Loading...
PCRES 2005-063_ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-063 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-545 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33717 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-545 APPLICANT: QUADRANT, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22ND day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Quadrant, Inc. for Environmental Assessment 2005-545 prepared for Tentative Tract 33717 located on the on the south side of Avenue 58, approximately 841 feet west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: APN 764-180-002 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 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 2005-545. 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. P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-22-05\TT 33717 & EA 05-545\TT 33717 EA 05-545 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005.063 Environmental Assessment 2005-545 Quadrant, Inc. Adopted: November 22, 2005 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. 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. 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. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-545 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 753.51d►. 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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. - P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-22-05\TT 33717 & EA 05-545\TT 33717 EA 05-545 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2005-063 Environmental Assessment 2005-545 Quadrant, Inc. Adopted: November 22, 2005 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2005-545 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-545 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Alderson ABSTAIN: None T04 KIRK, Chairman City f a Quinta, California ATTEST: "Lo' DOUGLASA.EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2005\11-22-05\TT 33717 & EA 05-545\TT 33717 EA 05-545 pc res.doc Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33717 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Andrew J. Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7068 4 Project location: South side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street, and east of Madison Street. APN 764-180-002. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Quadrant, Inc. Attn: Mr. Sevak Kachadurian 7586 Woodrow Wilson Drive Los Angeles, CA 90046 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (up Residential (up to 4 du/acre) to 4 du/acre). 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.) F� The project is a proposed residential development of seventeen detached single family dwellings which will be built on 4.84 gross acres (4.59 net acres), upon which an unmaintained date palm grove is now located. The project is located on the south side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street and east of Madison Street. Avenue 58 is designated as a secondary arterial. It is also includes a multi -use trail, a Class II bike lane, and an agrarian image corridor. A private cul de sac will be constructed inside the subdivision, connecting to Avenue 58. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Across Avenue 58 to the northwest is an Imperial Irrigation District office. A residential community is currently being built just north of the property. South: Date palm groves are located to the south of the site, and a dirt field road runs along the southern portion of the property. A single family home is located to the southeast of the site and another single family home is located to the southwest of the site. East: Date palm groves are located to the east of the site. West: Date palm groves are located to the west of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Valley Unified School District C5 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: nifrcant effect on the red. pificant effect on the )ecause revisions in the anent. A MITIGATED n the environment, and significant impact" or nment, but at least one t pursuant to applicable Tres based on the earlier AL IMPACT REPORT addressed. gnificant effect on the ) have been analyzed d pursuant to applicable : to that earlier EIR or ition measures that are //Lo -Z o5 Dat -2- L6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a 1911 project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors", and GP Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 2.5) b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a) The LaQuinta General Plan indicates that Avenue 58 is to be maintained as an Agrarian Image Corridor. The proposed project will be required to include parkway landscaping consistent with the agrarian image corridor standards. This could potentially contain date palms that would be relocated from the interior of the site. The City requires maximum building height in an image corridor to be 22 feet within 150 feet of an image corridor road. Because of the layout of the proposed development, the parcels that will be located within the image corridor include residential lots 1 and 17, as well as open space lots C and D (closer to Avenue 58). If treated as discussed above, the development's impacts upon this image corridor will be less than significant. b) There are no trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the project site. Avenue 58 is not a state scenic highway, and the damage to scenic resources will be less than significant due to required adherence to the City's design standards. c) The site is located in an area of rapidly developing single family homes. The proposed project will be consistent with this type of development. Adherence to the City's standards for Agrarian Image Corridors will reduce the potential impacts associated with degradation of the character of the area to less than significant levels. d) Some light and glare is expected to emanate from the seventeen proposed dwellings in the development. Likewise light and glare from vehicular traffic and future street lights will be visible. I Exhibit 3.6, Image Corridors, Traffic and Circulation Element, City of La Quinta General Plan, 2002. -5- Standard design features included in the City's Zoning Ordinance, such as low lighting levels, and the shielding and directing downward of all outdoor lighting to preserve the dark night sky, will be required to diminish potential light impacts to acceptable levels. No illumination of land outside the development perimeter and outside of any individual lot perimeters will be permitted. Building design should minimize the use of glass and other reflective surfaces. Impacts associated with scenic resources are generally expected to be less than significant with adherence to the City standards discussed above. " Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) Maps from the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicate that the site under consideration is not prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed subdivision will not impact local agricultural resources as numerous nearby farms continue in operation, including other date palm groves, and several large, active farms within one mile of the site. The La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan shows that the property has been set aside for residential use, rather than for farmland. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the land. Residential development of this property will not cause any significant impacts to agricultural resources. -7- 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 Photos, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photos, site inspection) II1. a), b) & c) It is expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most significant generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in seventeen single-family homes, which have the potential to generate up to 163 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. 2 "Trip Generation, 7" Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached. -8- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build -out Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 163 x 15 = 2.445 Pollutant ROG CO NOX SOX PM 10 Pounds 3.4 31.3 3.3 0.0 0.3 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 150 Assumes 2,445 average daily trips. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC 2002 Version 2.2 Emissions Tables. Scenario year 2007, model years 1965-2007. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for vehicle emissions. The project's potential impacts to air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. Despite the fact that the development would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the City of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PMIO Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These include the following measures that are to be included in the conditions of approval for the proposed project: CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD 13CM-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 Grading of the proposed development will generate 121.2 pounds of fugitive dust over the course of the entire grading and construction operation. Fugitive dust would therefore be no more than that total amount on any individual day. Even if the entire 17 residential lots were to be graded in a single day, this would not exceed the 150 pound per day SCAQMD threshold for PM10. The City of La Quinta requires compliance with PM10 plan preparation and implementation through its ordinance (Chapter 6.16 of the municipal code), and this project is subject to these requirements. III. d) & e) Sensitive receptors near the proposed residential development include other residential neighborhoods. Offices of the Imperial Irrigation District are also nearby. The proposed development is in an area of numerous golf courses, residential neighborhoods, and agricultural uses. The Westside School is about 1.1 miles from Ma the project site, but there are no schools or hospitals within a mile of the proposed seventeen unit development. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. Odors from grading, laying of asphalt, construction vehicles and other sources are expected to be minimal and very short-lived. Overall, the air quality impacts of this proposed development are expected to be less than significant assuming adherence to the requirements noted above. 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 X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) IV. a) The property is currently being used as a date palm grove and consists of relatively level terrain with an elevation of approximately 60 feet below mean sea level. -11- Between the rows of unmaintained date palm trees, the site also has alternating rows of dead orange trees. The plant community between Avenue 58 and the grove consists primarily of weeds and other grasses, and it has been disturbed by human activity along the road shoulders. The site does not support significant native vegetation. The presence of agricultural rows creates the potential for habitat for the burrowing owl, a species of concern. Burrowing owls sometimes occur in disturbed habitats and are often linked with the presence of California ground squirrels. The biological report prepared for the proposed project indicates, however, that no evidence of burrowing owls was found during the site visit3. In accordance with the policies contained in the General Plan, the project proponent is required to complete a pre -construction survey for burrowing owl prior to construction, in order to assure that impacts to this species will not be significant. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the project site, the project proponent shall cause a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey to be completed, submitted to the Community Development Department, and approved. Should the species be identified on the site, the biologist's recommendations for relocation shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit. In addition to the burrowing owl, the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed lizard, a federally listed (threatened) and state listed (endangered) species occurs in the vicinity. The disturbed nature of the site and the lack of suitable habitat eliminate the likelihood that the fringe -toed lizard will be present on site, however. This project is not located in the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area. b) Due to the long term use of the site in agriculture, the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community". c) There are no wetlands on the site and the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d) The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, due to its disturbed condition. e) There is no conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy. 0 As the development site is already disturbed and has been used for agriculture, no interference with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation _ Plan is expected. 3 Biological Resources Report on a 4.6 acre parcel (APN 764-180-002) along 581h Avenue in La Quinta, by ECORP Consulting of Redlands, CA, June 28, 2005. 4 2002 La Quinta General Plan, Natural Resources Element Exhibits: 6.1 (Giant Sand Treader Cricket); 6.2 (Desert Tortoise); 6.3 (Fringe -Toed -Lizard); 6.4 Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard; 6.5 (Palm Springs Ground Squirrel); 6.6 (Palm Springs Pocket Mouse); and 6.7 (Peninsular Bighorn Sheep). -12- Overall, impacts to biological resources from this proposed development with recommended mitigation will be less than significant. 13- 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? ("Cultural Resources Survey Report" ECORP Consulting, Inc., September 2005) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Cultural Resources Survey Report" ECORP Consulting, Inc., September 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Evaluation Report" Cogstone, March 2005) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. 123 ff.) V. a) The results of the historic resources survey by ECORP indicate that there are no historic resources on site, and that there are only two within one mile of the sites. b) The Phase 1 archaeological survey for this project indicates that eleven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the site. No cultural resources were identified within the boundaries of the project, however. Following City policy for this area, the archaeologist recommended the following mitigation measures: On- and off -site trenching and rough grading shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. If cultural material is observed by the monitor, trenching and rough grading must be suspended until the deposits are recorded and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist shall provide the Community Development Department with a report detailing the findings of the monitoring effort within 30 days of the completion of the monitoring. c) Freshwater mollusk shells (including clams and snails) of the Holocene Lake Cahuilla beds were observed at the surface through the entire property 6. No fossil localities had previously been collected from within a one -mile radius of the site. These fossils document a previously unknown high stand of Lake Cahuilla dated to about 6,000 years before the present. "Cultural Resources Survey Report for a 4.6 acre Parcel in La Quinta (TTA 33717)," prepared by Roger Mason, Ph.D. of ECORP Consulting, Inc., of Redlands, CA, revised September 2005. "Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a 4.6 Acre Parcel in La Quinta, California," by Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, prepared March 2005. -14- Subsurface excavation work has the potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources of the early to middle Holocene age. Following City policy for this area, the paleonotlogist recommended the following mitigation measures: 1. On- and off -site trenching and rough grading shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall salvage fossils, and shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation. All excavation below a depth of ten feet should be monitored to mitigate the impact on early Holocene to Pleistocene fossil vertebrates that may be present. The paleontologist shall provide the Community Development Department with a report detailing the findings of the monitoring effort within 30 days of the completion of the monitoring. d) The site does not occur in an area known to have previously been used for burial. California law requires that anyone uncovering human remains during a construction project notify the authorities. The project contractor will be required to conform to these regulations, and will report any remains, should they be identified. 15- 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 effects7, 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 area8 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (Exhibit 8.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the La Quinta Planning Area, La Quinta General Plan.) (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) 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? (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) i) & ii) The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the State. Major fault zones considered to be the most likely to create strong ground shaking are the 7 Exhibit 8.1, Geologic Map and Engineering Properties of the La Quinta Planning Area, Environmental Hazards Element, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. 8 Exhibit 6.1, Near -Source (Fault) Zone and Soil Types, from La Quinta General Plan (2002), Master Environmental Assessment -16- San Andreas Fault (about 7.7 miles northeast of the site), and the San Jacinto Fault (about 14 miles southwest of the site). The site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and it is likely that the proposed structures will experience moderate to strong ground shaking from earthquakes in the region. Surface fault rupture is considered to be unlikely at the project site because of the well -delineated fault lines though the Coachella Valley. The City requires that structures be designed based upon Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 design criteria. Liquefaction is a potential design consideration because of underlying saturated sandy soil9. Should liquefaction occur, total settlements are estimated to be about 2`h inches. Ground rupture and sand boil formation are unlikely because of the thickness of the upper unliquefiable soil. Because of the depth of the liquefiable layer, wide areas of subsidence from soil overburden would be the expected effect of liquefaction rather than bearing capacity failure of the proposed structures. Mitigation of liquefaction induced settlements is required at the site. 1. Mitigation shall include either soil improvement, rigid mat foundations, and grade -beam reinforced foundations that can withstand some differential movement or tilting, but may not protect fracturing of buried utilities. Flexible connections to utilities at the foundation interface are highly recommended, as are increased slopes for gravity flow sewer pipelines. 2. Because of the potential for differential settlement upon liquefaction, the designer should consider the structures be either founded on foundations that use grade -beam footings to tie floor slabs and isolated columns to continuous footings (conventional or post -tensioned); or structural flat -plate mats, either conventionally reinforced or tied with post -tensioned tendons. iv) The hazard of landsliding is unlikely due to the fairly level topography in the region. No ancient landslides are shown on geologic maps of the region and no indications of landslides were observed during the site investigation conducted by the geologist. b) According to Exhibit 6.5 of the City's Master Environmental Assessment, the site is located within an area of moderate wind erosion. The PM10 mitigation measures discussed in the Air Quality section of this Initial Study will help prevent erosion and the loss of topsoil. c) Subsurface soils consist of loose to medium dense interbedded sands with silty sands near the surface. Test borings show that the surface soils consist primarily of silty sands1o. Expansion testing indicates that the surface silty sands are generally non - expansive and are classified as "very low" expansion category soils in accordance with Table 18-IB of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. d) The City requires connection to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system, and the District has indicated in its June 30, 2005 letter to the La Quinta Planning Commission that the proposed subdivision will be annexed into Improvement District Numbers 55 and 82 for sanitary sewer service. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact 9 "Geotechnical Report Proposed Residential Development (APN 764-180-002," prepared by LandMark Geo- Engineers, March 2005. 10 Ibid. -17- Impact Mitigation Impact V1I. 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) 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) In VII. a)-h) The construction of seventeen dwellings on the site will not have an impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs through its trash hauler, and these are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous substances generated in homes. Development of the proposed lots will occur in accordance with all applicable fire and safety codes and it will not hinder or conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The project is not expected to result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site, due to its use as a date grove". The property has been tested for the presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) using EPA method 8081. Surface soil samples were collected from various sites on the property at a depth of about three inches below ground surface. Three OCPs were detected at the site: DDT, DDE (a by-product of the breakdown of DDT), and dieldrin. None of the other 17 OCPs were detected. DDT was detected in one sample and DDE in five samples. Concentrations of these pesticides were found to be at levels below US EPA and California Title 22 thresholds of concern. Dieldrin was detected in one sample and was below the federal and state thresholds of concern as well. These results are consistent with values obtained on other agricultural lands in the vicinity, and the toxins report indicates that based upon the concentrations detected, pesticide residues are not a concern at the site. The proposed development is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. The proposed residential development is not located adjacent to wildlands, and is not expected to pose any risks related to wildland fires. Impacts of the project related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be less than significant. 11 "Soil Sampling and Analysis at Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street, on 4.82 acres," by Earth Systems Southwest of Indio, CA, February 2, 2005. -19- 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. 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. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -Site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) 0 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. ITI-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental -20- Assessment Exhibit 6.6; Flood Hazard Map of La Quinta General Plan — Exhibit 8.5) VIII. a) The proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Groundwater was encountered at 33 feet below ground surface, and this is well within the historic range of groundwater levels. The proposed project is not expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, ensuring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. c & d) The development site is about 60 feet below sea level. The terrain is relatively level, although the existing Avenue 58 is several feet above the site. The applicant is proposing to accommodate drainage in the subdivision by way of a retention basin in the southeast corner of the property. The 9,792 square foot retention basin would be located at the south end of the private street, and adjacent to residential lots 9 and 10. It will allow the 25,100 cubic feet of flood volume generated by the 100 year storm to be retained on site12. Stormwater and project -generated urban runoff will be managed through the use of stormwater retention facilities, curb and gutter, and other standards in accordance with the standards implemented by the Public Works Department. e), f & g) The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that the development site is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. According to the Coachella Valley Water District, the property under consideration is designated as being in Flood Zone C on Federal Flood insurance rate maps. Flood zone C refers to areas of minimal flooding. The District has indicated that the stormwater issues of the development are merely those of local drainage, and that the District needs no further review. 12 "Tentative Tract Map Drainage Calculations for APN 764-180-002, La Quinta California," prepared by Warner Engineering of Palm Desert, CA, April 2005. -21- 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; General Plan Exhibit 2.1 Land Use) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) Construction of the seventeen unit Quadrant residential development will not divide an established community. The development does not conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Historically the 4.84 acre property has been a date palm and orange grove. There are no houses or other buildings currently on site. The property is surrounded by other agricultural uses in an area that is rapidly developing a residential character. Conversion of this property from an unmaintained agricultural grove into a residential development of lots ranging in size from 7,810 square feet to 8,835 square feet conforms with the City's General Plan. The current land use designation for the property is Low Density Residential, allowing up to four dwellings per acre. The permitted maximum project density is 18 units for the site, so the 17 proposed lots are within the density allowed and are consistent with the City's Land Use Plan. -22- 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 consists primarily of interbedded sands, silty sands, and clays 13. The site is located in an area of the City that is transitioning from agricultural to residential uses. It is in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1. This refers to areas where adequate information exists to support the conclusion that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. 13 "Geotechnical Report for Proposed Residential Development APN 764-180-002," prepared by Landmark Consultants, Inc., of Palm Desert, CA, March 2005. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-d) Buildout of the project site will result in noise from two sources: temporary noise associated with site improvement and construction, and permanent noise increases due primarily to increases in traffic generated by the project. Noise will be generated during project construction. Short-term, temporary noise impacts associated with the operation of heavy machinery are expected to occur during the grading and construction process. Two residences occur immediately southwest and southeast of the project site. In order to assure that these residents are not -24- significantly impacted by construction noise, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. To minimize impacts during the grading and construction process, all construction equipment shall be fitted with well -maintained mufflers. 2. Construction activities shall take place only during hours permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Long Term Noise Impacts Based upon measurements shown in Table 6.2 of the General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, of ten sites monitored in the city, the site closest to the subject property had the second lowest measured exterior noise levels at 58.6 dBAs. The project site is 1.1 miles southwest of this site (Westside School), in an area where several citrus and date palm orchards remain; is on a secondary arterial which is expected to experience less traffic than the City's primary roads; and is further away from the commercial centers of the City than the sites that were measured. Thus noise impacts at this site are expected to be below those of noise levels at most other neighborhoods in the City. Based upon Exhibit 3.1 of the City's General Plan, average daily traffic volumes in 2000 were far lower in this section of Avenue 58 (between Madison and Monroe), than in Avenue 52, for example (between Madison and Monroe) where traffic levels were over four times higher. Similarly, traffic volumes on portions of Highway 11 I in La Quinta were almost 40 times higher than traffic levels on this portion of Avenue 58. This also suggests that noise levels for this property will be below that of other City neighborhoods. Buildout noise levels for Avenue 58 are also expected to be below the City's standard for exterior noise. The proposed project will further reduce on site noise levels through project design, by constructing a 6 foot wall along the property boundary, which will reduce noise levels 5 to 12 dBA. Interior Noise Interior noise should not be a concern with respect to this development, as Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code calls for insulated walls, glazed windows, and weather stripping on all doors and windows opening to the exterior. Insulated stucco walls and double paned windows can reduce exterior noise levels from 25.0 to 31.0 dB(A). As such, interior noise levels experienced in the proposed residential units will remain below the 45.0 dB(A) CNEL threshold required by Title 24. Long term noise impacts, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. e & f) The proposed project is over three miles from the Desert Resorts Regional Airport, so airport related noise impacts will be minimal. The proposed development site is not within an airport land use plan. -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 is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. The City's build -out population will not be significantly challenged or impacted by growth from the seventeen proposed dwellings. No individuals will be displaced to create this development. No replacement housing will need to be built elsewhere. The impacts of this development upon housing and population will be less than significant. -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., and Exhibit 4.1: Public Facilities in the Planning Area.) XIII. a) Build -out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax that will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees, fire mitigation fees, and park in lieu fees at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the financial impacts to those services. Chief of Police Walter Meyer has indicated in a June 13, 2005 letter that there are no issues of concern at this time related to public safety and law enforcement for the proposed residential development. The Police Department has recommended for other projects that construction materials be kept in a locked storage facility during the construction period, and that the homes to be constructed should incorporate wide -angled peepholes into all dwelling front doors and all solid doors where visual scrutiny is compromised. This recommendation should be extended to the proposed project as well. The development will also provide for outdoor lighting and other measures that will reduce the need for police protection. These requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. -27- Schools are managed by the Coachella Valley Unified School District, and the developer will need to pay fees to the School District. The District has indicated that, due to overcrowding, students from the development may need to be transferred to a school within the district that can accommodate them. School District Director of Facilities Eugene Vorwaller has indicated in a letter of June 27, 2005, that school fees of $2.88 per square foot of assessable space would apply to such residential construction, and that these fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of project building permits. Parks and recreation areas are provided by both the City and the County, and the impact of the development upon these parks is expected to be less than significant. The property owner will be required to pay a parkland fee prior to recordation of the final map. IPTta 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 Existing and Proposed Parks) 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 City has numerous parks, and has set a standard of at least 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Due to the small size of the proposed residential subdivision, however, impact of the development on recreational resources will be less than significant. The project will be required to pay Parkland Dedication fees as required by Chapter 13.48 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X 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)? (TTM 33717) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 33717) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 33717) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10 Trails) XV. a) & b) The General Plan indicates that Avenue 58 from Jefferson to Harrison (and including 14 the site in question) is to be developed as a Secondary Arterial . City Associate Engineer Brian Ching, in a June 22, 2005 memo, has indicated that Avenue 58 is a Secondary Arterial with a Class II bike lane with a multi -use trail; that it will need to be widened to 36 feet from the centerline; and that a total of 48 feet of right of way from the centerline will be required along the Avenue 58 boundary. These improvements will be required as part of the project approval conditions. 14 Exhibit 2.5 City Roadway Classifications, Traffic and Circulation Element, City of La Quinta General Plan, 2002. -30- The proposed project is expected to create 163 additional trips per day from the 17 new homes, but this is consistent with that projected in the General Plan EIR, and not a substantial increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Madison Street has a right of way of 110 feet and is designated as a Primary Arterial. The proposed development will not exceed the level of service standard established by the City. c) The project will not result in a change in air, rail, or waterborne traffic patterns. d & e) The project will not substantially increase hazards due to any design features, nor is it expected to result in inadequate emergency access. The private road inside the development runs southward in a linear pattern, ending in a cul-de-sac. This private road meets minimum standards for safety including slightly exceeding the minimum turning radius of 38 feet in the cul-de-sac, providing a road width of 36 feet that opens to 60 feet or more as traffic exits this private street to move onto Avenue 58. f) With the proposed parcels each being 7,810 square feet or more, and the private street being 36 feet in width, no shortage of parking capacity is anticipated. With this 36 foot street width, parking on both sides of the street will be permissible. g) The proposed development and division of land are not expected to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Eunice Lovi, Director of Planning for the SunLine Transit Agency has indicated that a study is being conducted to examine existing bus routes and to determine how best to improve transit service in La Quinta. She has also indicated that SunLine will work to ensure that all jurisdictions have input into this process. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, P. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a) The proposed subdivision will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District, and CVWD has already indicated the area is to be annexed into CVWD's Districts 55 and 82 for sanitation service, and that the -32- subdivider will install water and sewer pipelines her so that the District may provide service to all parcels. b) The proposed project will ultimately lead to the creation of 17 dwellings, therefore it will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. c) The area is protected from regional storm flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional storm flows except in rare instances. d) The Coachella Valley Water District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of the District Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and CVWD has indicated that certain fees and charges will be paid by the subdivider to obtain water and sewer service. Impacts to water supplies can be reduced by incorporating a variety of water - conserving techniques which include the use of low -flow toilets and showerheads, and the use of drought -tolerant plant materials in landscape and open space areas. e) CVWD has indicated in its letter of June 30, 2005, that it has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to its already existing commitments. f) Waste Management of the Desert serves residences within the City of La Quinta. Trash is taken to the Edom Hill transfer station in Cathedral City, and from there it is sent to other County landfills. Between these County landfill facilities, there is adequate capacity to accommodate any residences of the Quadrant subdivision. g) The project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and future homes on site will participate in the City's recycling program, that is coordinated through Waste Management of the Desert. On -site recycling and solid waste source reduction programs must be implemented at project build -out in accordance with local and state requirements. -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significantw/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has already been developed agriculturally and does not currently support significant native vegetation. Although development of the site has the potential to impact biological, archaeological, and paleontological resources, these impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will augment the housing options offered to the City's residents, a goal of the General Plan. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area, and — construction of the project will have less than significant cumulative impacts, as considered and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. -34- XVII. d) The potential of the proposed project to adversely affect human beings is less than significant. Impacts associated with construction noise will be mitigated to less than significant levels. -35- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation _ Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -36-