Loading...
PCRES 2003-082PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-494, ZONE CHANGE 2003-03-115 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of September and on the 281h day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003- 479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide ±37.72 acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open space lot), generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201 Washington Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment 2003-479, and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. PC RESO EA 03-479.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003-082 Environmental Assessment 2002-462 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 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 in that the project site has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources 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 in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any wildlife resources on the site. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than significant levels as identified in 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 in that the site will be developed with less intensity than the current land use designations under the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which would affect human health, risk potential, or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003- 479 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. PC RESO EA 03 479.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003-082 Environmental Assessment 2002-462 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-479 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-479 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28" day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None /KIRK, Chairman of La Quinta, California PC RESO EA 03 479.rtf Planning Commission Resolution 2003-082 Environmental Assessment 2002-462 Jefferson -Waring, LLC October 14, 2003 ATTEST: lY FIRWAN, Community Development Director of La Quinta, California PC RESO EA 03 479.rtf Environmental Checklist Form I. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115, Tentative Tract Map 31348 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana 760-777-7125 4. Project location: West side of Washington Street, immediately south of Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center, and north of Crestview Drive APN: 604-050-009, -010, 643-170-001, -002 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Madison Development 71361 San Gorgonio Rd. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential, Medium Current: Low Density Residential, Density Residential, Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential, Open Space Community Commercial and Proposed: Low Density Residential Open Space Proposed: Low Density Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designations on ±12.23 acres from Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. The existing 8.87 acres in Low Density Residential located along the eastern section of the property will remain as such. The existing 16.62 acres of Open Space designated on the western half of the property will remain as such. The Community Commercial designation on the northeasterly portion of the property represents approximately 5.56 acres. The Medium Density Residential designation on the northern central portion of the property represents approximately 6.67 acres. The proposed change would result in Low Density Residential designations on all lands currently designated Community Commercial and Medium Density Residential, with the existing 16.62 acres in Open Space remaining as such. Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of 37.72 acres into 72 single family lots and one open space lot. Access to the project will be provided from both Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive, via a new roadway. An area of approximately 0.4 acres will be dedicated to on -site retention. Lots sizes range between 8,133 and 16,409 square feet. A draft and final EIR were previously prepared for a commercial project on the site. This -I- document, although not certified by the City, provides important technical background data on the project site, and has been used in preparation of this environmental document. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing commercial retail shopping center (Plaza La Quinta) South: Existing single family residential development West: Vacant, Open Space lands East: Washington Street, existing commercial retail shopping center (La Quinta Court) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population /Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 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. Signature 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 FIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. -4- 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, 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) 1. a)-c) The proposed project site has previously been a residential and agricultural site. An orchard is still present on the project site, as are some small structures. The proposed project will consist of single family residential dwelling units, which will be one story in height. The proposed change in land use designation will result in a lowering of potential impacts associated with scenic resources, since the structures can be expected to be smaller than those which would be constructed for a commercial project or a medium density residential project, both in bulk and height. The property is immediately adjacent to the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the construction of single family homes, either one or two stories in height, will not represent a significant obstruction to the slopes of the Santa Rosas. Overall impacts to aesthetic resources are expected to be less than significant. I. d) The project site will generate light from residential outdoor lighting, on a property which currently does not generate light. All lighting on the site will be regulated by the City's lighting ordinance, which ensures that lighting levels do not spill over onto other properties. This standard, combined with the low lighting levels generated by residential land uses, will ensure that impacts from light and glare are less than significant. -5- 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. 11I-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? (Project description, site photos.) II. a)-c) The proposed project site is still planted with date palms and fruit trees, and is at least partially in production. The site is not, however, considered to be prime agricultural land either in the City's General Plan, or in regional and state documents. The site is an isolated parcel now surrounded by urban development, and has limited potential for continued agricultural use. The significance of the site as an agricultural concern is primarily associated with potential historic issues, which are discussed further in Section V., Cultural Resources, below. The site will be converted to residential land uses which have the potential to maintain the character of an orchard, however, through the planting or relocating of date palms and fruit trees. This issue is discussed further in Section V. As an isolated and low -production date farm, the site has limited value for agricultural production, and is surrounded by urban land uses, and impacts associated with the loss of this parcel to agriculture are expected to be less than significant. Iris Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will consist of the development of 72 single family residential units, associated improvements, and, one open space lot. The residential units will generate approximately 708 vehicular trips per day at buildout. These trips will generate the following emissions of criteria pollutants. -7- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day 708 x 7 = 4,956 Pollutant ROC CO NOX PM10 PM10 PM10 Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 446.04 11,597.04 2,378.88 49.56 49.56 Pounds at 50 mph 0.98 25.60 5.25 0.11 0.11 SCAQMD Threshold 75 550 100 150 (lbs./day) Assumes 72 market rate homes, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts associated with these pollutants are therefore expected to be less than significant. The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue.These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 995.3 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In order to mitigate the potential impacts associated with PM10 dust generation at the site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. M Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Crestview Terrace shall be installed with the first phase of development. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 10. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM10 Management Plan. R 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, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental 10- Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently an underutilized date farm, and has been for almost 90 years. The probability of species of concern occurring on the project site are therefore extremely low. The site is designated within the critical habitat boundary for the Peninsular bighorn sheep, but those areas on the Valley floor are not appropriate for sheep habitat, and those areas above the toe of slope will be preserved as open space. Finally, the site's proximity to Highway 111, and the lack of sheep activity recorded in the hillsides north of Avenue 48 (extended), make it unlikely that sheep frequent this area. A biological field survey was conducted for the previously proposed commercial project for this site'. Although some natural communities were identified in this analysis, they were clearly highly disturbed, and have little value. The only portion of the site which is still relatively undisturbed, and which will continue to be so, is the hillside proposed for preservation as open space. As such, impacts to biological resources on this portion of the site are expected to be minimal. The study did find, however, that potential habitat for loggerhead shrike occurs on the property, particularly nesting and foraging habitat. The EIR further identified indirect impacts to bighorn sheep as being possible for this site. The development of single family residential dwellings will provide a different type of development on the project site, but will ultimately have the same potential impacts to biological resources, insofar as the site will be substantially altered from its current state. The project proposes to have the rear yards open to the hillside along the western boundary of the project. There may be conflicts which could occur as a result of the project including access for bighorn sheep to poisonous plants in the project landscaping and conflicts with domestic animals. These impacts can be mitigated by requiring the applicant to implement the mitigation measures below that will reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. 1. Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or construction be planned for initiation between February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird Act are nesting on the property. Should such nests be identified, buffer areas in conformance with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, shall be established where no construction activity is allowed, until such time as the biologist determines that the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The required field survey shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site. 1 "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pointe at Point Happy Ranch," prepared by Impact Sciences, September 2001. -11- 2. A three person committee shall be formed, consisting of a representative of the Homeowners' Association (HOA), a representative of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Community Development Director. The purpose of the committee shall be to assess the need for a fence/wall to keep Peninsular Bighorn Sheep from entering the project site. The committee shall monitor sheep activity through various means, including interviews with residents and visitors, and any available scientific data available and/or funded by the HOA. If bighorn sheep are seen on the project site, the committee shall require that the HOA, at its expense, construct an 8-foot fence along the property line between the project and the hillside. Gaps in the fence should be 11 centimeters or less. At the request of CDFG, temporary fencing may be required between the time that sheep are seen on the site and the time that permanent fencing is required. The committee shall exist for a period of 10 years, unless bighorn sheep are documented to no longer inhabit the Santa Rosa Mountains. At the end of ten (10) years, if any one member of the committee deems it necessary for the committee to continue, it shall do so until such time that it is dissolved by a unanimous vote of all its members. 3. The project applicant shall either provide an easement to the City, or evidence of dedication to a non-profit organization, to be approved by the City prior to recordation of the final map, ensuring that the preservation of lot 73 as open space in perpetuity. The lot shall also be a lettered lot on the Final Tract Map. 4. Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud construction activity, shall be prohibited from January 1 through June 30 of each year. 5. All lighting on the project site shall be directed away from the hillsides. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. 6. Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the site. The project proponent shall secure a clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners. The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project site. 8. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides. 9. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the site, during both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 12- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. AI., March, 2001.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March, 2001.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March, 2001.) V. a), b) & d) A cultural resource study was completed for the previous project proposed for this site2, and revised at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee. The study found that the site is a potentially important historical resource, insofar as it has been in operation since the early 1920s. Potential resources on the site include residential and farm structures, orchards and roads. All these were studied for the report, and recommendations made as to their significance and disposition. The study found that the site is subject to important potential oral history for the City and region. The study further found that the structures on the site had limited or no historic value, primarily due to significant alterations. The study did not, however, provide criteria for qualification as a National Register structure. Finally, the study found that buried cultural deposits could occur, and that site monitoring is warranted during earth moving activities. The development of the residential project will have fewer impacts than that previously proposed, however, the impacts to cultural resources will be similar, and must therefore be mitigated, as described below: 1. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of Occupancy for the site, the project proponent shall submit an Oral History to the Community Development Department and La Quinta Historical Society. The oral history shall be prepared in accordance with the City's and the Society's standards for such documents. 2 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," prepared by McKenna et. al., March, 2001,updated October2003. 13- 2. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report regarding the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical context, including but not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, water wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. The Phase I Cultural Resources Report shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be considered independently by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date. 3. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility criteria for National Register. 4. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A final mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production home for the project. 5. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property. Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. V. c) The proposed site occurs outside the boundaries of ancient lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not expected to contain any paleontologic resources. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) 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) i), iii), iv), b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it subject to liquefaction. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards. Vl. a) ii) The project site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California Building Codes which are intended to lower the potential impacts associated with groundshaking to less than -15- significant levels. In addition, no critical facilities will be built at the site, rather single family residences are the only structures planned. These structures will be required to implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of construction. Impacts associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than significant. VI. a) ii) The site has the potential to be susceptible to rockfall due to its proximity to the slopes of the Santa Rosa mountains. The City Engineer requires the preparation of on -site geotechnical studies prior to the issuance of grading permits. However, this analysis generally does not include rockfall susceptibility. In order to assure that the homes proposed for the site are not subject to these potential impacts, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. As part of the site -specific geotechnical analysis required for the project with submittal of building plans, the project geologist shall include an analysis of the surrounding steep hillsides, and shall make recommendations about the stability of these hillsides in his report, including slope modifications required to assure that roackfall will not impact project residences. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X -17- significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the construction of 72 single family residences and, one open space lot. No concentration of hazardous materials is expected in these homes. The City implements household hazardous waste programs through its solid waste franchisee. The site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor is it subject to wildland fires. M-11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 1II-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR P. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003) 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? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003) 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? ("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood -19- Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) The construction of 72 homes and, one open space lot, will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project3. The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. Because of the site's adjacency to the Santa Rosa mountains, flows from the slopes must be accommodated within the project. The hydrology design includes a combination of surface drains and underground pipes, leading either to an on -site retention basin, or to a City drainage pipe which occurs in Washington Street. These improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to ensure that the City's standards for on -site retention of 100 year storm events are adhered to. Conformance with these standards will ensure potential impacts are lowered to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The construction of 72 homes and, one open space lot, will not have an impact on the City's storm drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area. 3 "The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2003. -20- 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 occurs adjacent to existing single family development on its southern boundary. The proposed project will continue this type of development by constructing single family homes. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will extend an area of Low Density Residential further to the north. The site is located adjacent to neighborhood commercial development, thereby facilitating easy access to the services required by residents. The change in General Plan and Zoning designations will lower overall impacts on the site, and provide an added opportunity for the provision of a variety of housing types in the City. Impacts of the change in land use designations is expected to be insignificant. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE B 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? (MEA p. I I I ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Project description) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project description) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan land use map) 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), c) & d) The proposed project is in an area of the City where ambient noise levels are high, and are currently estimated at 76.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Washington Street, north of Highland Palms Drive. Further analysis performed for the previous project on this site indicated that 2020 noise levels will reach 77.3 dBA CNEL4. Noise levels on lots not fronting on Washington Street are not expected to exceed City standards, due to their distance from the roadway, and intervening structures. 4 Analysis performed by Impact Sciences for "Draft EIR for the Point Happy Ranch, September 2001. -23- There are two potential noise impacts associated with project development — noise generated by the project and impacting surrounding development; and noise generated by other sources and impacting the project site. These are discussed individually below. The proposed project will result in the construction of 72 homes and, one open space lot, on 37.72 acres. Residential land uses are not significant noise generators, and are not expected to significantly impact the noise environment in this area. Noise generated during the construction process, however, has the potential to impact the residential land uses to the south of the proposed project site, both along Washington Street and along Crestview Terrace. Although noise impacts associated with construction will be periodic and of short duration, it can be an annoyance and irritant to adjacent residents. In order to reduce potential impacts associated with construction activities as they relate to these residences, mitigation measures have been included below. The proposed residential development is considered a sensitive receptor, and noise levels in the outdoor areas of the homes, including back yards, may not exceed 65 dBA CNEL, in order to meet General Plan standards. The half -width of Washington Street at buildout is expected to be 66 feet (Augmented Major Arterial Roadway Classification in the General Plan). The project proposes a landscaped setback of 20 feet. This will result in backyards at a distance of 86 feet from the centerline. Without mitigation, noise levels in the back yards of lots 9 through 13 will be over 77 dBA CNEL at buildout, and over 76 dBA at construction. The project proponent has included a proposed perimeter wall in the project plan. Noise levels can be attenuated from 10 to 20 dBA by the construction of a 6 foot wall. Added attenuation can also be achieved through the construction of walls on berms, because the berms absorb noise impacts. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of the noise barrier is directly related to its structure. A wall with any type of break, including decorative fencing, entry gate, etc., has almost no effect. It can be inferred that the noise barrier proposed will attenuate noise to 57 to 67 dBA at a height of 6 feet. In order to assure that the attenuation meets the City's noise standard, a mitigation measure has been added which also requires the addition of a 1 to 2 foot berm. Because of the entry gates adjacent to lots 11 and 12, additional mitigation measures are required to ensure that noise levels remain at City standards in their side yard areas, since the gates will represent a break in the sound wall. This has also been provided below. These mitigations measures will reduce noise levels at the street -side lots to City standards. 1. All internal combustion equipment operating on the site shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the southwestern quarter of the site, as far away from existing homes and the surrounding hillsides as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 4. A six foot wall shall be constructed on all sides of the property, except the frontage on Washington Street. -24- 5. A six foot wall, constructed on top of a varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall be constructed on the frontage on Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of solid construction, with no breaks or "daylight' openings. The wall and berm shall be continued to the front yard setback line on the north boundary of lot 1 I and the south boundary of lot 12. There shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front setback line to the connection with the wall on Washington Street. 6. Only single story homes shall be permitted on all lots. 7. The pad elevations on lots 9 through 14 shall be 72 feet or less, so as to limit exposure on Washington Street. XI. b), e)-f) Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project is not located in the vicinity of either an airport of airstrip. -25- 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 proposed project will result in 72 homes (and one open space lot), which are likely to generate about 173 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with projected growth in the City. No impacts are expected to population and housing. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. Impacts to parks will be limited, given the buildout population of 173 for the site. -27- 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) Some private open space will be provided within the project site, in the form of retention areas and public open space. The proposed residential lots will be of sufficient size to allow on -site recreational facilities. The proposed project will also be included in the City's planning for new parks once constructed. _28_ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a)-g) Traffic analyses have been completed for the project site for both the previously proposed commercial project, and the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR5. In addition, a review of the traffic analysis was conducted for the currently proposed project6. The first two analyses focused on the land uses currently allowed on the property, including "The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, March, 2001; General Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta, March, 2002. Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, signed Weston Pringle, P.E., March 18, 2003. NO Community Commercial, Medium and Low Density residential. The last analysis, performed for the proposed project, focused on analysis of the proposed project. The previously completed analysis, for the commercial proposal, resulted in a daily trip generation of 5,715 ADT. The currently proposed project results in daily trips totaling 795 ADT, or a reduction in overall trips of 4,920 ADT. The intersection of Highway 11 and Washington Street is expected to operate at Level of Service D at General Plan buildout. Although this level of service is acceptable, the proposed project will relieve traffic pressures at this critical intersection, and must therefore be considered a beneficial impact on the region's traffic and circulation. The access to the site on Washington Street will be restricted to right turn only. Westbound traffic on Crestview Terrace at the intersection of Crestview Terrace and Highland Palms Drive will be restricted to left turn only (southbound) since there will be a gate northbound into the project. U-turns will be available for those wishing to change direction at the intersection of Highland Palms Drive/Washington Street and Washington Street/Highway 111, which are both signalized intersections. The internal design of the site calls for entry gates at both entry points. The entry gates on Washington Street will provide a stacking distance of over 90 feet, which exceeds the City's standards for stacking distances. Parking will be provided on -lot, as required in the Municipal Code. Bus stops are provided immediately north and south of the project site, and will be available to project residents. -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B 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.) XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity will be considerably decreased by implementation of the proposed project, and impacts will therefore be less than those analysed in the General Plan EIR. All utilities charge a fee for connection and -31- service, which will be payed by the developer or homeowner when the project is constructed. These fees are designed to recoup costs for the provision of services by the individual providers. No significant impacts associated with utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project. -32- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The project site is adjacent to critical habitat for the bighorn sheep, and may provide nesting habitat for birds subject to the protections of the Migratory Bird Act. Mitigation measures have been included in this document which will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. The site has potential significance from a historic perspective, and may harbor prehistoric materials. Mitigation measures have been included in this document which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII.b) The proposed project and associated land use amendments will improve traffic conditions at a critical intersection, and will reduce land use impacts to neighboring residents by limiting development to single family residences. The project is compatible with the General Plan and increases the City's housing stock. -33- XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level. Noise impacts have been mitigated through the installation of walls and the restriction of building heights in sensitive or potentially sensitive areas. Impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. -34- w 0 a T o N y o m o � c � c o " 0 0 o t ti o0 cz 3 �Q.G ocoi a 3 a`'i ^> o v o3a�i MN i N a > z az W� zF H a U A � U wy °a G U u CO aF y > U E y CL O o d c c 0 N py 7 � M p1 G G O O O b o��rq F O U U F W a ri O U W d A q z' AW z aU a w OVV 0 V O U G G 2 � •° G a °' q F. ctl a�Q U � o G a. in °' G o off. �Q y Y ao 0 . cn G G W G p O On iz+ Fp w U y G � G F vGi OG 5n croG on to U O y V O h O to to C O GJ L Qp N 'O L G L P. P. °a ci .2 P. o. P. o`n q x u a ; e E acn s �o x a p o c c q i3 q Q O q 0 U OGD bA bn a�. Oq On ma ow Ecr G b G b G b G a 3 o o � o � w b q d c� a G = a a G 3 N ti Q 3 b to� rF .° tO a c N ro 3 3 L on o ° k w° G > _ PL.. 60 & ) \ 0&d ///) \ \ \ \ \ e E D _ \ ƒ \ \ \ƒ\ 0 to to\\ {\ / \){§0E0 lz CL \ \ \ \ * I E \ M » 2 E E »! \ \ \ \ /\ Q \ 0\ J= c = = oou e ue ) 4 A a « C. } \ \ � z v\ 0 \ b §t \ ƒ / \ \ _ E w) \{ 2 \ \ \ to \ \ \ \ \ ■ 5\a - - ? § 7 \ \} } K \ \ 5 } } � z \ _ \� )\ \\ § _ 2 - - ` \\\\\\\\\\\ � CL .E \ \CID . k - ® \ 0 L7.to [E ) ) { E (\ / / \ \ /k »® «` {` E k k\ k\ /\ §\ 3/ 3/ j3 J± § q @ - ) u0 to \mk z t � � & ± § J§7 ) G+ \ _ — k // /§ws \ \� �& \\ § 2 ° \\\ � o ( ; \ �$ )§ ( \ Zn .k = � \ 0 ( ® � / /\] ~ =o \]§ 5 - = CIO 9 § } / \� \\ § — — � — — — ° \ \ \ \ - \ \ { } { { { / rz bn — } / / /to ) / m to ] — — — j \&10 0\ § — § C \ \ \ / -Pt_ » \ — q w 0 0 � o � � o 0 ^r 0 U r o ,a s cy O a� b i a ,, tea• O �3a. V crj . y O U z 0 zz Wo H 4 d a A as d of > wy °a Y 4:5 U E CL N [ O U > Oct q ° C CD o o "a C� �FyG oz� 0 z xU H� wa U W A Q A q z �AW a U w ODU O U 'O U s U ¢� U ,A G G y E Y a U �q UO ado—�qF CZcU>va� bU r. b0 G p ° to F � bj ro b F U U a a b U O m U ° ° U m pU bq by bn bD 0 'Q � 'Q O � O � C 'C '% C •O a G a w E E E E ^� bin bCn a E m b4 bq bo un U U U m U q W rA R] o O ° ° E O F Q. M E bo i q H Q .7 ai •'i' O o 4 .= U 'O U' r�� _7 N >. a� G a e o a C4 3 b U F 7F a —_ p a tb A q °G° roCIO to17- ¢ � b d o N C 3 3 3 �Nb ° con w\� }){ \\/ }\\6 3 © E7 ! \ \jj CO } 0 z/ j\ \ \\ ( 2�) / CU 2 g\\ƒ c{m] /=4(= j 3±/\/\/ «� } \j ¥ /\ {\ } / tm ( k) ) u \ uU / @ \ \ \94 \ /)) ƒ \ 0 2 \ z` /\)/ _ \ uC) »z o § ! t = ^ ) \ \ \ CID ) 7 Z \ \ ) \ .to to to to \ } \ / ƒ ƒ ±m zE3 » 2 & 3 & & & E » E o ƒ) a t#£ 6 3 Z 2 ) ® \ / / to to k §u J c C G u/ \ to ° § C \ g m NU w� \k� ;\ > \ \ ) _ ( c \� 2� \\ ) - - - 2 \\\\\\)\\)\w - ° bD ~biD \ k to t tw E � \ - - to ƒ _ / /§ [ /:tl 3 ) o { / / E )\ } / / > } e k \\ \\ \M \\ j/ j6 36 j± E § \ r \ \ \ j Ob \ C4 :E ' �- _ 2 � / cc > / / / § CIO/} \ \� \\ ) % \ � o \ � \ \ (( )\ /k / O ( w W = o ® /)§ ~ \(\ 9 w 4 - � 9 { j / \� §� \\ / � \ { { - ` ( 0 0 } } \ \ )E \ k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ rz - } \q � \ - \ /( : \£ /} /\ j§ /3 Q 2[ J/ JS