Loading...
PCRES 2006-015PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (FOR MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28`h day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Innovative Communities for Environmental Assessment 2005-557 prepared for Tentative Tract 34243 located on the north side of Avenue 58, 1,000 feet west of Madison Street more particularly described as: APN: 762-240-014 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 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 2005-557. 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-cc\2006\4-18-06\tt 34243\ea 05-557 cc res.doc City Council Resolution 2006-015 Environmental Assessment 2005-557 Innovative Communities 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 City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 9. 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 City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-557 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 2005-557 reflects the independent judgment of the City. P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (Masquel\tt 34243 ea 05-557 pc res.doc City Council Resolution 2006-015 Environmental Assessment 2005-557 Innovative Communities Adopted: March 28, 2006 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 281h day of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Ladner, and Acting Chairman Quill NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City of La Quinta California ATTEST: — 'kax� DOUGLAS . EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta P:\Reports - PC\2006\3-28-06\TT 34243 innovative (MasqueAtt 34243 ea 05-557 pc res.doc Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2005-557 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 34243 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: North side of Avenue 58, approximately 660 feet west of Madison Street, APN 762-240-014 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Innovative Communities 200 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 Escondido, CA 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.) The proposed subdivision of a 20.1 acre parcel into 70 single family lots, as well as lots for streets, open space and retention basin. The proposed lots will be an average of 9,100 square feet, with the smallest lot being 8,627 square feet, and the largest being 15,888 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family attached and detached development, (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) South: Avenue 58, vacant desert lands (Medium Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Single family residential (Low Density Residential) West: Single family residential (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. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an FIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 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 Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic 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 light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map would ultimately result in the construction of 70 single family homes on lots of at least 8,627 square feet. Homes will be limited to one and two stories, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the development within PGA West and Puerta Azul to the north, and approved Specific Plan housing to the south (Coral Mountain Specific Plan). The site is flat, and is surrounded by similarly flat lands. Views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west will not be significantly blocked by single family home development. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. This portion of Avenue 58 is not designated an Image Corridor in the City's General Plan. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. d) Single family home development will increase light in the area, since the site is currently vacant. Impacts will be those associated with landscape lighting and car headlights. The City regulates lighting and prohibits spill over onto adjacent properties. Car headlights will be a temporary and sporadic intrusion. Neither impact is expected to be significant. -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 is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the site are developed in single family residential land uses. Lands to the south are vacant, but are not in agriculture. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The proposed project site and surrounding lands are designated for urban development, and have been so for some time. 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 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- 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 mapping. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to be consistent with these plans. Development of the site will result in both temporary (construction) impacts, and long term (operational) impacts to air quality. Each of these issue areas is addressed below. Construction impacts will be those associated with PM10, or fugitive dust, and grading equipment. Assuming a mass grading condition, the proposed project can be expected to generate up to 530.6 pounds of fugitive dust per day during grading activities. This exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds per day. The proposed project will be required to implement a PM10 management plan, which will include "Best Control Measures" established in the 2002 PM10 Management Plan for the Coachella Valley. These include: 0 CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance These measures will reduce impacts associated with PM10 generation at the site to less than significant levels. The equipment likely to be required to grade the property has been estimated in the table below. The resulting potential vehicular emissions from construction equipment is also shown. Table 1 Grading Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered Equipment Pieces hrs/day CO ROC Nox Sox PMto 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 28.64 1.44 10.16 0.72 1.12 Roller 0 8 - - - - - Motor Grader 3 8 3.62 0.94 17.11 2.06 1.46 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.12 Total: 47.66 5.74 71.59 7.61 6.98 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. Operational impacts will be those associated with vehicle trips to and from the site. Table 2 demonstrates the long term emissions, based on an average of 670 daily trips. 1 "Trip Generation, 7" Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, single family detached. -7- Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build out (pounds Der davl Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 670 x 15 = 10,050 PMIO PMIO PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 2.00 51.91 10.65 0.22 0.22 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 As shown in the Table, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance associated with long tern air emissions. The development of a single family subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: 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 Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X ripaAan 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 Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) 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 Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) 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 Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project2. The study included both records searches and on site investigation. The survey found that the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, with some native vegetation sparsely occurring on the site. No species of concern were found on the site, and none are expected to occur, due to the lack of native habitat. The study concluded that the potential for impacts to biological resources on the site is less than significant. No riparian areas or wetlands were identified on the property. The study further found that the build out of the site 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 "APN 762-240-014 Biological Resources Assessment," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, June 2005. -10- 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? (Historical/Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5105) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? (Historical/Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5/05) 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? (Historical/Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5/05) V.a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site 3. The study included both records searches and on site investigation. The study found no surface evidence of cultural resources, and no historic resources on the property. The City requires, however, that projects include on -site monitoring during grading and trenching activities, due to the high probability of occurrence of resources in the City. Monitors shall include a Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians designee. The proposed project has been required to comply with this policy by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This monitoring will assure that impacts to cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed tract occurs within the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. A paleontological survey was prepared for the proposed project°. The survey found shell fragments on the project site during the on site survey. In its consideration of the project, the HPC required the monitoring of grading and trenching activities. This requirement 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 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-014," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2005. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract Map No. 33085," prepared by CRM Tech. _11_ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) A geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the project sites. The study found that the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The area is seismically active, however, and the City requires implementation of the Uniform 5 "Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 20-Acre Residential Development," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, May 2005. _12_ Building Code standards required for active seismic areas, to assure that impacts associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. The soil did not encounter groundwater in borings, and although historic data indicates a high groundwater level in this area, the study concluded that development, water pumping and the evidence provided in the soil borings lead to a conclusion that liquefaction hazards on the site are very low. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. No hillsides occur in the vicinity. The potential for landslides is therefore non-existent. 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. Impacts associated with geology and soils will be less than significant. 13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (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 -14- 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) An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and Additional Investigation, were prepared for the proposed project6. The ESA found piles of stained dirt on the south and west boundaries warranting further investigation; that the site had been in agriculture in the past, and that pesticides, including DDT could be present; and that potential existing for underground fuel tank(s) on the property. In order to ascertain the potential impacts, additional investigations were conducted. The results of the site testing which was part of these investigations were that no significant amounts of hazardous materials were in the piles of soil; that levels of pesticides on the site were not above reporting limits; and that no underground tanks were identified on the site. The studies conclude that impacts associated with hazardous materials on the site are less than significant. The proposed project will generate waste from household cleaners and similar products in small quantities. These wastes will be disposed of through the City's franchise waste collection, Waste Management, which operates a household hazardous waste program in the City and region. Impacts associated with hazardous materials in the project are expected to be less than significant. The site is not identified in regional, state and federal databases as being the location of contamination. The site does not occur in an influence area for an airport or airstrip. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. 6 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," and "Report of Additional Investigations," both prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, April 2005 and June 2005, respectively. -15- v 0 0 N N r E W F Q A U z aU OV C C C G C G C C x o 0 0 ° o ° ° ° a na a a a a a a o, z U U U U U O O 0 U U U U U C C C U O U O U O U O U O O U O U O U 0 0 0 0 0 c c a °z . C G mo E E E �F oz C a a W bFA bOq Opp bCA bCA EEq bC9 - CW b b ° 0 7 U m v� w= C,w �w a �'� > ° e o M40 Uro Y°o o H°ao 4 o $ a a w h �.. w w .d � t � ❑ � •, ro a a ° E o C o aC 0 k 0 U o- 0 U o 0 U o 0 U o�c \ \/ . . \\ 00 - / - Q u / to (to ); ; / tQ ¥to 2\ e £) ) § » 2 \ > / \ )\ « &y &k \\ \\ (\ )x 3£ u£ \ 5 \ \ \ \to` \\\\/)\:[ (()�/\( \ /(a/¥;» e-25B c ƒj§m w E )s 2 ` —9§\}» w/\\/*]/im2G ` /*)/E >&*)°/)C:00 to E