Loading...
PCRES 2006-018PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2005-076, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34038 AND VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-030 CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-552 APPLICANT: BORREGO RESORT HOLDINGS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 111" day of April, 2006 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Borrego Resort Holdings, to recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 2005-552, prepared for Specific Plan 2005-076, Tentative Tract 34038 and Village Use Permit 2005-030 located on the south side of Calle Tampico, between Avenida Villa and Avenida Navarro, more particularly described as: LOTS 3 THROUGH 11, BLOCK 123, SANTA,CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA, UNIT 14, MAP BOOK 18/82-83 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2005-552) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be adopted; 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 adoption 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 2005-552. 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 peresoea552.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006-018 Environmental Assessment 2005-552 Borrego Resort Holdings, Inc. April 11, 2006 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. Development of the site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontological resources. However, the mitigation measures included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing variety in housing opportunities for City residents. 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. The construction of 20 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. The project provides 66 on -site parking stalls, constituting 100% of the required total parking for the project. The gated access will not create significant additional traffic congestion, as it will service only 20 residential units and allows for access to guest parking within the building. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has no potential to adversely affect human beings. Development of the site will generate PM 10; however, the standard requirements for dust control have been incorporated into project approval. No significant long-term noise impacts have been identified. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. peresoea552.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006-018 Environmental Assessment 2005-552 Borrego Resort Holdings, Inc. April 11, 2006 S. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-552 and said 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 Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2005-552 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 2005-552 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 111" day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Ladner, and Chairman Quill NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None peresoea552.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006-018 Environmental Assessment 2005-552 Borrego Resort Holdings, Inc. April 11, 2006 QUILL,'Chairman of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California peresoea552.doc Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Specific Plan 05-076, Village Use Permit 05-030, and Tentative Tract Map 3 403 8, Casa La Quinta 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The southeast corner of Avenida Villa and Calle Tampico, APN 773-076- 002 through -005, 773-076-010 through -013 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Borrego Resort Holdings 163 53 SE River Forest Pl. Milwaukie, OR 97267 6. General plan designation: Village Commercial 7. Zoning: Village Commercial 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 Specific Plan and Village Use Permit to establish the design standards and guidelines and allow the construction of a 20 unit condominium project on a 1.23 acre parcel. The Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide the 1.23 acres into a condominium map, consisting of one lot. The project would include a sub -grade parking level, and two floors of living area. The building is proposed in a "U" shape. A total of 100,218 square feet is proposed. Building roof peak heights are proposed to extend up to 38.5 feet at some locations. Access to the project will be provided into the parking level from Avenida Villa. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing commercial offices, Ben Franklin Elementary school (Village Commercial) South: Vacant lands (Village Commercial) East: Vacant and developed commercial land (Village Commercial) West: Vacant lands, existing single family residential (Village Commercial) 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 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 Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit X 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 visual character or quality of the site and X 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 project will result in the development of 20 condominiums on 2% stories (2 stories of living space plus a semi -underground garage). The project site is located on the south side of Calle Tampico. Commercial and elementary school facilities exist to the north, one-story single family homes exist to the west, commercial and vacant lands are to the east, and vacant and park lands lie to the south. The primary views in this area of the City are to the west and south, with the Santa Rosa mountain foothills located less than one mile west of the site. The commercial and school facilities will not be significantly impacted by the project, due to the distance separating the sites, and the orientation of the views. Single family homes to the west will maintain the same views to the west. Views to the east will be obstructed, but do not include any identified or other apparent scenic vistas. The project site is currently vacant, and does not include significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The visual effect of the land use proposed, a multi- story residential building at higher densities, is something that has not been considered in the Village area to date. Such developments on substandard, antiquated blocks of land can overpower the streetscape and be out of character with the surrounding development, if not designed in a sensitive context. The project is consistent with the Village Development Guidelines in terms of land use and architecture. The project scale, while at first appearing to be inconsistent with the Village context, is actually not far removed from the general parameters of other commercial buildings which have been approved and built since the inception of the Village Guidelines in 1998. In achieving a reasonable project density for an urban scale project, the proponent has made an attempt to provide a more pedestrian scale as well, by incorporating parking under the building and providing staggered setbacks to the building, both vertically -4- and horizontally. While the sub -grade parking adds about 5 feet to the structure height, it extends the highest points of the roof peak only 3.5 feet, while a majority of the roof peaks maintain the Village height limit of 35 feet. This is considered to be a minimal aesthetic consideration, given that the site provides 100% of its 66 required parking stalls on -site, which is much more critical in marketing a residential project than for commercial proj0cts in general. NOTE: The applicant is still working to final the design of the garage level entry ramp, which could affect the building height. At present, there is the potential for the ultimate design to effect a 2 foot increase in the overall building heights, creating a range from 35.5 to 40.5 feet in height. While not negligible, this increase would not result in a significant effect on surrounding properties beyond the original proposal. Overall impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be less than significant. d) The construction of the proposed project will increase light generated at the site, primarily through landscaping and site lighting. Lighting from vehicle headlights will be very limited, due to the location of the parking in an underground garage. The Specific Plan, and the Development Code, require that all on -site lighting be fully shielded and not allow for spill -over to adjacent properties. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with on -site lighting will be less than significant. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IL 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. II1-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is located in the urban core of the City. No agricultural activities occur within several miles of the project site. Lands surrounding the project are mostly built out, and have been for some years. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected. 101 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 net increase of any criteria pollutant for X 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. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of Village Commercial, which allows commercial and high density residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to be consistent with these plans. The proposed project will generate short term air quality impacts associated with site grading and construction. The City and Coachella Valley experience significant concentrations of PMIO (particulate matter of 10 microns or less); the Coachella Valley is consequently in non-compliance for PM10. The Valley began implementing more stringent measures to control PM10 with the adoption of an updated management plan in 2002. The City will implement these requirements as part of the grading permit process which will be applied to the project, including the -preparation of a PM10 management plan. The mass grading of the project site has the potential to generate 32.47 pounds of fugitive dust per day. This is well below the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. 7- The grading of the site will require construction equipment which will also result in air quality impacts. Due to the small size of the site, however, limited equipment is expected to be required. The equipment required and the resulting emissions are shown in Table 1, below. 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 Whe�led 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 1 8 1.21 0.31 5.70 0.69 0.49 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.12 Total: 45.25 5.11 60.18 6.23 6.01 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 operation of the project will also result in air emissions, primarily with those associated with motor vehicles. The 20 condominiums are expected to generate approximately 117 average trips per day'. Table 2 shows the resulting emissions. Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 117 x 15 = 1.755 PM10 PMto PMto Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 35 mph 0.50 9.72 1.2 0.04 0.04 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.00 550 100 150.00 "Trip Generation, 7th Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 230, residential condominium/townhouse. Em As demonstrated, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance associated with long tern air emissions. The development of 20 condominiums is not expected to expose persons to pollutant concentrations, or to generate objectionable odors. Overall impacts associated with the development of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. W 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.) I) 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.) M IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is vacant, previously graded and level land, in an area that is mostly developed. The site has been disturbed by previous grading activities, and contains only sparse, low-lying vegetation. No sensitive habitats occur on the site. The site is not identified in the General Plan as being within an area which requires surveys for sensitive species. The site is not within the boundaries of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee area, nor is it considered for conservation in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 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 insignificant. 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, Foothill Archaeological, 3/05) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in x the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Cultural Resource Survey, Foothill Archaeological, 3/05) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geolpgic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Cultural Resource Survey, Foothill Archaeological, 3/05) V. a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site 2. The study began with records searches. The archaeologist also performed an on -site survey which identified no resources on the surface of the site. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18, in regard to notification of Indian Tribal organizations which may have resources potentially affected by the project. Of the 26 tribes contacted, 4 responded requesting consultation under the SB 18 legislation. To date, the City has resolved any issues with 3 of the 4 consulting tribes, and is in conceptual agreement with the concerns of the last remaining tribal organization, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. Their concerns are not considered significant as they involve monitoring and curation issues which are being addressed by the City on all projects at the present time, and which will be applied to this project as well. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) has established a policy requiring that all projects include on -site monitoring for trenching and grading activities, to which this project will be subject. This monitoring will assure that impacts to cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The following is a complete list of adopted HPC recommendations: A. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 2 "A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Casa La Quinta Project," prepared by Foothill Archaeological Services, March 2005. -12- B. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. C. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. D. The conditions of approval for this item shall be included in the submitted report, "A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Casa La Quinta Project, Riverside County, California", prepared by Foothill Archaeological Services, prior to issuance of first permit requiring monitoring. E. Pursuant to their request, the monitoring crew shall include a member of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians. F. If Native American cultural resources are discovered during monitoring or the subsequent construction phase, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, shall each be notified and allowed to consult on the discovery and its disposition. The project site occurs within the boundaries of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The project proponent conducted a records search for paleontologic resources, but did not conduct an on -site survey. The HPC also considered the potential for paleontological resources on the site, especially given the site's location within the ancient lakebed, and concluded that an on -site survey was required, in addition to monitoring. In order to assure that potential impacts associated with paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels, therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to groundbreaking, 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 Community Development Department and shall be provided to site monitors prior to beginning of any earth -moving. 2. On- and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a -13- monitor has been retained shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth - moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun. 3. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. 4. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 5. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City for curation: Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry. The project proponent, or his contractor, is required by state law to report any human remains which might be uncovered during grading. The site is not a known burial site, but should such remains be identified, the provisions of law will assure that the potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. With implementation of the mitigation measure above, the overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to X 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 proposed project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The City implements Uniform Building Code standards for active seismic, to assure that impacts associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. This area of the City is not located over a high groundwater table, and is not subject to liquefaction. No hillsides or slopes occur surrounding the site, so there is no potential 15- for landslides. 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. -16- 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) c) 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 _17_ involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wi ldlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The development of 20 condominium units 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 downtown has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significantw/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER I QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. 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? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, Hacker 02/06) 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 Report, Hacker 02/06) 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 Report, Hacker 02/06) I) 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 Report, Hacker 02/06) g) Place within a 100- ear flood hazard 19- area structures which would impede or }{ redirect flood flows? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, Hacker 02/06) VIII. a)-g) The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is responsible for the provision of water to the site 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 project3. The study analyzed the required storage needed to assure on -site retention of the 100 year stone, as required by the City. The hydrology design proposes the construction of a subterranean retention system under the parking area. The hydrology analysis determined that a structure capable of retaining 10,000 cubic feet of runoff was needed to meet the City's standards. This will require the construction of a structure or structures, called "StormTrap" with two rows, one 5 feet deep and 170 feet long, and one 5 feet deep and 184 feet long. The study further proposes two potential alternatives for the ultimate disposal of storm water from this retention structure: either through percolation, or through the installation of pumps which would remove storm water from the site and dispose of it in existing off -site drainage facilities. The ultimate method of disposal and adequacy of methodology will be determined by the City Engineer, who will continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that the hydrology design is sufficient to meet City standards. These requirements will assure that the storm water generated on the site represents a less than significant impact on area storm facilities in the future. The City requires the implementation of best management practices, as described and required in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 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 subject property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA. 3 "Preliminary Hydrology & Drainage Report Tentative Tract No. 34038," prepared by Hacker Engineering, February, 2006. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan 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 project site is currently vacant, so the proposed project will not divide a community. The Village Commercial land use designation allows the broadest range of commercial and residential uses, and was envisioned to allow a mix of such uses in the Village area. The land use of the project is therefore consistent with the designation placed on the property, and there will be no conflict with City plans or policies. The Specific Plan is proposed, as allowed in the General Plan, to allow the flexible and innovative use of design and site planning to vary from the City's adopted zoning codes. As allowed by the General Plan and Development Code, the Specific Plan sets the site -specific design standards and guidelines for the project site, related specifically to height. In all other aspects the project concept and preliminary plans are in conformance with the balance of the remaining applicable zoning code standards. No applicable habitat conservation plan is in place that affects this site. No impacts associated with land use are expected. Staff has worked extensively with the applicant to address the architectural massing of the project, in an attempt to achieve a balance between the urban scale associated with higher density development and the more village/town scale envisioned for the Village at La Quinta. Structural massing of the building on the streetscape was analyzed, and consideration of parking, height limits, plate line setbacks, and other factors were considered in trying to achieve this balance. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a x known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The 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. -22- 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. 111 ff.), b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I 1 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. III 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 is located in the Village area of the City. The project proposes condominiums above the street grade, on two floors. Windows and balconies will be located on the street sides of the project, but all outdoor activity areas are proposed to occur in the center of the U-shaped building, shielded from the noise generated by the surrounding streets. Since noise is significantly lessened by intervening structures, As part of the building permit process, the City requires that building construction result in interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL, and exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL. The proposed project will be required to demonstrate compliance with this City -23- standard. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site will generate higher noise levels during construction, but construction noise impacts are not anticipated to be significant beyond the level of nuisance. There are few sensitive receptors adjacent to the site, mostly single family residential structures. A school is located northerly of the site, across Calle Tampico.. The street right of way and setbacks represent a separation of over 100 feet. Activity areas for the school are located away from the street, and screened by school buildings. Further, the project construction is restricted by City municipal code to occur during the prescribed day time construction hours, as set forth. It is not anticipated that noise levels at the school will exceed, City standards, and that impacts will be less than significant. The property is not located within the influence area of an airport or airstrip. -24- 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) XIL a)-c) The construction of the 20 condominiums 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. The project will provide a housing type alternative at the higher end of the housing market, and will promote a limited degree of pedestrian mobility due to its central proximity to the La Quinta Village area. It will also provide for all resident and guest parking in the sub -grade parking facility, thereby getting cars off the street as well as away from view, which will serve toward promoting pedestrian movement. -25- 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 physipally 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 construction of 20 condominiums will have a limited 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. These fees, along with the property tax generated by the construction, and the sales tax generated by the residents, will offset the cost of providing public services to the site. Overall impacts are expected to be less than significant. -26- 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 the equivalent of 0.168 acres of park land under the City's Parkland Dedication ordinance (Quimby Act requirements), and development impact fees, to mitigate potential impacts associated with parks and recreation. In addition, the site includes recreational amenities, including a pool area and passive recreation facilities, which will be available to all project residents. No impacts are expected. _27_ 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. 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)? (SP 05-076) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (SP 05-076) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (SP 05-076) 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) As previously stated, the proposed project will generate approximately 117 daily trips. The land use contemplated with the project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property. The General Plan EIR did not identify long term deficiencies in level of service for this area of the City. Further, the residential land use will generate fewer trips than would a commercial retail project of similar size. It is likely, therefore, that the proposed project will have a lesser impact on the traffic and circulation in the area than anticipated in the General Plan. Impacts. associated with the proposed project will be less than significant. -28- The proposed gated entry has stacking room for one car at the entry keypad. With this design, it would be preferable to have one additional stacking space for entry vehicles, but more importantly, the design does not allow for vehicle turnaround of rejected cars. The proposed design requires that a vehicle that is denied entry to the parking area must back up the entry ramp and out on to Avenida Villa, a situation where a driver's view line will be highly obstructed by the ramp angle. The reality is that, even with adequate stacking for the current design, there always will be the potential for entry traffic that may not be able to back out if blocked by cars behind. To best address this, staff and the applicant have conceptually agreed on a system by which a visitor would use on street parking and access the resident via a walk-up intercom box placed near the driveway. One or two on -street spaces would be designated for 20 minute parking, or as a loading or stopping -only space. The immediate area around the driveway would be red -curbed to minimize view obstruction into and out of the garage access. This will provide a reasonable alternative to traffic queuing up in the entry and should address most instances in this situation. It is also anticipated that the small number of residential units will result in minimal visitor traffic, as well as the fact that Avenida Villa is a very short local street and will have very limited traffic. In addition, as residents and their guests are more permanently established and become "settled in" with regard to guest parking protocol, problems should be inherently minimized. The access to the project site will be approved by the City and the Fire Department, to assure that adequate emergency access is provided on site. The proposed project proposes to provide 100% parking on site, consistent with the requirements of the Development Code. The proposed project is located on a Sunline transit route, and residents will have access to that service. Overall impacts associated with traffic and circulation are expected to be less than significant. -29- 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.) i) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the projects 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) The construction of 20 condominiums will have a limited impact on utilities. The City's water and sanitary sewer provider is CVWD. CVWD has indicated its ability to -30- serve the project site. The City requires retention of the 100 year storm on site, 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. All utilities charge connection and service/utilization fees to new customers. Rate structures are designed to include not only current service, but required expansions or upgrades to services in the future. Therefore, the fees charged by the utilities assure that the impacts to their services are less than significant. -31- 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) The proposed project could impact paleontological and cultural resources. The mitigation measures provided in this document, and City policies regarding on site monitoring, however, assure that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and promotes the goals of the Village, to provide both working and living opportunities for City residents. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Cumulative impacts associated with the project will be limited, due to the project's size. The cumulative impacts associated with General Plan buildout have been identified in the General Plan EIR. -32- XVII. d) Impacts associated with air quality, noise and other impact areas which could affect human beings will be less than significant.. -33- 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. review. Not applicable. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for 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. -34- � r U o M U r .b O N � d O W � o � 0 y r U r O w o U F U U o � F H ai d F+r (^ d kA a o a U O � M r o > 0 x ° 0 o c C O N Q G ctl U 0 v U W F-' Pi M U 7 N O co .�+ U 4 r� U7 O d ON L� FF o z z x� w F a c, U zm 0 aV UU ° 0 0 y R V N a C �' C a O 0 C 0 F 0 O O G 0 d O ro ° w C7 ", ❑ R b 5 F u � b cn on w 0 0 0 cFd R U p •� O pn a w a` o a E ro P. G1 h G G 0 z � o o p o • o 0 0 •� ,,Wj o� .Q U 0 o = C, — G e 0. a cE O O a o y 0 0 mo o o to t 0 U a. U U Q a Ll c 0 o A c O (A > on w ~ w U N a w on R C U W O pq C O C O O G tC tl y a c/ o> �_ a to 0 0 0 0 ° u c m q >y d W a � a E U C w^ p• ° H W" ca O U ODD V A V U U U G O W O U OA > O ^' O O " D U O O iG a O 0 Y C •y O w U U O y U � a R U U° N •-f �° � a C.aL. 0 cn Q. z U