Loading...
PCRES 2006-031PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-574 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-099 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-866 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-574 APPLICANT: TRANS WEST HOUSING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26' day of September, 2006, held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Trans West Housing for Environmental Assessment 2006-574 prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2006-099 and Site Development Permit 2006-866 located '/4 mile south of Avenue 54 along the west side of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: APN 767-320-006 & 767-320-007; AND WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2006-574. 2. The proposed equestrian facility will not have a significant impact from the current existing equestrian facility in that the proposal does not involve a significant change or increase in use and is currently located within an existing Equestrian Overlay district. P:\Reports - PC\2006\9-26-06\Griffin Ranch Saddle Club\EA 2006-574 Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006-031 Environmental Assessment 2006-574 Griffin Ranch Trans West Housing Adopted: September 26, 2006 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 9. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-547 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 10. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d►. 11. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the honorable Planning P:\Reports - PC\2006\9-26-06\Griffin Ranch Saddle Club\EA 2006-574 Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2006-031 Environmental Assessment 2006-574 Griffin Ranch Trans West Housing Adopted: September 26, 2006 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 approve certification of Environmental Assessment 2006- 574 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 2006-574 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26`h day of September, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Quill NOES: None ABSENT: Nome ABSTAIN: None FPAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: — au1 DOUGLA R. EVANS, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2006\9-26-06\Griffin Ranch Saddle Club\EA 2006-574 Reso.doc Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Site Development Permit 2006-866, Conditional Use Permit 2006-099, Griffin Ranch Saddle Club 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Andrew J. Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 55 (extended). APN 767- 320-007,-014,-015. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Transwest Housing 47120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential, Residential Equestrian Overlay 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 Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a commercial stable in the Equestrian Overlay District. The Development Code sets forth specific development standards for such facilities. The applicants are proposing the Saddle Club for daily operation from 7am to 9pm, except for Daylight Savings Hours during which the facility shall close at 8pm, with 24-hour onsite supervision from both a resident manager and caretaker. The Saddle Club membership will be available to property owners of Griffin Ranch and the public. The applicants anticipate about 70 to 75 horses to be boarded at a time but have a maximum occupancy limit of 90 horses. Horse trailers will be limited to a maximum parking limit of 24 hours. The covered riding arena will be used during the darker hours of the evening since the outdoor pens and pastures will remain unlighted. Outdoor lighting will be limited to focused security lighting only and the existing lighting system will be removed. No competitions, rodeos, or similar public events will be held at the facility. No grandstand or viewing area will be constructed. No public announcement or other loudspeaker system will be used. The Saddle Club will provide daily riding lessons and clinics two to four times a day for members. Horse jumping activities will be conducted both within the covered arena and the exercise pens. Stables and the manure storage building will include an automated fly -spray system and heavy-duty odor control blocks will be utilized. Manure will be removed from the site every other day or as needed by a licensed waste hauler within a covered container. Manure will not be spread in the exercise pens and stables. The property is currently being used for boarding 20 to 80 horses, in addition to residential facilities. The Site Development Permit is required to allow the construction of a private commercial stable on 15.0 acres located on the west side of Monroe, at Avenue 55 (extended). The -1- facility will include barns, covered stalls, a covered arena, exercise pens and pastures, a maintenance building, fully enclosed manure storage building, two care takers residences, and an office and clubhouse facility. The two existing residential buildings located on site will be incorporated into the project for use as an office/clubhouse and second caretaker's residence. All of the equestrian buildings proposed for construction are intended to be metal paneled, steel -framed agricultural structures. The City staff report for the Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit are incorporated by reference. The staff report and recommended conditions of approval include additional project description information and conditions of approval which include all mitigation measures included in this Environmental Assessment / Impact Study. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant, approved TTM 34642 South: Existing single family residential homes East: Monroe Street, agricultural lands West: Griffin Ranch single family residential 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X 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 -3- 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 -4- b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -5- 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 X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently partially developed, including the boarding of 20 to 80 horses, and two existing single family homes and a pool. One of the single family homes is to be integrated into the project as a clubhouse, and the second will remain as a residential unit. The site is not located on an Image Corridor, as defined by the General Plan. The applicants prepared a visual study to identify potential visual impacts and views in relation to the proposed site. The applicants installed story poles for the covered arena and staked the locations of all the proposed buildings on the site. Staff photographed the site and the staked locations of buildings. The project proposes primarily open areas, with barns, stalls ,and arena buildings located on the western half of the property, and pastures and exercise pens located in the eastern half. Views from the site, and on properties around the site, are primarily to the west and southwest. Homes surrounding the site on the north, west and south will not have significant impediments to their views, due to the lower profile of structures (up to 21 feet), and the direction of the views in relation to the proposed site. Impacts will be less than significant. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the site. The site is located in a relatively rural area of the City, with a mix of single family homes and agricultural and ranching activities. The proposed equestrian facility is consistent with the agricultural/ranching land uses in the area and with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. The site is located within the Equestrian rol Overlay and the use is consistent with this overlay. Impacts associated with visual character have been found to be less than significant. d) The project will operate from 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m., except for Daylight Savings Hours during which the facility shall close at 8pm, and will not include on site event or outdoor arena lighting. Security lighting will be provided. The City will require photometric analysis of all on site lighting as required by the City's Zoning Code and shall require compliance with these standards to assure that the lighting conforms to the City's standards, prohibiting spill -over to adjacent properties. Implementation of City standard will assure that impacts are less than significant. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricLAtural 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 proposed project consists of a riding stable and associated facilities. The land is currently vacant, and not in use for farming. Agricultural activities occur to the east, across Monroe Street, and further to the south and east. The proposed project is consistent with agricultural activities, insofar as it will result in the keeping of animals, as might occur on a ranch. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site. The project will have no impact on agricultural activities in the vicinity, and will complement these activities. No impacts are expected. M1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X 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 development of air quality plans by the South Coast Air Quality Management District was based on the City's General Plan build out. The proposed project will result in a riding stable, consistent with the Equestrian Overlay placed on these lands as permitted in the General Plan. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed project is consistent with, the air quality planning undertaken for the Coachella Valley, and the City. An air quality impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The analysis found that construction activities could result in potentially significant impacts associated with PM10 on a cumulative basis, although impacts associated with the proposed project itself do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The analysis provides mitigation measures, listed below, which will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis further found that the motor vehicle emissions associated with the project I Letter report entitled "The Saddle Club at Griffin Ranch Focused Traffic and Air Quality Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, and signed Vicki Lee Endo, May 15, 2006. ®' in the long term will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts are therefore less than significant. The analysis also included an analysis of vector and odor control. The facility, by its nature, will result in flies, and has the potential to result in odors, particularly those associated with manure storage on site. The analysis found, however, that the proposed fly spray system, and the minimum separation between project facilities and adjacent homes of at least 80 feet, would reduce impacts associated with flies to less than significant levels. The analysis of odors associated with the proposed project found that the project site is designed with odor minimizing principles, including good ventilation and stall orientation, and that good management practices, including the regular removal of manure from the enclosed manure storage building, will assure that impacts associated with odors are reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, Section 9.140.060 of the Municipal Code contains measures regarding the use, placement, and setbacks of manure and manure storage buildings, which regulate odor control of equestrian facilities. As the property is currently being used by 20-80 horses for on -site boarding depending on season, impacts associated with the keeping of horses are pre-existing. As described above, the air quality analysis recommends the following mitigation measures be implemented to assure that impacts associated with air quality are reduced to less than significant levels, as follows: 1. All non -grass areas including arenas and trails will be irrigated daily to control dust. Water cannons will be utilized to assist with coverage. 2. Riding and activity hours will be between 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. (except for Daylight Savings Hours during which the facility shall close at 8pm, and in the summer when activities will occur during the cooler hours of the day) to minimize the amount of dust and odor. 3. All stall, aisles and work areas will have an insect spray system to control the breeding of flies and a high-pressure mist cool -fog cooling system. 4. The southern property boundary shall be landscaped with a hedge material. 5. Horse stalls shall be cleaned daily. 6. Odor control blocks will be placed every 50 to 75 feet along the southern property boundary. 7. All improvements and periodic maintenance of the interior drive and parking areas shall be included in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan, and designed to reduce the potential for fugitive Dust emissions. 8. The manure dump building shall be located at least 80 feet from the residential units to the west and north, and 330 feet from the residential units to the south. 9. Manure shall be removed from the site by a licensed hauler every other day, or as needed, in order to minimize odors. 10. Manure bins will be covered prior to transport. 11. The manure storage building will include an insect spray system. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project's air quality impacts are less than significant. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -11- IV. a)-f) As previously stated, the proposed project site is developed with horse boarding and pastures. The parcel contains limited native vegetation. A biological resource survey was prepared for the proposed project2. The survey found that the site consists primarily of ornamental and agricultural plantings. No rare or endangered plants were identified on the site, and none are listed as potentially occurring. An on -site survey was conducted of the site, identifying desert spiny lizard, side -blotched lizard, European starling, mourning dove, common raven, California ground squirrel, house mouse and desert cottontail on the site. No species of concern were identified on the site. No burrowing owls, or suitable burrows for this species, were identified on the site. No riparian habitat was identified on the site, nor are there any wetlands. Because of the high level of disturbance on the site, it is expected that impacts to biological resources will be less than significant. The proposed project lies outside the boundary of the fee payment area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and is not identified as a conservation area in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall impacts associated with biological resources are insignificant. 2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed La Quinta 15-acre Residential Project," prepared by James Cornett, March 2006. -12- 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? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) 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? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a)-d) A cultural resource report was prepared for the proposed prcject3. The survey included both records searches of available maps and reports, and a field investigation. The records search found that the project site has not been previously studied, although 21 historical/archaeological sites and 14 isolates have been identified within one mile of the project site. The on site survey identified no pre -historic resources, and determined that none of the structures on the site had the potential to be historic. Impacts associated with cultural resources are therefore expected to be insignificant. A paleontological resource report was also prepared for the proposed project°. The survey included records searches of available maps and reports, as well as a field investigation. The records search identified that the project area occurs within the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and that the soils on and around the site are of the Holocene age. The survey also identified mollusks on the site during the on site investigation. Development of the project could result in destruction of invertebrate fossils. This represents a potentially significant impact which shall be mitigated, as follows: 1. Any earth moving activity in Holocene -age lakebed required for the proposed project shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be empowered to redirect earth moving activities if required to identify and remove resources. The monitor shall also be equipped to quickly remove resources 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel Numbers 767-320-007 and 014," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2006. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Assessor's Parcel Numbers 767-320-007 and 014," prepared by CRM Tech, April 2006. -13- if found. The monitor shall submit, within 30 days of completion of earth moving activities, a report of findings to the Planning Department for its review and approval. Any resource removed from the site shall be properly documented and curated. 2. The proposed project site is not a known burial site or cemetery. No remains are known to have been interred at the project site. Should remains be encountered during excavation of the site, California law requires that the coroner be contacted, and that he/she take responsibility for proper disposal of remains, and for Native American consultation, if necessary. The proposed project will be subject to these state requirements, which will serve to assure that impacts associated with human remains are insignificant. With implementation of the mitigation measure included above, impacts associated with cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. -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 site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, is located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The City will enforce Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones for the proposed project. -15- The preliminary geotechnical investigations prepared for the project site found that although the site occurs in an area where groundwater occurs at a depth of 45 feet, the soils on the project site are too dense to generally be subject to liquefaction. The City will require project -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of building plans for the site, to assure that any required remedial soil stabilization is implemented as part of the building permit process. These City standards will assure that impacts associated with seismic hazards are reduced to less than significant levels. The site is flat, and is not located near a hillside. No landslide potential occurs. The potential for soil erosion is addressed under Air Quality, above, and Hydrology, below. Soils in the area of the project site are not expansive. The project site is within the service area of the Coachella Valley Water District, and all facilities will be required to connect to existing sanitary sewer services. 5 "Geotechnical Invetigation Proposed Saddle Club Facility...," prepared by Sladden Engineering, January 2006. 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) 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) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 to h) Expose people or structures to a X 1 7- significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas ' or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for use in the horse boarding operations. These materials may include small quantities of hazardous materials, and are not expected to cause any potentially hazardous conditions. Waste and manure from the facility will be removed on a regular basis, by licensed haulers. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area 6. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. No impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected. 6 "Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Griffin Saddle Club," prepared by Proterra Consulting, February 2006. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. 111-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental 19- Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a)-g) Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD. The District has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan based on General Plan land uses in all the jurisdictions within its service area. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed project as well as long term build out of the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project will not generate flows which will impact either water quality or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project isbe required to implement National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows, both during construction and operation of the project. These City requirements are designed to assure that water quality is not impacted by development sites. The project will be connected to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sanitary sewer lines. A preliminary hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project. The study found that the site is located within a Zone C according to the FEMA map for the area. The site is therefore subject to minimal flooding. The hydrology analysis determined that on -site drainage will be conveyed via swales to a retention basin located in the area of the exercise pens. The analysis found that the 100 year 3 hour storm would generate 1.86 acre feet of water to be stored in this retention basin, which will be sized to accommodate this runoff, plus a safety factor as required by the City. The City Engineer will review and approve the hydrology for the site prior to the issuance of grading permits. This City standard will assure that impacts associated with storm water on the site will be reduced to less than significant levels. 7 "Preliminary Hydrology Report, Griffin Ranch Saddle Club," prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc., June 2006. 90112 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 proposed project is currently a horse ranch and boards 20 to 80 horses, and the proposed project will expand and improve this existing use. The General Plan identifies the property for equestrian use and very low density residential use. The Zoning Map identifies the area as being located within an existing Equestrian Overlay district, which permits the use of horses, related equestrian accessory buildings, and the use of commercial equestrian facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the property. There is no existing community on the site, and self contained residential development occurring on the north, west and east will not be impacted by the proposed project as mitigated. No impacts associated with land use and planning are expected. Section 9.140.060 of the La Quinta Municipal Code regulates the Equestrian Overlay District (EOD). The EOD code provides definitions for equestrian -related buildings, regulates the setbacks of equestrian -related buildings, permitted uses, the keeping of horses, and regulates equestrian related nuisance issues through performance standards such as the use and removal of manure, dust control methodology, parking standards, outdoor lighting, noise, and odor. Because the project addresses and meets the performance standards as set forth in the Section 9.140.060, the project has been determined to comply with the Equestrian Overlay District code and all applicable performance standards. The proposed project is outside the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. -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 X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. i l l ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 1 I I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 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)-0 The proposed project will result in the use of equipment on site which has the potential to generate noise. In order to quantify the potential noise impacts, a noise analysis was prepared 8. The noise analysis included specific analysis for horse activity at the site, as well as the equipment which will be used on the site (hot walker, wash racks, grooming racks, fly spray pump, Koolfog pump, and vacuum unit). The location of 8 "Exterior Noise Analysis for TransWest Housing — Saddle Club," prepared by Bridgenet, May 2006. -23- each activity and piece of equipment or activity was identified, and the noise levels it would generate was analyzed. The analysis concluded that the loudest activity would be the use of the vacuum unit. Based on the noise levels generated, noise contours on the site were developed. These determined that noise levels at the property line from activities and equipment on the project site will be 50 bBA Leq or less at all property lines. This noise level is below the City's standards for noise levels at residential land uses, resulting in less than significant impacts to residential units located on the north, west and south. The development of the project site will result in short term increased noise levels during construction activities on the site. The size of the site, and the distance to the closest residence (80 feet at the closest point), as well as existing or planned walls around existing or planned residential projects adjacent to the site, will assure that these noise levels are less than significant. Furthermore, the City Municipal Code limits construction hours to the less sensitive daytime hours, when ambient noise levels are higher, and increases in noise levels are less discernable. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site is not located in an airport influence area. Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. -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) XII. a)-c) The development and improvement of horse stables and pastures will not induce population growth, but will accommodate the animals of new and existing residents in the area. The site currently operates as an equestrian boarding facility, and the proposal will not displace either people or housing. No impacts are anticipated. -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 physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Development and improvement of the horse stables and other facilities will have an insignificant impact on public services. The site is already developed, and its impact on these services has already been absorbed by fire and police services. The improvements proposed will have no impact on schools, as no new population will result from the project. -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) The development and improvements proposed by the proposed project will add to the recreational facilities available in the City and will be a recreational benefit to the City, consistent with the Equestrian Overlay district for the property. The project will be available to members who will consist of both property owners of Griffin Ranch and the general public. No competitions, rodeos, horse shows, or similar public events will be held at the facility. Improvements to the site will result in beneficial impacts, insofar as facilities will be expanded and improved. No negative 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. I11-29 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)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) 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) Development and improvement of the project site is expected to have a negligible impact on traffic and circulation. A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed project, to assess this particularly specialized land use9. The analysis found that the 9 Letter report entitled "The Saddle Club at Griffin Ranch Focused Traffic and Air Quality Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, and signed Vicki Lee Endo, May 15, 2006. -28- project will likely generate about 130 trips per day at full occupancy, 13 of which would occur in the morning peak hour, and 13 during the evening peak hour. Given that the site is currently operating, the total trips generated are only expected to represent a 12.5% increase over current baseline conditions. The traffic analysis considered the trips generated, and the potential need for improvements on the site. The analysis concluded that signalization and right turn lanes at the project site were not required, however, the analysis did find that the location of a left turn break in the median on Monroe Street would be warranted within 2 years of initiation of the proposed project. This need arises from the size of vehicles associated with the proposed project (trucks hauling trailers) and the potential for U-turns at Avenue 54 and Monroe Street. The analysis further determined that for this same reason, acceleration/deceleration lanes should be provided on the west side of Monroe to allow these larger vehicles to accelerate or decelerate outside the traffic flow of the street. The project includes such a acceleration/deceleration lane. The analysis also considered the parking provided within the proposed project, and found it sufficient to accommodate both cars and trucks hauling trailers. The analysis also found that the site access provides safe access to the public street, with inclusion of a stop sign for eastbound vehicles. Access to and from the existing residential development will also be provided. The analysis concluded that the proposed project will have less than significant impacts on traffic and circulation. The findings and recommendations of the traffic analysis as cited above have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and are incorporated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These conditions of approval will assure that the impacts associated with traffic and circulation are less than significant. No horse shows or other special events will occur on the site. Horse trailers are prohibited from parking on -site longer than 24 hours. -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.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Implementation of the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on utilities. -30- The project site is currently served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. The modest increase in activity at the site will not have an impact on wastewater generated at the site. CVWD's treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability to expand its capacity as demand rises. Similarly, CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficient water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the proposed project and other projects in its service area in the long term. The increase in activity resulting from the proposed project will not significantly increase water consumption at the site. The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property to retain the 100 year storm, as required by the City. The City Engineer will review the plans to assure that storm flows are adequately contained, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Domestic waste will be collected by Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands, and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The disposal of manure is likely to be handled by a specialized hauler, who may deliver the materials to a composting facility for its recycling as manure. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining adequate contracts to assure that the manure management requirements imposed by the City are maintained in the long term. -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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X 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 project site has been graded and disturbed, and development will not impact biological resources. The site has the potential to impact paleontological resources, but mitigation measures included in this document reduce impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the provision of equestrian related facilities as envisioned in the General Plan. As such, it implements the long term goals of the General Plan. XVII. c) The air quality analysis identified potential cumulative impacts associated with fugitive dust associated with project construction. Mitigation measures contained in -32- this document, however, assure that these cumulative impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. d) The proposed project will only marginally increase activities at the project site. Impacts associated with noise, traffic and similar issues which could impact human beings are all expected to 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. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. - Not applicable. -34- INO r- CD O 0 N M r M. N 04 °a a a O\ O IL O O N a C n U n c o o0 x r y O 3 C Q O Q C/i N F-� W F d A w z �WQW wU U� y C C C C C C G r.0 W O O O O O O H g ° n a a a a a a > a CL C U C C r ❑ C C O C C a U U iz vz O O x U � o C o C C C G C F v v C v v v 0 0 C o 0 0rL °° to W to to� G b to tc Q A o Q A Q o o q Q oz E zz E A E E a W W Q '� W W ° Q W W "';WWW_7775 (i7 {r C C W r C Lq {r 'b b � � 'b 'C •' � b 'O U U U U U a m U U z o "Cl CL U O ba Q° ctl R « 'NO C y Z u °_ U 3 y > l P. P. W U .-C. \ \� 2; \\ � § 2 u [ f E § ; ƒ / §z � \ k§ 36 § \ . \-( � \2k \\ - = j z u * \\