Loading...
PC Resolution 2013-011PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2013-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36403 CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2012-621 APPLICANT: CONSTANCE SCHIVARELLI WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23'd day of July, 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by Constance Schivarelli to adopt Environmental Assessment 2012-621 , prepared for Tentative Tract Map 36403, which proposes to subdivide approximately 7.3 acres into eleven lots, generally located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Calle Conchita, more particularly described as: APN: 766-090-008, 766-090-010, 766-080-009 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 2012-621) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a potentially 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 and mitigation measures have been incorporated. Therefore, the Community Development Director is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program be certified; and, WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more potentially significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision - making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the project could result in a number of potentially significant effects on the environment, mitigation measures have been identified, and included Planning Commission Resolution 2013-011 Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Constance Schivarelli Page 2 in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, to reduce the significant effects to a less - than -significant level; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department mailed and published a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092 on the 15`h day of July, 2013 to the Riverside County Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on July 12, 2013 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; 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 adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Assessment, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the project. Based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this project, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Planning Commission finds that there are no significant environmental effects resulting from this project. 2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2012- 621 that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. The 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-011 Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Constance Schivarelli Page 3 4. There is no evidence before the City that the project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. The 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 under Environmental Assessment 2012-621 that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. The 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 City will not be significantly affected by the project. 7. The project will not create 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. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program and any comments received thereon, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 9. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2012-621 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 753.51d1. 11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code §71 1 .2. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-011 Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Constance Schivarelli Page 4 12. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based upon, are located in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. SECTION 2. That it does hereby recommend to City Council adoption Environmental Assessment 2012-621, which includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of July, 2013, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Weber, Wright, and Chairperson Barrows NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Alderson and Wilkinson ABSTAIN: None KATIE BA S, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2013-011 Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Constance Schivarelli Page 5 A NSON, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: County Clerk Countv of Riverside Attention: Tamm Marshall 2724 Gateway Drive Riverside, CA 92507 From: City of La Quinta Attn: Les Johnson 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta. CA 92253 Subject: The City of La Quinta intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2012- 621 in compliance with Section 21092 et.seq. of the Public Resources Code, with respect to the project more fully described herein. Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Tentative Tract Map 36403 State Clearinghouse Number Lead. Agency/Contact Person Telephone N/A City of La Quinta/Les Johnson 760-777-7125 Project Location (include County):. The southwest corner of Madison Street and Calle Conchita, within the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.3 acres into 11 single family lots having a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and one parcel for stormwater retention purposes. Access to and from the project will be via a single public cul-de-sac street extending from Calle Conchita, which connects to Madison Street. The Community Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a potentially 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 and mitigation measures have been incorporated. Therefore, the Community Development Director is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program be certified. The Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and all documents referenced therein along with the Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review and copying Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78- 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. The public is invited to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review period beginning on July 14, 2013 and ending on August 6, 2013. For more information or assistance, please contact Jay Wuu, Associate Planner at 760-777-7125. Planning Commission Action: The La Quinta Planning Commission will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public meeting tentatively scheduled for July 23, 2013, to be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Study Session Room, located at 78- 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. City Council Action: The La Qui City Council will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public meeting tentatively scheduled�For ugust 6, 2013, to be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Study Session Room, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico La Uinta, CA 92253. nson, Community Development Director Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study (as required by Sec. 15063 of the Public Resources Code) To be completed by the lead agency Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2012-621 Tentative Tract Map 36403 Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jay Wuu, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 The southwest corner of Madison Street and Calle Conchita, La Quinta. Constance Schivarelli P.O. Box 764 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Low Density Residential (4 du/acre) Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.3 acres into 11 single family lots having a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and one parcel for stormwater retention purposes. Access to and from the project will be via a single public cul-de-sac street extending from Calle Conchita, which connects to Madison Street.. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vacant lands/Existing single family residence (Low Density Residential) South: Vacant lands/Single family residential (Low Density Residential) East: Madison Street/Single family residential (Low Density Residential) West: Vacant lands (Low Density Residential) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. A- 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 ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ 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 pursuan�t to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigat*n Ineasyires that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Associate Planner Printed name b/('5 Date City of La Quinta For -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 Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic 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 its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Project description) Less Than No Significant Impact Impact I. a)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 11 single family homes. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows single and two story homes to be built in the Low Density Residential designation. This type of development is consistent with development currently under way or planned in the vicinity of the site. The site and surrounding area are some distance from the Santa Rosa Mountains, and construction of the homes will not block views to these mountains. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. The site is located along Madison Street, which is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to meet setback and landscaping requirements for the corridor, to improve the aesthetic appearance of Madison Street in front of the property. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. d) The construction of 11 houses will result in minor increases in light generation at the site, primarily due to house and landscape lighting and vehicle headlights. Vehicle headlights will be intermittent and temporary and will not impact the area. The City imposes strict standards for landscaping and residential lighting, which is required to contain lighting within the site boundaries. Impacts associated with light are therefore expected to be insignificant. -4- Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing 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) Less Than No Significant Impact Impact K4 X X II. a)-c) The southern portion of the project site was previously developed as a single family home and is not currently in agriculture. The northern portion of the project site is a former orchard which has been left fallow for a number of years. Northwest of the project site is one single family home and to the north and west are vacant lands which are not currently in agriculture. The development of the site will not impact the ability of these lands to be used for agriculture. Overall, however, there is no significant agriculture in the area, and the land has been designated in the General Plan for urban uses. There are no Williamson Act contracts on or adjacent to the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected. 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 implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (General Plan EIR) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing X or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; CalEEMod) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing X emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan; CalEEMod Model) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (CalEEMod Model; Appedix C- Mass Rate LST Look -up Table) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X (Application materials) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases? (Project description) III. a) The proposed project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SCAB. The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans, including the recently adopted 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP). IDS The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City of La Quinta's land use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is consistent with the intent of the AQMP. b, c) Both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project will result in the release of criteria air pollutants. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction and operational emissions are described individually below. Table 1 summarizes the short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes the ongoing emissions that will be generated at operation. Construction Emissions Construction activities result in the emission of criteria air pollutants from site grading and ground disturbance, operation of construction equipment, building construction, and off gassing from paving and architectural coatings. Construction related air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are temporary and end once construction is complete. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur in one phase over a 12-month period from January 2014 to December 2014. Project buildout will result in 11 single-family homes averaging 5,000 square feet each. As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over the one-year construction period, including both summer and winter weather conditions. It should be mentioned that the Table below shows the projected unmitigated emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures during construction will further reduce emission levels. Applicable mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control practices in conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed project for criteria pollutants, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. Table 1 Construction -Related Emissions Summary (Pounds per dam _ CO NOx ROG SOz PM10 PMz.s Construction 56.5 Emissions' 25.40 38.96 7 0.04 10.05 5.25 550.0 100.0 75.0 150.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 0 0 0 0 150.00 55.00 ' Average winter and summer emissions, unmitigated. Construction is assumed to occur in 2014. Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2011.1.1. Operational Emissions Operational emissions occur over the life of the project that result from area sources (landscaping equipment, consumer products etc.), energy sources (electric and natural -7- gas demand), and mobile sources (vehicles). As shown in Table 2 below, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. Table 2 Operation -Related Emissions Summary (Pounds per day) CO NO. ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source: Area Energy Mobile 0.94 0.01 1.70 0.05 0.11 0.01 7.74 4.35 0.96 Total Emissions' 8.73 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.19 4.47 2.67 0.01 1.22 100.0 75.0 150.0 150.0 0 0 0 0 ' Average winter and summer emissions, unmitigated. Source: CaIEEMod model. version 2011.1.1. Non -Attainment 0.02 0.01 0.15 �0.18 55.00 The Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is currently designated nonattainment for ozone (8-hours) and PM1o. A request to re -designate the Basin as being in attainment for PM10 was sent on April 28, 2010; however, the greater region is currently designated "serious" non -attainment by the EPA, and federal re -designation for PM10 in the Coachella Valley is currently pending (April 2013). In order to achieve attainment in the region, an Air Quality Management Plan was adopted establishing strict measures to reduce current emission rates to acceptable standards. The Final 2012 AQMP relies on a comprehensive and integrated control approach aimed at achieving the 8-hour ozone standard by 2027, based on implementation of additional long-term measures. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and PM10 emissions. However, this impact is not expected to be cumulatively considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors (NOx and ROG), and the City will require the preparation of PM10 management plans for construction. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) The nearest sensitive receptor to the subject property is the existing single-family residence located immediately north of the site. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above, average daily emissions are not expected to exceed SCAMQD thresholds during project construction or operation. However, NOx (precursor to ozone), PM1o, and PM2.5 are also pollutants of local concern in the Coachella Valley, and it is important to address their potential impact to sensitive receptors near the project site. Localized Thresholds of Significance were determined using the Mass Rate LST Look- up Table for a 5-acre site, 25 meters from a sensitive receptor in the Coachella Valley. Analysis indicates that NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions will not exceed localized thresholds during the construction phase of the project. Additionally, construction emissions and associated impacts will be further minimized through the implementation of effective dust control practices in conformance with SCAQMD Rule -8- 403. These include, but are not limited to, the use of soil stabilizers, routine watering of unpaved roads and disturbed surfaces, reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, routine cleaning of roads, and covering of import/export soils during transport. e) The project will result in the development of 11 single-family homes, and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f, g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions both during the construction phase and during operation at build out. Based on the CalEEMod model, construction emissions will generate approximately 227.81 metric tons of CO2 equivalents over the construction period of 12 months. Construction related greenhouse gas production will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Operation of the proposed project will create on -going greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and the transport and pumping of water for domestic use. Table 3 describes annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Table 3 Annual Operational GHG Summary Mitigated (Metric Tons/Year) Emission Source CO2 mm CH4 N2O CO2e Area 1.07 --- --- 1.08 Energy 69.44 --- 69.73 Mobile 191.76 0.01 191.94 Waste 2.58 0.15 --- 5.78 Water 8.28 0.02 -__ 8.94 Total 273.13 0.18 --- 277.47 Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. State legislation aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020; however there are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. Statewide programs and standards will help reduce GHG emissions generated by the project, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. The proposed project will also be required to implement the CalGreen Building and Cal Energy Codes at the time that building permits are issued. The City's GHG Reduction Plan also includes measures that will assist in the reduction of emissions from the proposed project. These codes and the plan include energy efficiency standards which are much more stringent than they have been in the past. The greenhouse gases generated by the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the environment and will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation. -9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the roject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X either 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 X any 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.) X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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.) X d) Interfere substantially with the 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.) -10- IV. a) A biological resource assessment was completed for the proposed project'. The survey found that the property consists of former citrus and date palm orchard that had long since been abandoned, along with patches of tamarisk and disturbed saltbush scrub. Evidence of former structures and debris dumping was noted. The site survey found no sensitive plants on the project site. The site survey also did not identify evidence of any sensitive animal species on the site. The City of La Quinta is a participant in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Plan does not identify conservation areas in the vicinity of project site. b►-f) The project area does not contain any riparian habitat. There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the project site. The site includes a stand of non-native tamarisk and citrus trees, which could harbor nests of species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should the project proponent initiate ground disturbing activities during the nesting season (February through August), the City requires that the applicant comply with the Act. This City standard assures that the impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed project area is within the area covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project area is not in a conservation area under the MSHCP, and as such is required to pay a mitigation fee. There will therefore be no conflict with the Plan, and no impact is expected. "General Habitat Assessment" prepared by Scott Cameron, Ecological Sciences, Inc., January 12, 2012. -11- V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact K9 No Impact 9 ;1 V. a) The project site is currently vacant. A garage built in the 1970's was demolished in 2011. There are no historic structures on the site, and previous surveys have not identified historic structures. There will therefore be no impact associated with historic structures as a result of the proposed development. b) Almost all of the lands within one mile of the project site have been reviewed by prior surveys. The Cultural Resources report2 notes that the southern half of the project site has been reviewed under at least four prior cultural resource surveys. The report notes that over 100 historic/archaeological sites and isolates have been recorded within a one mile radius of the project. However, no cultural resources have been recorded or identified within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the project site. The report also reiterated that archaeological resources may occur beneath the surface of the site, and that their disturbance would constitute a potentially significant impact. As a result, mitigation measures must be imposed to assure that no archaeological resources are impacted during the grading of the project site, as follows: 1 . An archaeological monitor shall be present on and adjacent to the project site during all ground disturbances. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and redirect construction activities should a buried resource be uncovered, and the City shall be immediately notified. Proof of retention of a monitor shall be provided in writing to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity. The monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the Planning Department. Any resources identified shall be professionally processed and curated. 2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report" prepared by CRM Tech, January 12, 2012 -12- c) The proposed project site lies in the vicinity of the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. The Paleontological Resources report' states that the proposed project has a low to indeterminate potential for impacting vertebrate paleontological resources, but may have a high impact potential for Holocene -age invertebrate remains among undisturbed soil areas. The report recommends that grading, trenching, and excavations beyond the top two feet of soils shall be monitored for fossil remains. Vegetation removal and leveling of surface soils would not require monitoring. The report recommends standing policies on excavation monitoring, resource collection, and the reporting of findings as mitigation measures. As a result, the following mitigation measures shall be taken, as follows: 1 . On- and off -site trenching and rough grading shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall salvage fossils, and shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation. All excavation below a depth of two feet should be monitored to mitigate the impact on fossil vertebrates that may be present. The paleontologist monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the Planning Department. d) The project site is not a part of a known burial ground, nor is it adjacent to a known burial ground. No cemetery occurs in association with the existing church to the north. California law requires that any human remains found when excavations occur be reported to law enforcement. Further, law enforcement is required to determine if the remains have the potential to be culturally significant to local Native American Tribes, and to contact the Tribes if they are determined to be so. These requirements of State law assure that there will be no impact to human remains as a result of the widening project. With the mitigation measures above, overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. 3 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report' prepared by CRM Tech, January 13, 2012 -13- VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 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? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) j c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately 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) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X R X X VI. a) According to the Geotechnical report', the proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone. The site will, however, experience significant ground shaking during an earthquake. The site will require that any construction on the site meet the seismic requirements of the building code in effect at the time of construction. These requirements are 4 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Tentative Tract 36403 Prepared for Petcon Lands, LLC" C.H.J. Incorporated, January 12, 2012 -14- designed to limited impacts associated with construction in seismically active areas to less than significant levels. These standards will assure that there will be no impacts associated with ground shaking. The project site has been identified to be located in an area subject to potential liquefaction and should be a potential design consideration. It is not considered to be a hazard due to the current groundwater depth exceeding 90 feet. As the ground at the project location has been identified as being in an area of active subsidence and consists of soil conditions that may not provide uniform or adequate support for structures, appropriate mitigation measures are required, as follows: 1. Mitigation shall include a minimum mandatory removal of at least the upper 6 feet of existing soils beneath the existing ground surface and replaced as properly -compacted soil. Mitigation shall include soil improvement and rigid mat foundations. Flexible connections to utilities at the foundation interface are highly recommended, as are increased slopes for gravity flow sewer pipelines. Because of the potential for differential settlement, the use of post - tensioned slabs resting on at least 36 inches of properly compacted fill material for structural support shall be required. The recommended measures identified in the project's Geotechnical Report shall be implemented. a) iv. The location is generally flat, is not adjacent to any manufactured hillsides or slopes, and is not susceptible to landslides. b) The proposed project will be subject to soil erosion due to wind and water during its construction. The City will implement PM10 Management Plans for grading, consistent with its standards for all projects, to assure that wind erosion is controlled. The City will also implement best management practices relating to storm water management during and after the construction process, to assure that storm water is not polluted by soils from the site or up stream sources. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) The project site's soils are generally granular and considered to be non -critically expansive. The results of expansion index testing in the Geotechnical Report indicate a "very low" expansion index. d) The proposed project occurs in an area of the City where sanitary sewer service is available. As the City will require that the project connect to existing sewer systems, there will be no impacts associated with septic systems. -15- VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the 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 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 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 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 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 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X -16- Plan MEA p. 9 h) Expose peo significant risk involving wild) where wildlani urbanized area are intermixed Plan land use i 5 ff) A or structures to a X of loss, injury or death and fires, including Is are adjacent to s or where residences with wildlands? (General nap) VII. a) - h) The ultimate development of 11 homes will not result in any impacts from hazards or hazardous materials. The residents will participate in the household hazardous waste programs implemented by Burrtec throughout the City. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site and the site is not located in an area at risk for wildland fires. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact i Vill. 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. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, X 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 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 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 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 K4 X -18- area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) Vill. a) & b) The development of 11 single family homes is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The homes will utilize ground water provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic and landscaping uses. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also requires water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls, the installation of efficient fixtures, and appropriate landscaping design. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant. c)-e) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project'. The study determined the configuration required for the retention basin to be located at the northeast parcel of the site. The basin is required by the City to contain the 100 year storm on site. The analysis resulted in a basin which will have a capacity of 1.3 acre feet, which has been identified to be able to accommodate the 100 year storm flow. The City Engineer will continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that capacity is sufficient in the basin. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans (PWQMP) has been submitted for the project. The City requires the implementation of best management practices during construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface water. These requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion of soils to less than significant levels. f)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. Further, no structures are planned, and no one will occupy the site for any period of time. No impact is expected. 5 "Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report, 2012. 6 "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, 2012. Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January -19- Potentially Significant Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use 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) Less Than Less Than No Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 1Q X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a) The project site is currently vacant and will not divide an established community. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation assigned to the property. The site and adjacent areas are generally vacant and construction of the project will therefore not impact an existing community. The proposed project will be required to comply with any habitat conservation plan in effect at the time of development of the site. No impacts associated with land use are expected. c) The project site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be subject to the regulations associated with that Plan. No impact is expected. -20- Potentially Significant Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a 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 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.) Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X. a) & b) No mineral resources are expected to occur within the project area. There are no significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project. The project site has been designated for urban use for a number of years. No impact will occur. -21- XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation 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. 1 1 1 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 1 1 1 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 1 1 1 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport 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 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise } levels? (General Plan land use map) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact R X X XI. a) & c) The site and most of the surrounding properties are generally undeveloped vacant land. The noise generated by car engines from 11 homes will be limited, and periodic, and is not expected to increase noise levels in the long term. XI. b)& d) The noise study prepared for the project' identifies that the construction of 11 homes will result in temporary elevated noise levels associated with the heavy 7 "Noise Impact Analysis, Tentative Tract 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January 2012 -22- equipment which will be used to grade the site. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site, as most of the surrounding properties are generally vacant. Construction will occur during prescribed daytime hours when noise levels are less impacted by additions to the noise environment. Although temporary increases in noise due to heavy equipment are expected to occur for short periods, the impact is expected to be less than significant, insofar as no sensitive receptors occur in the area. e) & f) The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. -23- Potentially Significant Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth 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.) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., project description) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., project description) Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X KI XII. a)-c) The ultimate build out of 11 single family residences will not result in substantial population growth, or the need for additional housing. The site is currently vacant, and development of the project will not displace people. No impacts associated with population and housing are expected. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant 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) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) No Impact XIII. a) The development of 11 single family homes will have no impact on public services. The project will be required to contribute the required development impact fees, which include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well as park maintenance. Quimby fees will be required for the purchase of park lands The project proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development to mitigate potential impacts to schools. -25 - Potentially Significant Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Project description; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project description) Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X XIV. a) & b) As stated above under Public Services, the proposed project will contribute Quimby and development impact fees to mitigate for potential impacts associated with parks and recreation. No impacts are expected. -26- XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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 cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic 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 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact _......._. --- X X KI X X X XV. a)-g) The traffic study' identifies that the proposed project will generate approximately 105 daily trips. This portion of Madison Street is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out. The proposed project is 8 "Focused Traffic Analysis, Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January 2012 -27- consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project will be less than significant. The proposed project will include a single public cul-de-sac accessing Calle Conchita, a designated public right-of-way, at a 90 degree angle. Calle Conchita accesses Madison Street. No hazards are expected. The proposed project will be required to meet the City's parking requirements. The project will include pedestrian sidewalks along all developed streets. The proposed project will have no impact on transit facilities. -28- XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of 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 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 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 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 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X *4 X X 9 -29- XVI. a)-g) Development of 11 single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The project is served by CVWD for water and wastewater treatment, and the development of eight homes will have no impact on their facilities. The proposed retention basin will be designed to control the 100 year storm, so that storm flows do not impact City streets. Burrtec serves the project, and will add these 11 homes to their service when constructed. They dispose of waste at several regional landfills which have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. -30- 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 1 to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re( habitat of a fish or wildlife sp cause a fish or wildlife popula drop below self-sustaining lev threaten to eliminate a plant ( community, reduce the numb restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples major periods of California his prehistory? b) Does the project have the to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impz are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a proje considerable when viewed in connection with the effects o projects, the effects of other projects, and the effects of p future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which substantial adverse effects or beings, either directly or indir XVII. a) Biological and cultural resources studies on the project site concluded that impacts associated with these resources would be less than significant. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, and will not affect the City's General Plan goals. XVII. c) The development of the homes will have no cumulative impacts, because the project is consistent with the land use designations assigned to the site. XVII. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings. -31- 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. General Plan EIR, 2002. 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. -32- CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEOA COMPLIANCE DATE: July 10, 2013 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 766-090-008, 766-090-010, 766- 080-009 CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map 36403 PROJECT LOCATION: The southwest corner of Madison Street and Calle Conchita, La Quinta. EA/EIR NO: 2012-621 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: Constance Schivarelli THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A qualified archaeological monitor shall be Community Development During earth moving City standards for present on site during any earth moving Department archaeological activities. Should the monitor identify a resource analysis resource, he/she shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities until such time as the resource can be properly identified and processed. The archaeological monitor shall be required to prepare a report at the end of earth moving activities and file such report with the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of monitoring activities for any building on the project site. On- and off -site trenching and rough Community Development During earth moving City standards for grading shall be monitored by a qualified Department archaeological paleontologist. The monitor shall salvage resource analysis fossils, and shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation. All excavation below a depth of two feet should be monitored to mitigate the impact on fossil vertebrates that may be present. The paleontologist monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the Community Development Department. SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Public Works Department and Mitigation shall include a minimum Community Development During earth moving Geotechnical Report mandatory removal of at least the upper 6 Department feet of existing soils beneath the existing ground surface and replaced as properly - compacted soil. Mitigation shall include soil improvement and rigid mat foundations. Flexible connections to utilities at the foundation interface are highly recommended, as are increased slopes for gravity flow sewer pipelines. Because of the potential for differential settlement, the use of post -tensioned slabs resting on at least 36 inches of properly compacted fill material for structural support shall be required. The recommended measures identified in the project's Geotechnical Report shall be im lemented.