CC Resolution 2009-022RESOLUTION NO. 2009-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116,
ZONE CHANGE 2008-136 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
31434
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597
APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 17`h
day of February, and continued to the 17`h day of March, 2009, hold duly noticed
Public Hearings to consider the request of MONROE DATES, LLC for Environmental
Assessment 2005-536 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2008-1 16, Zone Change
2008-136 and Tentative Tract 31434, for a 30.2± acre site located on the west side
of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61, more particularly described
as:
APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 27`h day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Monroe Dates, LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-536 prepared for
General Plan Amendment 2008-116, Zone Change 2008-136 and Tentative Tract
31434 and did recommend certification by adoption of Resolution 2009-002; 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 Planning Director has conducted an Initial
Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that although the
proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program should be
adopted; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of
all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Assessment 2008-597
Monroe Dates, LLC
Adopted: March 17, 2009
Page 2
1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2008-597.
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. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any
endangered or threatened wildlife.
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 property has not been identified as a habitat for any
endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, landscaping will be installed
which may provide some habitat.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
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. If the project is approved as
proposed, it will be in compliance with the General Plan and in conformance
with surrounding development.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified 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.
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Assessment 2008-597
Monroe Dates, LLC
Adopted: March 17, 2009
Page 3
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2008-597 and said
assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Planning Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
I. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
11. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2008-597 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment
Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached as Exhibit "A" and on file in the
Planning Department.
III. That Environmental Assessment 2008-597 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 17" day of March, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Franklin, Kirk, Sniff, Mayor Pro Tem Henderson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Adolph
ABSTAIN: None
TERRY H.jf6ERSON, Mayor Pro Tem
City of a uinta, California
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Assessment 2008-597
Monroe Dates, LLC
Adopted: March 17, 2009
Page 4
ATTEST:
VERONICA J�NTECINO, CMO, City Clerk
City of La Q nta, :California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. /THERTNE JENSON, ity Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597) EXHIBIT "A"
Adopted: March 17, 2009
1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2008-116; Zone Change 2006-136; Tentative Tract
Map 31434. "Monroe Dates LLC"
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project location: The west side of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. Assessor's
Parcel No. 764-280-014, -015.
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Monroe Dates LLC
1387 Ambassador Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning:
Existing: Low Density Residential, Low Existing: Low Density Residential,
Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian
Proposed: Low Density Residential Residential
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.)
The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to remove the Low
Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential overlay from 30.26 acres located on the west side
of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. This overlay provides special standards and
requirements associated with lot size and land uses in this portion of the City.
The Tentative Tract Map proposes the subdivision of the 30.26 acres into 94 single family
residential lots of 8,668 square feet or more, as well as lots for a well site, retention and
landscaping areas, and streets.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy)
South: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy)
East: Monroe Street, North of Avenue 61: existing single family residential (Tract Map
31733). South of Avenue 61: existing agriculture.
West: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-5971 EXHIBIT "A"
Adopted: March 17, 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving a
least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on th(
following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities / Service Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems L-1
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.
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.
Signature
Date
2
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form IEA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
a
I
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597) EXHIBIT "A"
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequatel}
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following eact
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information source:
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the projecl
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it iE
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 BE
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 thar
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" iE
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one o1
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR i;
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 tc
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
4
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
I:VA7IIIINI -ITA
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? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit
3.6 "Image Corridors")
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph; Site Inspection)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on scenic vistas.
The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existing single family
development, and proposes single family homes of similar size and mass. The project
does not include the design of the homes at this time. However, the zoning ordinance
allows one and two story construction in the Low Density Residential zone, and it can
be expected that one and two stories will be proposed for the project site. The views
and scenic vistas in this part of the City occur to the west and south. The proposed
project will not obstruct these vistas, as the site is on the Valley floor, some distance
from the foothills, and views of the mountains will remain.
The site is currently a date grove, and the date palms will be removed as a result of the
implementation of the proposed project. The grove is man-made, however, and does
not constitute a significant stand of trees. No historic buildings occur on the site.
The proposed project will eventually construct single family homes on the site, of a
similar size, and on similarly sized lots as those already surrounding the site. The
project site is the last remaining parcel on the west side of Monroe in this area which is
not developed. The project will therefore have no impact on the visual character of the
area.
d) The project site is currently vacant. Development of the single family homes will result
in limited lighting associated with landscaping and architectural lighting. The level of
lighting is expected to be consistent with that already occurring in the area, and will
not significantly increase lighting levels in the area. Impacts are expected to be less
than significant.
6;
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
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. III-21
f.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection)
II. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on agricultural
resources. The project site is currently in agriculture. Development of the homes which
will result from implementation of the proposed project will result in the loss of 30
acres of date grove in the area. However, the site is surrounded by development on
three sides, and is not conducive to the long term use in agricultural production.
Further, the site is too small to represent a significant agricultural production area in
the long term.
There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. The site is designated for
residential development, and such development has occurred surrounding the site. The
implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on lands currently in
agriculture to the east, insofar as these parcels can continue to be farmed with or
without the proposed project.
Impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
0
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
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? (General Plan FIR)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (General
Plan FIR)
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)? (General Plan FIR)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(General Plan FIR)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Application
materials)
III. a) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on air quality.
The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land
use designation assigned to the site, in terms of density proposed. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has jurisdiction over air quality
management in the region, has based its air quality management planning on each
jurisdiction's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project was considered in
SCAQMD planning efforts, and is consistent with the air quality management plans in
effect for the City.
b)- e) The City, and Coachella Valley, are in non -attainment for PM10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The City can be subject to high winds, which can suspend dust
and sand in the air, and cause unhealthful conditions.
Air emissions will occur during construction and the life of the project, primarily those
associated with vehicle emissions. Construction and long term emissions are
addressed individually below.
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 77, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Grading and Construction
It is expected that the site will be mass graded. As a result, as shown in Table 1, the
site has the potential to generate up to 798.9 pounds of fugitive dust during the grading
process. The City will require that the project prepare a fugitive dust management plan
which will include site watering or other stabilization measure, and other controls o:
the grading process to reduce air emissions. This plan is required to reduce emission:
associated with fugitive dust to the greatest extent possible. In addition, mitigation i;
proposed below to limit the area to be graded, in order to reduce the potential fol
fugitive dust generation. The combination of these two measures will reduce impact:
associated with fugitive dust to less than significant levels.
Table 1
Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout (Ibs./day/acre) Generation (Ibs./day)
30.26 26.4 798.9
South Coast Air Quality Management District, " CEQA Air Quality Handbook"
In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed project will generate air emissions from the
heavy equipment used in the grading process. These emissions, and the emission:
generated by the worker trips associated with this phase of construction, are
summarized in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading equipment air emissions wil:
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less that
significant.
Table 2
Grading Equipment Emissions
(pounds per day)
#
hrs/
Equipment
Pieces
day
CO
NOx
ROG
SOx*
PM10
PM2.5 I
Grader
2
8
9.81
20.00
2.45
0.02
1.04
0.92 2
Crawler Tractors
0
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Scrapers
1
8
8.79
20.54
2.33
0.02
0.87
0.77 2
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
1
8
3.06
4.65
0.69
0.01
0.35
0.31
Rubber Tired Dozer
1
8
9.99
21.49
2.49
0.02
0.91
0.81 1.
Off -Highway Trucks
1
8
5.31
16.13
1.79
0.02
0.57
0.51 2,
Other Construction Equipment
2
8
6.16
13.76
7.83
0.14
0.04
0.04
Total 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36
Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) SCAB Fleet Average Emission Factors (Diesel) for 2012. *PM2.5 is 89% of PM10, 1:on South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Final- Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM
Significance Thresholds, October 2006. PM 10 accounts for all particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter.
8
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597) EXHIBIT "A"
Adopted: March 17, 2009
During grading, worker trips will also contribute to air emissions in the area. Table 3, below,
illustrates the combined emissions from these trips and the equipment emissions shown in
Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and
the impacts will be less than significant.
Table 3
Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary
CO
NOx
ROG
SOX
PMto
PM2,5
CO2
Equipment Emissions
Workers' Vehicle Emissions
43.11
4.33
96.58
3.39
17.59
0.57
0.23
0.01
3.78
0.14
3.36
0.11
8,751.3
725.2
Total Construction Emissions
47.44
99.97
18.16
0.24
3.92
3.48
9,476.5
SCAQMD Thresholds of
Significance
550.00
100.00
75.00
150.00
150.00
55.00
N1,
Construction activities will follow the grading process. It is expected that homes will be built
in groups on the site, and not all 94 homes will be constructed at one time. For purposes of
this analysis, it has been assumed that up to 25 units would be in production at any one time.
The construction of these units will generate air emissions from the application of coatings,
the paving of streets, and the use of mobile and stationary equipment. Table 4 summarizes the
emissions expected during the construction process. As shown in the Table, construction
activities are not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be
less than significant.
Table 4
Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions Summary
(pounds
per day)
PM1
CO
NOx
ROG
SOX
0
PM2.5
C
Equipment Emissions
23.06
41.16
5.83
0.05
2.46
2.19
4,755
Workers' Vehicle Emissions
17.33
13.58
2.28
0.03
0.55
0.46
2,90C
Asphalt Paving Emissions
-
-
0.52
-
-
-
Architectural Coatings Emissions
-
-
46.25
-
-
-
Total Construction Emissions
40.40
54.74
54.88
0.08
3.01
2.64
7,656
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Operational Emissions
The primary source of air pollutants generated by the project will be from vehicle trips
to and from the project site. The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that
single family homes generate 9.57 trips per day. At build out, therefore, the proposed
project will generate 900 trips per day. Based on these trips, the emissions from the
vehicles can be estimated, and are shown in Table 5.
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
Table 5
Daily Exhaust Emissions at Project Build Out
(pounds per day)
Total Miles Traveled per
Pollutant CO NOx ROG sox
EXHIBIT "A"
CO2
Passenger Vehicles 76.18 7.36 8.37 0.14 1.24 0.81 14,642.6;
Delivery Trucks 2.92 3.17 0.44 0.01 0.13 0.10 764.4E
Total Pounds per
79.10 10.53 8.80 0.15 1.37 0.91
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 100.0
of Significance 0 0 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A
Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) Emissions Factors for On -Road Passenger Vehicles & Delivery Trucks.
Passenger Vehicles are < 8500 lbs, and Delivery Trucks are > 8500 lbs. Passenger vehicles are assumed to be
traveled by 98% of the total trios and delivery trucks represent 2% of total miles traveled.
As illustrated in the Table, the long term operation of the proposed project will Rol
exceed thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. Impacts are expected to be
less than significant.
Obiectionable Odors
The proposed project will consist of single family homes which will only generate
cooking and similar odors. These are not expected to be objectionable. No impacts are
expected.
Mitigation Measures
1. Grading on the project site shall be limited to no more than 10 acres of active
grading during any one day.
10
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
1�/7I1:31�fG1fl
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service? (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 movement of
X
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, Natural
X
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
11
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
IV. a) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on biological resources. Th(
project site is not in its native condition, and consists of disturbed agricultural lands. A
biological survey prepared in 2003 found that the site is entirely in agriculture, two
thirds of it being a date grove, and the balance an abandoned agricultural field. The on
site survey found no sensitive species, and the trapping survey found no species o.
concern. The site is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Specie!
Habitat Conservation Plan, but not within a conservation area for the Plan. The projec
will be required to pay mitigation fees, which are designed to mitigate all impacts t(
covered species. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
b)-f) The project site does not contain any riparian areas or wetlands. The project site is
isolated, being surrounded by development, and does not provide a migratory corridor
No policies relating to biological resource preservation will be affected by tht
proposed project's build out. No impacts are expected.
12
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impae
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? (General Plan MEA p. 123
ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
X
resource pursuant to '15064.5? (General Plan
MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V.a), b) & d) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on cultural resources. The
project site is in agricultural production. However, a cultural resource analysis was
prepared for the site'. The Phase I report identified one prehistoric resource, and two
potential historic resources on the site (two wells). The wells, upon further
investigation, were found to be of no historic significance. The prehistoric resource
was identified as a scatter of pottery and stone, which had the potential to be
significant. As a result, a testing program was undertaken. The testing found that the
site does not have the potential to be significant. All testing was reported, and
materials collected and analyzed in an appropriate manner, to the extent necessary. No
further analysis of this location is necessary. However, there is the potential that other
resources, buried beneath the soil surface, could occur on the site. This would
constitute a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as follows:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present on the site during any ground
disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monitor
shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should a
resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented should
this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, and
provide the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading on
the site.
"Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, July 2003, and
"Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report" prepared by CRM Tech, September, 2003.
13
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with th(
proposed project will be reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed project site is not known to have been the location of a burial ground
California law requires that contractors immediately notify law enforcement official:
should human remains be identified when grading occurs on the project site. Thi:
requirement assures that impact to human remains will be less than significant.
V. c) The project site occurs within the traditional boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla.
paleontological study was prepared for the project site2. The study found mollusl
shells on the site during the field survey. The destruction of these resources woulc
represent a potentially significant impact, which requires mitigation, as follows:
1. Surface collection of surface fossils shall occur prior to any ground disturbance.
2. A qualified paleontological monitor will be present on the site during any grounc
disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monitor
shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should t
resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented shoulc
this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, and provide
the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading on the site.
2 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2003.
14
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
[X01*11911fIilY
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? (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 General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on soils and geology.
Implementation of the project, however, will result in structures which will be subject
to groundshaking. The proposed project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismically
15
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form IEA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The Cit}
implements the most stringent building code requirements through implementation o:
the Uniform Building Code provisions for seismically active zones. This requiremen
assures that impacts associated with groundshaking and construction will be less thar
significant.
The project site is located in an area of the site subject to liquefaction hazards. The
geotechnical investigation undertaken for the project site3 found groundwater at
depth of 16 feet below the surface. This indicates a potential for liquefaction during
seismic event. The geotechnical analysis includes recommendations for soil treatment
which will carry forward to the building plans for the project, and will protect the
structures from liquefaction hazards. As the City requires site and project specific
geotechnical investigations be submitted with building plans, this standard requirement
will assure that impacts associated with liquefaction are reduced to less than significani
levels.
The project site is flat, and surrounded by flat lands, and will not be subject It:
landslides or rockfalls.
The proposed project will be required to implement a fugitive dust management plan.
which will include water stabilization during grading, and other measures, w
determined by the City, to assure that wind erosion impacts are less than significant.
Water erosion will be controlled through the City's requirement associated with
NPDES standards, to which the proposed project will be subject. These will include
the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will
include best management practices to assure that storm water flows leaving the site arc
not polluted, and do not include silt. These City requirements will assure that impact:
associated with implementation of the proposed project will be less than significant.
The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands.
The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer facilities, and will
not include septic tanks.
Overall, impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than
significant.
3 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering, May 2003.
16
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
(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 ff)
17
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adnntud RA—h 17 9nnQ
EXHIBIT "A"
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on hazards or hazardous
materials. The development of the homes will result in small quantities of cleaning
products and similar materials being stored in the homes. These materials will be
disposed of by Burrtec, which implements local, County and State requirements for the
handling of hazardous materials. Impacts will be less than significant.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project". The
study found that the site's use in agriculture, pesticide storage had occurred, and that
waste oil and underground storage tanks were located on the site, as was suspected
asbestos -containing pipe and building materials. The study recommended remediation
of these items, which was undertaken 5. The storage tank was properly remediated, and
asbestos testing undertaken. All hazardous materials on the site have been remediated
to the standards imposed by the County and the State, thereby reducing potential
impacts to less than significant levels.
The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. The proposed project
site is not listed as a compromised site on any state or federal database. The proposed
project is not located within % mile of a school. There are no wildlands located
adjacent or near the project site.
4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessors Parcel Numbers 764-270-015 and 764-280-014,"
prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, March 2003.
5 "Report of Underground Storage Tank Closure," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, June 2003; and "Report of
Asbestos Removal," prepared by Scott Morrison and Associates, 2003.
18
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. I1I-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 oft -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 runciff?(General Plan EIR p.11I-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.)
X
19
1X9711:i1111WAA
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Ad—,.rr LA... in 17 9nn0
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on hydrology
The eventual development of the homes on the site, however, will necessitate domestic
water and storm water management.
The proposed project will be connected to the Coachella Valley Water District':
(CVWD) sanitary sewer system. The CVWD maintains its facilities in compliance
with all wastewater discharge requirements.
To protect against the potential contamination of storm water, the proposed projec
will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potentia
pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters.
The proposed project will require potable water for domestic use and for landscaping
irrigation. The CVWD will provide water to the project site. The proposed project is
consistent with, and less intense than, the land use designation assigned to the
property. The CVWD utilized this land use designation, and a higher intensity land use
scenario, in the development of its Urban Water Management Plan. The Plan identifies
existing and future water sources, and determined that sufficient supplies exist t(
provide domestic water to the project and City.
The City will also require the implementation of water conserving appliances ans
fixtures, consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Finally, the project will be
required to comply with CVWD's landscaping standards, which require watel
conservation through drought tolerant landscaping and extremely efficient irrigatior
systems. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with the proposes
project are less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that projects prepare hydrology analysis, and such an analysis ha:
been completed for the proposed project6. The hydrology study calculated the potentia
runoff generated by the 100 year storm, and sized the proposed on -site retention basil
to accommodate these storm flows. The City Engineer will continue to review, an(
will ultimately approve, the final hydrology analysis, which will be based on fina
plans for the project. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associates
with storm flows on the project site are less than significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. No impact is expected.
6 "Tentative Tract 31434 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, June 2008.
20
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
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 Exhibit
2.1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74
f.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is currently a date grove, and development of the site will not divide an
established community.
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change propose to delete the
Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Overlay from both the General Plan and Zoning
maps for this parcel. This designation was applied in this portion of the City for
properties located adjacent to more rural lands, to provide a transition to these rural
lands from the more suburban character of lands to the west. The proposed project site
is, however, surrounded on three sides by the Trilogy project, which consists of
equivalent or more dense development than that proposed for the project site. Monroe
Street borders the proposed project site on the east, further isolating it from more rural
lands to the east. The proposed Amendments, therefore, are consistent with lands
surrounding the project site, and will not significantly conflict with the General Plan or
Zoning Ordinance in this instance.
The proposed project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project will be required to comply with that
Plan, and pay fees which are designed to mitigate the potential impacts to any covered
species. No impact is expected.
21
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on mineral
resources. The project site is and has been designated for low -density residential
development, and does not occur in the vicinity of any mining activities. No mineral
resources are expected to occur within the project site, and no impact is expected as a
result of implementation of development on the site.
22
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form IEA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
X
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
X
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (General Plan MEA
P. I I I 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. 1 I I 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. 11 I ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport land
X
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) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on noise. The
eventual development of the proposed project will, however, result in increases in
noise levels, generally associated with the increased vehicle trips in the area. The
project site is located on Monroe Street. The General Plan FIR identified this area of
the City as having relatively low long term noise levels. The project will include a 6
foot wall on the eastern boundary, which will serve as a noise buffer for adjacent lots.
The noise levels on the project site are expected to meet the City's 65 dBA CNEL
noise standards.
The project will result in elevated noise levels during the construction process. The site
is surrounded by the walls built for the Trilogy project on three sides. Although noise
23
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
IXeald1f/_\Y
levels in excess of General Plan standards are likely to occur for short periods
depending on the equipment or construction activity, these levels will be during tha
noisier day time hours, and will not significantly impact the noise environment in tht
area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
The project's construction may also generate some vibration, depending on th(
construction equipment required. This condition will be temporary and periodic, and is
not expected to impact sensitive receptors, since the proposed project is surrounded b,
existing commercial development. The impacts are expected to be less than significant
The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip.
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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on population of
housing. The eventual development of 94 homes will occur in response to growth it
the area, and is not expected to cause growth in the area. The site is located on the
City's existing street system, and is served by existing infrastructure. No significani
extension of infrastructure will result from the proposed project. Impacts are expect&
to be less than significant.
24
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
The project site is operated as a date grove, and will not result in the destruction of
housing, or the displacement of people.
Overall impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less than
significant.
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) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on public
services. The proposed project will result in some increases in demand for police and
fire services. However, the project will be required to pay Impact Fees, which are
structured to include the additional facilities required to accommodate additional land
uses in the City. In addition, the proposed project will generate sales and property tax,
which will help offset the costs associated with providing additional services.
The proposed project will pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of
development. These fees are designed to offset the costs associated with new
development, and allow the school district to construct new facilities.
25
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
The proposed project will pay Quimby fees for parks, and also includes an on site park
area, which will be available for residents, and which may reduce those residents' need
for off -site parks facilities.
Overall impacts associated with public services and facilities are expected to be less
than significant.
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; 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 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impacts on recreation.
As stated above, the proposed project will include an on site park area which will
offset the need for other City facilities. The project will not result in a need for
additional recreational facilities. Overall impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
26
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
1*191:1111111111i
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. II1-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
X
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 access?
X
(Application materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Application materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10)
XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Traffic or
Circulation. The eventual development of 94 single family residences will result in
approximately 900 average daily trips to and from the site. The traffic generated by the
site is consistent with that analyzed for the General Plan, as the project is consistent
with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The General Plan EIR
found that levels of service in this area of the City, and Monroe Street in particular,
will be acceptable at General Plan buildout. As the project is consistent with what was
analyzed in the EIR, and no significant changes in land use have occurred in the
27
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597) EXHIBIT "A"
Adopted: March 17, 2009
vicinity of the proposed project, the impacts associated with traffic on local roads are
expected to be less than significant
The proposed project will be required to provide parking consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. The project is on the City's existing street system, and will have no impact
on emergency access or response. The proposed project is not within the SunLine
service area. The proposed project is not within the influence area of an airport or
airstrip.
Overall impacts associated with transportation and traffic are expected to be less than
significant.
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 requirements
X
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 available to
X
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.)
I) 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.)
28
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adorned: March 17. 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Utilities and
Service Systems. The proposed project will connect to existing CVWD facilities for
both domestic water and sanitary sewer. CVWD has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed project, and also has the ability to expand the wastewater
treatment plant as regional needs require.
The proposed project will design its storm water drainage to contain the 100 year
storm, as required by City standards. The proposed project will not require the
expansion of existing storm drainage facilities. Please also see Hydrology, above.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation used by CVWD to
determine domestic water demand in its service area. The analysis concluded that the
CVWD has sufficient water available, now and in the future, to serve the proposed
project. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant.
Solid waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec
currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is
transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands
and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed project. Burrtec is also required to comply with all City, regional, state and
federal requirements for the disposal of solid waste.
Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be less than significant.
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?
29
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17. 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
X
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) Biological resources will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project, as the
site is disturbed agricultural land, and does not include native habitat. Archaeologica:
and paleontological resources were identified on the project site, but the mitigatior
measures included in this document will reduce the potential impacts to less thar
significant levels.
XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for the area, and will
have no significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. The level of impact associates
with the project is consistent with that envisioned in the General Plan EIR.
XVII. c) This Initial Study has found that no cumulative impact will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
XVII. d) The proposed project will have less than significant impacts associated with noise anc
traffic and circulation, which could directly affect human beings. Impacts associates
with air quality during the grading process are reduced to less than significant levels b)
the mitigation measures in this document.
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.
General Plan EIR, 2002.
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
kill
Resolution No. 2009-022
Environmental Check list Form (EA 2008-597)
Adopted: March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT "A"
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.
31
O
y
C
�n
O
G
O
y
y
�
y
�
V
0
0
o
0
�
�
N
o
O
p
-o
•
3
�
U
z
••
a
�U
A
C
O
N ro
o F-�
o
N,
.y
p y
b
o
d
d O
y
ct
N
W N
r
A
o
7
M
I-
00
00
Op
0
O
>C7Um
N
F'
0
zzun
a
W
..r
W
A
U
d
W
F
d
A
W
U�
A
ax
U
U U
GL
A
0
w
F
a
U
�
U
o�
F
�
ro
oa
A
� �
C
U
z
�
zz
x
a�
3
9
a,
z
o
y
i-r
U
V
N
V]
O
�
O
�
b a
t7
W
F
d
A
W
x
p+ U
U U
.d.
0
0
0
F
U
0
0
0
a
a
a
d
d
d
c7
z
�
50
ao
�
o
�
94
.a
F
zz
a>i
A
a>i
A
a>i
A
'
'z
x
U A
U A
U A
z
p
"
Uo
ai
G
0.°;
U
U ..
Fv-I i�
IQJ
tn
iFi [✓G�`
rn
o
wo y
t
� u
•Q�^J�
E
O IS
d I
jJ
U �
U W
ro
tea,
¢�o
a'o