 3. Earth moving activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 4. Building construction shall conform to Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 5. Landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible after the completion of grading activities. 6. Maximum vehicle speeds on unpaved construction roads shall be 15 mph. 7. Where feasible, low emission building materials should be considered for construction materials. 8. Construction specifications will include measures to prevent excessive air pollutant emissions, as detailed in the air quality study. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with air quality are mitigated to a less than significant level. III. d) & e) The project is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. The project will be located adjacent to a commercial stable (the associated Saddle Club), which is expected to have the potential to generate odors which could impact the residents of this project. The Saddle Club was reviewed under EA 2006-574. The analysis contained in that document, and associated mitigation measures, found that with implementation of a fly spray system, a minimum separation between project facilities and adjacent homes of 80 feet, and the regular removal of manure from the enclosed manure storage building, impacts associated with odors will be reduced to less than significant levels. -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impai 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 Iocal 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? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) 10- IV. a)-f) Biology studies have been prepared for the previously approved Specific Plan, and the amendment areal. The combined studies included the entire property, with a particular focus on those areas which are native desert lands. In the amendment area, approximately 65% of the land has been disturbed by agricultural activities. No listed species were found on the any portion of the project site. Surveys for desert tortoise and burrowing owl were negative on all portions of the site. No riparian or wetland habitat was identified on the project site. The study further found that the site does not occur within the fee boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and that no fee is therefore required. The site is also not considered a conservation area under the draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Griffin Ranch," and "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis for the proposed 40 acre La Quinta Residential Development, prepared by James W. Cornett, August 2004 and March 2006, respectively. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than 1 Significant Significant w/ Significant Im Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a)-d) Both Phase I and Phase II cultural resources studies were completed for the approve Specific Plan area, and a Phase I cultural resource study was completed for tl amendment area3. The study for the approved Specific Plan identified and recorded s potentially significant cultural resource sites within the project area, CA-RIV-75, through —7526. These sites consist of ceramic scatters and groundstone fragmen which require further evaluation in order to determine whether they are significant. order to determine their potential significance, a testing program was developed at implemented. This program involved the re -surveying, mapping and collection materials at the recorded sites. The survey of the amendment area found no resourc on the site, and determined that no additional investigations were required. TI potential impacts associated with the cultural resources at the site have therefore bet mitigated to less than significant levels with the recovery effort conducted on d previously approved site. In addition, the City will require, as a condition of approve the monitoring of ground disturbing activities, to assure that no buried resources a disturbed without appropriate recovery. V. c) The proposed project site lies within the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancie. lake Cahuilla. The study conducted for the amendment area found freshwater snE shells on the project site °. As with the balance of the site previously approved, in ord 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Griffin Ranch Project," prepared by CRM Tech, Septemb 2004; and "Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at Griffin Ranch," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2004; ai "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-009," prepared by CR Tech, April 2006. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Assessor's Parcel Number 767-320-009," prepared by CRM Tee April 2006. -12- to assure that potential impacts associated with paleontologic resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. A paleontologic monitor shall be on -site during ground disturbance of all areas likely to contain paleontologic resources. The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities, and shall quickly salvage fossils where identified. All resources recovered shall be properly- documented and curated. A report of monitoring activities shall be provided to the Planning Department within 30 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associated with paleontologic resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wl Significant Impai Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) 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 MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) 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)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and th City in general, is located in a seismically active area, and will experience stron groundshaking during an earthquake. 14- A geotechnical analysis was completed for the approved Specific Plans. Conditions or the adjacent amendment area are expected to be the same as those found on the Specific Plan area. The study found that development of a residential project on the project site is feasible, with the implementation of standards already in place at the City. The study included borings, which did not encounter water at a depth of up to R feet, indicating that the site is not subject to liquefaction. The site is not located adjacent to rock outcroppings or hillsides, and is therefore not subject to landslides of rock fall. The site is not located on expansive soils. The single family units on the project site will be connected to CVWD sewer systems, and will therefore not require septic tanks. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. 5 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Griffin Ranch Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering, August 2004. -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ft) h) Expose people or structures to a X l6- 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 development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for household use. These materials, however, are not expected to be hazardous, and are not expected in large quantities. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area6. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. No impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected. 6 "Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Griffin Saddle Club Addition," prepared by Proterra Consulting, February 2006. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than N Significant Significant w/ Significant Imp Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or 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 anted)? (General Plan EIR p.1II-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X 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 drainage X 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 which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental -18- Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a)-g) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use in the offices, 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, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant is proposing a series of open space/retention areas on the approved portion of the project site which will be used to retain storm water in the event of a storm. For the amendment area, storm water will be conveyed through the streets to catch basins, which will lead to storm drain pipes, which will discharge storm water to retention basins in the center and southeast comer of the amendment area. All basins have been sized to accommodate the projected storm flows. The hydrologic and hydraulic calculations associated with this system will be approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading permits for the project site. These existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impat Impact Mitigation Impact D{. 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 Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The amendment area is currently vacant, and its development will not divide a established community. The Specific Plan as amended, is consistent with the Ver Low Density Residential designation applied to all properties within the Plan area. The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valle Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. M111 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impat Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. Ill ff) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) A noise impact analysis was conducted for the approved Specific Plan. A separab noise analysis was conducted for the amendment areas. The studies analyzed thi potential noise impacts associated with the development of all lands covered by thi Specific Plan, as amended. The studies found that the development of the project wil 7 "Griffin Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map Air Quality and Noise Impact Study," Endo Engineering September, 2004 8 "Exterior Noise Analysis Tract 34642 — Griffin Ranch" prepared by BridgeNet International, July 2006. -22- result in both short term (construction) and long term (operational) noise impacts which could be significant without mitigation. The studies found that the noise levels associated with vehicular traffic adjacent to the project site have the potential to exceed the City's standards for residential land uses without mitigation on Madison, Monroe and Avenue 54. On Madison Street, the noise level without mitigation is expected to exceed 65 bBA CNEL at a distance of 186 feet from the centerline; on Monroe, noise levels will exceed 65 dBA CNEL at a distance of 113 feet from the centerline; and on Avenue 54 the 65 dBA CNEL is expected to extend to 66 feet from the centerline. The lots located with back yards abutting these streets will therefore have exterior noise levels in excess of the City's standard of 65 dBA CNEL, without mitigation. The project will generate noise associated with construction on the project site which will exceed City standards for a short period of time. In addition, noise generated by later phases of construction, including the amendment area, has the potential to impact residents within the project. In order to assure that the potential impacts associated with noise are adequately mitigated, the study recommends several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Construction on the project site shall occur only during the hours prescribed by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and mufflered, and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 3. Stockpiling and staging areas, as well as servicing and fueling of equipment, shall be located as far away from existing residential structures as possible. 4. A six foot wall on a one foot berm shall be constructed on Madison Street. A six foot wall shall be constructed on both Monroe Street and Avenue 54. All walls shall be of solid construction, without breaks or openings. 5. A final noise analysis shall be completed when final lot layout and pad elevations have been completed to assure that the wall requirements are sufficient to meet the City's standards. 6. An interior noise analysis shall be completed when ,building plans for individual houses are submitted, to assure that all residential units shall have interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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) Development of 393 single family homes within the boundaries of the Specific Plan, ; amended, will result in up to 983 persons residing in the Specific Plan area. This consistent with the land use designation for the property, and will not genera substantial population growth, but will rather be absorbed by existing growth rates the area. The amendment area is currently vacant, and the implementation of tl Specific Plan will not displace substantial numbers of persons. No impacts a anticipated. 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, F-T X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Build out of the amended Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact on public services. The project will be served by the. County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build out of the 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 continue to contribute to the construction of future public safety facilities through the City's Developer Impact Fee program. 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. The project will provide some on site recreational facilities, and will also be required to pay the City's park fees for development of off site park facilities. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impai 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; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will include on site recreational spaces/retention areas, and wi also contribute park fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. 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. I1I-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g- sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) Traffic Impact Analyses were prepared for both the original Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan amendment9. The studies found that the original Specific Plan will generate approximately 2,900 average daily trips (ADT), of which 223 would be 9 "Griffin Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map 32879 Traffic Impact Study," and "Griffin Ranch SP 2004- 074 Amendment No. I and Tentative Tract Map No. 34642 Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, September 2004 and November 2006, respectively. -27- during the morning peak hour, and 292 during the evening peak hour; while C amendment area will generate 940 trips per day, of which 72 will occur during tl morning peak hour and 97 during the evening peak hour. In total, therefore, U Specific Plan area will generate 3,840 daily trips. The studies also found that wi development of the project site, and surrounding development, studied intersectio: will operate within the City's established levels of service, with the implementation planned improvements and on -site improvements. In order to assure that project impacts are adequately mitigated, the study includ several mitigation measures, which are summarized below. 1. Monroe, Madison and Avenue 54 shall be improved to their build out hal width with development of the proposed project. 2. A Class II bikeway and golf cart path shall be located on Monroe, Madison at Avenue 54. 3. A left turn pocket shall be constructed in the median on Madison Street at tl project entry to allow for deceleration. 4. A right -turn deceleration lane shall be constructed on Avenue 54 at the eastel access on Avenue 54. 5. A left turn pocket shall be constructed on Avenue 54 at the eastern access c Avenue 54. 6. Lane geometries shall be as shown on Exhibit 5.1 of the traffic studies. 7. The project proponent shall contribute their fair share to signalization < Jefferson Street and Avenue 54, Madison Street and Avenue 54, Monroe Strei and Avenue 54, and, if warranted, Monroe Street and Firenze Gate. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is locate within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Wit implementation of these mitigation measures, overall impacts to traffic are expected t be reduced to a less than significant level. -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that 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 ti:) -29- XVI. a)-g) The Specific Plan and amendment area are currently served by CVWD for sanita sewer service. CVWD's treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability expand its capacity as demand rises. CVWD's Urban, Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficie water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the proposed proje and other projects in its service area in the long term. The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property, retain the 100 year storm, as required by the City. The City Engineer will review d plans to assure that storm flows are adequately contained, prior to the issuance grading permits. Domestic waste will be collected by Burtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Bum currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlanc and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate tl proposed project. -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The development of the Specific Plan has the potential to impact paleontologic resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types to future City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. 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, as the Specific Plan as amended still proposed fewer units than would be permitted under the Very Low Density Residential land use designation. -31- XVH. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to a quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures provided in this Initial Stm reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. -32- 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 2004-526 was used in the preparation of this Initial 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. -33- � q o ti v � q � 0 o � o o It to o 11) l� �w O .b y 0 � � U � z.. a wo �L�UT,7 NO 1-j O 0 o v 0 N o N L+ N drn A d zz z � U AU Wa rs E A �a a v�a OU V1 VI VI VI V) N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fay ¢ •o U d U v U � U d V v ¢ C U v U O .0 •C C C G O C Y O O O O U N C O a a .. s a � Oq U U U bq U o co 00 0o 0o no 5 m a A A C] Ll Q aai Q wz w a ❑ c c a ❑ c r z x fn t cz cl m m Fzl a oGo to to to to c GU U CG (A I.n d L C y„ N bq U b 'C N C r �� � •� y� C Or U 7 N FU ❑ n. �, o H 43 .� , Ei� a' o � � ,� •• C �. C e'u w 3 a v pa fin-" C C 0 Up r�ii U / \� (� uU 2 � 3 E / § \ ; w \ ( ( ( / /2 2 E E & & $ i a a a a Z � / \ \ to \ 2 :\ 2-6 7E §§ » #§ \2 � ®22 \) \ a 071 °� k ) \ } ) \ Cc a. / �} 2 Gy !e ;e u u E )§\ . u 0 u 7 \ )/ §§ u E§ § § _ } / u u k § ! / f _ ` ( / I 2 ) ) ) ) . \ \/ \ � § 6\ §\ � u \ \