PCRES 2006-013PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-013
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 2005-546 PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33801
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546
APPLICANT: BLAKE JUMPER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 281" day of March, 2006, held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Blake Jumper for Environmental Assessment 2005-546 prepared for
Tentative Tract 33801 located on the west side of Madison Street approximately 500
feet north of Avenue 60, more particularly described as:
APN 766-080-009
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:
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
2005-546.
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\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 EA 05-546 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-013
Environmental Assessment 2005-546
Blake Jumper
Adopted: March 28, 2006
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 2005-546
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
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the honorable Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33601 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 EA 05-546 pc res.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2006-013
Environmental Assessment 2005-546
Blake Jumper
Adopted: March 28, 2006
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2005-546 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 2005-546 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Ladner, and Acting Chairman
Quill
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
PAUL QUILL, Acting Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
DOU LA R. EVANS,
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 33801 & EA 05-546 Blake Jumper\TT 33801 EA 05-546 pc res.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
2.
3.
a
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33801
Lead agency name and address
Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner
760-777-7125
Project location: The west side of Madison Street, approximately 555 feet north of Avenue
60, APN 766-080-009
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Blake Jumper
80553 Jasper Park
Indio, CA 92201
6. General Plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
A proposed Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 2.39 acre site into eight single family
residential lots, as well as a lot for retention, and for a private cul-de-sac. The lots are
proposed to be a minimum of 8,408 square feet, and range to 9,516 square feet. Access will
be taken from Madison Street. The site has been developed as a single family home.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Agriculture (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space)
South: Single family homes under construction (Low Density Residential)
East: Madison Street
West: Vacant lands (Low Density Residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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
in}p&W�Lup-oP9the proposed project, nothing further is required.
3 -ZC/-a 6
Date
-2-
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
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
-3-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
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
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)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 8 single family homes. The
City's Zoning Ordinance allows single and two story homes to be built in the Low
Density Residential designation. This type of development is consistent with the
development currently under way or planned in the vicinity of the site. The site and
surrounding area are some distance from the Santa Rosa Mountains, and construction
of the homes will not block views to these mountains.
There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. The
site is located on Madison Street, which is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in
the General Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to meet setback and
landscaping requirements for the corridor, to improve the aesthetic appearance of
Madison Street in front of the property.
Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant.
d) The construction of 8 houses will result in minor increases in light generation at the
site, primarily due to car headlights and landscaping lighting. The car headlights will
be intermittent and temporary, and will not impact the area. The City imposes strict
standards for landscaping and residential lighting, which is required to contain lighting
within the site boundaries. Impacts associated with light are therefore expected to be
insignificant.
-4-
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.111-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection)
II. a)-c) The project site has been developed as a single family home, and is not currently in
agriculture. Lands to the north, and a small area to the east, are small orchards. The
development of the site will not impact the ability of these uses to continue in
agriculture. Overall, however, there is no significant agriculture in the area, and the
land has been designated in the General Plan for urban uses. There are no Williamson
Act contracts on the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected.
-5-
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
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo)
III. a)- e) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for the
monitoring of air quality in the City, and the implementation of air quality
management plans. The development of air quality plans by the SCAQMD was based
on the City's General Plan land uses and snapping. Therefore, the proposed project is
expected to be consistent with these plans.
The proposed project will generate the potential for air quality impacts during both
construction and operation of the project. Construction impacts will be those
associated with PM10, or fugitive dust, and grading equipment. The project can be
expected to generate up to 63.1 pounds of fugitive dust per day during grading
operations. This falls below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds
per day. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on
PM10 emissions during construction.
Based on mass grading of the site, and the equipment likely to be required to grade the
property, the potential vehicular emissions from construction equipment were
estimated. The resulting emissions are shown in Table 1, below.
M
Table 1
Grading Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered
(Dounds Der dav)
Equipment
Pieces
hrs/day
CO
ROC
Nox
Sox
PMta
Fork Lift - 50 hp
0
8
-
-
-
_
Fork Lift - 175 hp
0
8
-
-
-
-
Trucks - Off -Highway
0
8
-
-
-
-
Tracked Loader
0
8
-
-
-
_
Tracked Tractor
0
8
-
_
_
_
_
Scraper
1
8
10.00
2.16
30.72
3.68
3.28
Wheeled Dozer
0
8
-
-
-
_
Wheeled Loader
0
8
-
-
-
-
_
Wheeled Tractor
1
8
2&64
1.44
10.16
0.72
1.12
Roller
0
8
-
-
-
-
_
Motor Grader
2
8
2.42
0.62
11.41
1.38
0.98
Miscellaneous
1
8
5.40
1.20
13.60
1.14
1.12
Total:
46.46
5.42
65.89
6.92
6.50
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00
As demonstrated in the Table, emissions from equipment used during the grading
process are expected to be less than significant.
The proposed project will also result in air emissions in the long term. These will be
primarily associated with vehicle trips to and from the project site. Table 2
demonstrates the resulting emissions, based on an average of 77 daily trips.
Table 2
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
77 x 15 = 1,155
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Pounds at 50 mph 0.23 5.97 1.22 0.03 0.03
SCAQMD Thresholds
of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00
As demonstrated, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of
significance associated with long term air emissions.
The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors.
"Trip Generation, 7" Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, single family
detached.
-7-
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 (Biological Technical Report,
EcoSystems, 2/06)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
ripa tan habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Biological Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2/06)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (Biological Technical Report,
EcoSystems, 2/06)
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? (Biological
Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2/06)
IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed prcject2. The study
included both records searches and on site investigation. The on site survey identified
non-native plant communities on the site, consisting of grasslands, tamarisk and
ruderal habitats. No sensitive plants were identified during the site survey. No
sensitive animal, bird or lizard species were observed, nor was sign identified. A
cactus wren was observed foraging off -site. The site includes a stand of non-native
tamarisk, which could harbor nests of species protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. In order to assure that no protected species are nesting on the subject
property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of potential nesting vegetation (i.e.,
trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) supporting migratory birds/raptors shall be
avoided during the nesting season (if feasible), recognized from February I
through August 31.
If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal
would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three
days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird
surveys, then the nesting vegetation would be avoided until the nesting event has
completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The
biologist shall flag the nesting vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer
(e.g., construction fencing) around the nesting vegetation. The size of the buffer
would be based on the type of bird nesting (i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger
buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event
has completed.
This condition assures that the impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than
significant levels.
The biology study found that there is neither riparian habitat nor wetland areas on the
project site.
The development will not conflict with any City preservation ordinances, or with the
implementation of either the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan or the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Overall, impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than
significant.
2 "Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by EcoSystems Restoration Associates, revised February 2006.
-9-
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 Resource Survey,
Applied Earthworks, 9/05)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Cultural
Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9/05)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Cultural Resource Survey, Applied
Earthworks, 9/05)
V.a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site3. The study
included both records searches and on site investigation. The on site investigation
found no evidence of archaeological resources on the property. The structures located
on the site were constructed in the 1960's, and are not historically significant. The
City's standard policy is to require monitoring of all properties during trenching and
grading to assure that any buried cultural resources that might be found are properly
identified. The proposed project has been required to comply with this standard policy
by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This standard monitoring requirement
will assure that any impacts to currently unknown cultural resources are less than
significant.
The project site lies on the edge of the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. No
paleontological resources were identified in the cultural resource survey. While
reviewing the survey, HPC considered the potential for paleontological resources on
the site, and required the preparation of an on -site investigation prior to the initiation
of grading activities. In order to assure that no unique paleontological resources exist
on the subject property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. Prior to any grading activity, a field survey shall be conducted by the applicant in
order to identify and document potential surface fossiliferous resources. A report
of findings from the field survey shall be transmitted to the Community
Development Department and site monitors.
This condition of approval will assure that potential impacts associated with
paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.
Overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
3 "Cultural Resources Survey of Tentative Tract 33801," prepared by Applied Earthworks, September 2005.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
X
6.4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The project
proponent will be required to implement the Uniform Building Code standards
required for active seismic areas such as the City and region, to assure that impacts
associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels.
The site is located in an area with high potential for liquefaction. The City requires the
preparation of site specific geotechnical analyses prior to construction. In order to
assure that this analysis addresses, and provides recommendations for the potential
liquefaction hazard, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. Pre -construction geotechnical analysis shall include a specific focus on the
potential for liquefaction at the site. Should high groundwater levels be
encountered, the geotechnical engineering report shall include recommendations
for foundation design and site preparation to alleviate the hazard.
The site is flat, and is located in an area that is similarly flat. No hillsides occur in the
surrounding area, so there is no potential for landslides at the site. Soils in the City are
not expansive. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer, and
no septic systems will be installed.
With implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, impacts associated with
geology and soils will be less than significant.
12-
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 to
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
13-
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 ultimate development of 8 homes will not result in any impacts from hazards or
hazardous materials. The residents will participate in the household hazardous waste
programs implemented by Waste Management throughout the City. There are no
identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has been
integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are
no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site.
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
whicih would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? (General Plan EIR p.111-187 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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D
Consultants, 1/06)
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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D
Consultants, 1/06)
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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study,
P&D Consultants, 1/06)
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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D
Consultants, 1/06)
-15-
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Preliminary Hydrology
Study, P&D Consultants, 1/06)
VIII. a)-g) The development of eight single family homes is not expected to violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The homes will utilize ground
water provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic and
landscaping uses. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water
supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also implements
water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls and installation of efficient
fixtures. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant.
A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project". The study determined the
configuration required for the retention basin to be located at the east boundary of the
site. The basin is required by the City to contain the 100 year storm on site. The
analysis resulted in a basin which will have a capacity of 17,220 cubic feet, which will
accommodate the 100 year storm flow of 15,839 cubic feet. The City Engineer will
continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that capacity
is sufficient in the basin.
The City requires the implementation of best management practices during
construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface water. These
requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion of soils to less than
significant levels.
The property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA.
4 "Preliminary Hydrology Study for Tentative Tract No. 33801" prepared by P&D Consultants, January 2006.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
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
ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation
assigned to the property. The site contains an unoccupied residential unit, and
construction of the project will therefore not impact an existing community. The
proposed project will be required to comply with any habitat conservation plan in
effect at the time of development of the site. No impacts associated with land use are
expected.
17-
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 off.)
X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1,
which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources
as a result of the proposed project.
M
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 noise levels in excess of standards
X
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
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. I 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.
I I I ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project will be located in the southern end of the City, on the west side
of Madison Street. Due to the location of the retention basin adjacent to the roadway,
the nearest residential property will be located approximately 100 feet from the right
of way. The project also proposes a 6 foot high block wall across the frontage on
Madison Street. This portion of Madison Street was determined in the General Plan
EIR to be an area of relative low noise levels. Build out of the General Plan will not
cause the proposed project to experience noise levels in excess of City standards.
Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
-19-
The project site will generate higher noise levels during construction. However, there
are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the site, and impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
The property is not located within the influence area of an airport or airstrip.
-20-
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 ultimate build out of 8 single family residences will not result in substantial
population growth, or the need for additional housing. The site is currently vacant, and
development of the project will not displace people. No impacts associated with
population and housing are expected.
-21-
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 development of 8 single family homes will have no impact on public
services. The project will be required to contribute the required development impact
fees, which include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well as park
maintenance. Quimby fees will be required for the purchase of park lands The project
proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development
to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
-22-
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) As stated above under Public Services, the proposed project will contribute Quimby
and development impact fees to mitigate for potential impacts associated with parks
and recreation. No impacts are expected.
-23-
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. 111-29 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.111-29 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 33801)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 33801)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 33801)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project will generate approximately 77 daily trips. This portion of
Madison Street is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan
build out. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, impacts
associated with the proposed project will be less than significant.
The proposed project will include a single straight cul-de-sac accessing Madison
Street at a 90 degree angle. No hazards are expected. The proposed project will be
-24-
required to meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed project will have no
impact on transit facilities.
-25-
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)-g) Development of eight single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The
project is served by CVWD for water and wastewater treatment, and the development
-26-
of eight homes will have no impact on their facilities. The proposed retention basin
will be designed to control the 100 year storm, so that storm flows do not impact City
streets. Waste Management of the Desert serves the project, and will add these homes
to their service when constructed. They dispose of waste at several regional landfills
which have capacity to serve the proposed project.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
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 and cultural resource studies on the project site concluded that impacts
associated with these resources would be less than significant.
XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, and will not affect the
City's General Plan goals.
XVII. c) The development of the homes will have no cumulative impacts, because the project is
consistent with the land use designations assigned to the site.
XVII. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings.
-28-
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.
-29-
vn
0
0
N
W
W
U
C
a
F �
� 0
ad
04 U
wa
00
U
a
a
L0.
MLV
z
0
T
Y
X
0
a
b
a
0
u,
b
A
0
b
3
o,
00
O
ti
o
12, O
�aA
0
0
~�
3
F
••p
oA
0r7(Fj
°a�
daa�,dt�
0
00
M
M
U
F
N
00
>
V
�n
^
d
H
o
[G
oz
F
°z
au
w
w
wa
A
U
W
d
w
C
Q
w
a
UU
0
0
q)
a
U
cOi P.
cOi
0
°
�
bo
q
A
q
C7
W
0
O
�
L1
zz
a
UQ
ULl
PK
F'
u
y 0- w
`�
'
O
N
U
fC
•;
o
a
00 0
n
N
�
O � �
•O
V]
p
O
�,
a
W
F
A
w
a
U
UU
o c
w
> 0q 0u y
dUr'coaa
U
a
w0
�
A
O
00
NQ
aC
a�
3b
F
� h
d
o •�
�(5
U
0 .4(5
H
V 0
h
�b
c•
0
i
Pam
. w°
}
;
§
2
\�
§
/ƒ
\E
�
\§
w
/
k\
G±
)
0
2
�
2
—4§.e--
�
-Eb
0
0
\
0
§_m#mac
?
7
)
\/\\g;3
■
\±$)/7)
>e/*!E3