Loading...
PC Resolution 2016-002PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016 - 002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON A 3.16 ACRE LOT AT 77210 LOMA VISTA CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 8th day of March, 2016, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Case and Lisa Swenson, for approval of a single family home on a 3.16 acre lot, more particularly described as: APN: 658-200-004 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 26, 2016 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan & La Quinta Resort Specific Plan The project site is designated Open Space on the General Plan land use map, and Low Density Residential on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan provides the localized land use designation for the site. The project is consistent with that designation. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. The Conditional Use Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - 002 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Swenson Residence Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Planning Division has prepared Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Surrounding Uses As conditioned, approval of the application will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. The proposed single family home is consistent in size and scale with the existing homes in the Enclave subdivision. 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Assessment 2013-630 (Exhibit A). SECTION 3. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Blum, Fitzpatrick, Wright, and Chairperson Wilkinson NOES: None Planning Commission Resolution 2016 - 002 Environmental Assessment 2013-630 Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 Swenson Residence Adopted: March 8, 2016 Page 3 of 3 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ROBERT W LKINSON, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: GABRICI PERE tanning Manager City of La Quil`ita, California CITY OF LA QUI TA NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT EXHIBIT A A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 Project Title: SWENSON RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2013-630 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECUVED Project Location: FEB 1 1 H16 77210 Loma Vista, within the Enclave Mountain Estates Proiect_Descr"rptiort, comMu"AWLO MENT The project proposes the construction of a 5,929± sq. ft. single-family residence on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and elevated building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. As mitigated, no potentially significant effects on the environment are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and all documents referenced therein, are available for review at the City of La Quinta Planning Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 on Monday through Thursdays 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, and Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The public is invited to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public review period beginning on December 30, 2015 and ending on January 20, 2016. Please provide any comments to Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, either by mail to the above address, by email at ncriste@la-quinta.org, or by fax at 760-777-1233. The project area is NOT on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 Planning Commission Action:. No Planning Commission hearing date has been set at this time. A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Associated Mitigation Monitoring Program. A public notice of the hearing will be published and mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the property when a date has been set. Please call 760-777-7125 for confirmation of the date, or with any other questions or concerns in regard to this notice. PUBLISH ONCE ON 12/30/15 1/8-PAGE DISPLAY AD F I L E D/ P O S T E D County of Riverside Peter Aldana Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder E-201501371 12/30/2015 10:54 AM Fee: $ 0.00 Page 1 � J 2016 /' 1 Removed: By 00POY Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Environmental Assessment 2013-630 for Conditional Use Permit 2013-152, The Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner 760-777-7125 Project location: 77210 Loma Vista La Quinta, CA 92253 APN 658-200-004 Project sponsor's name and address: Case and Lisa Swenson 62 Ellenwood Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 General Plan: Open Space — Natural (OS) Zoning: Open Space (OS), La Quinta Resort Specific Plan: Low Density Residential 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 project proposes the construction of a 5,929f sq. ft. single-family residence, consisting of 5,222 square feet of living space and a 707 square foot garage, on approximately 3.16 acres in The Enclave Mountain Estates within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Access to the lot is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. The lot is currently vacant and includes a previously graded access road and building pad, and 15-foot wide drainage channel/easement along its southern boundary. It is located on a rocky hillside adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Plans also include a pool, spa, and outdoor overlook area. The site is proposed to be excavated to lower the existing, previously graded pad from its existing 91t foot elevation to 87f feet above sea level. The home is proposed to extend into the existing hillside, and will require scraping of a portion of the slope to accommodate the garage. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: vacant open space South: single-family residential (The Enclave) East: single-family residential (The Enclave) West: vacant open space, single-family residential (The Enclave) Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. -1- 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. 1A 4V - !-�- " - ��` Signature 12/23/15 Date 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- �~CALIFORNIA PACIFIC OCEAN MEXICO II f- Desert Hot Springs _J 1JiAuJ 'Ipe Palm Springs. Cathedral City Rancho Mirage Palm Dosed Indio Or.at to Ie C IndfanWells• Coachella La Oulnta ♦ IM ,Wnc%'DE C(MN-rY - - FUN N v, N N N ti Exhibit ,wenson Residence �. A TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 1 ''lx"W.A. IFIC La Quinta, California _ � �,•, . -�,,-: 'r r •ram � � . �, . „ � + yr' '' r�. � '►ti + / \, A� �t.. - t Ilk AN - + J � v 6 Source. Googie Earth, 2015 Nwenson xesmence J TERRA NOVA Project Vicinity Map `." •"•f•,� `, .F `•• La Quinta, California 2 (Source: Hermann iIAR Design Group, The Altum Group, Prest Vuksic Architects, 2015 VMCT HMP NO, 2520.' S+ g N i 4 —� - has ern e.rJ wa®r wpe w .n mom-- nw w wo ePrd ru nns air auy sari �awiP tat ni � an Nrw xa o m a� rsor wru m w ber r� �v 9 11BI fIP1 av� rt �� r ror m a oar oR +tsar 1 noWenson Kesiaence L j TERRA NOVA Project Site Plan 3 FL4NftMG•M' *4 La Quinta, California 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 3.6 "Image Corridors"; Project aerial & site X photographs; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Project aerial & site photographs; application materials; Land X Suitability Study, The Altum Group, May 16, 2013; Photo Simulations & Site Sections; Project Site Plan; Project Planting Plan) a d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (application materials; Project Lighting Plan; CVMSHCP) I. a) The subject property is not located within a City or state designated Image Corridor. However, it is located immediately adjacent to and within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for the City and properties in the project vicinity. The site contains rocky slopes, ridges, and boulder outcrops, particularly to the north and west. It occurs at an elevation approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad on the current site is to be graded from its current 91± foot above sea level elevation to 87± feet, reducing the perceived height of the home from viewers below the site. The project will be visible from homes in the immediate vicinity, but is designed in a manner that reduces visual impacts to a great extent. The proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10± acres, of which 0.80 acres have been previously disturbed by grading of an access road and building pad. The proposed land use and general design of the project are consistent with the character of surrounding residential development. The residence will consist of a single -story structure with a largely flat roofline. The high point of the roofline will be 17' 11" from grade. Proposed colors and materials of the structure complement the desert environment. Landscape materials are proposed across the entire site, including the slopes below the home. 'These landscape materials -7- include Desert Willow, Creosote bush and succulents. Trees on the slope are proposed to be 6" diameter calipers, to assure that they provide screening. Overall, its limited size (3.16± acres) and scope (one single-family residence) will have a less than significant visual impact on a broader scenic vista. Project design has been approved by the Homeowners Association. The project will be conditioned to meet or exceed the City's drought tolerant landscaping requirements, and the project's landscaping plan is designed to screen the house by heavily landscaping the slopes. The proposed retaining wall on the west and south side of the house will be entirely covered in rock and/or faux -rock treatment, in order to blend into the hillside. The design features and conditions of approval will assure that impacts associated with scenic vistas will be less than significant. b) The subject property is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway, nor does it contain important trees or historic buildings. It does include rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and boulder outcrops of the Santa Rosa Mountains. A previously graded access road and building pad will be utilized, with some expansion required to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence. No blasting of rock is anticipated. Some rocks on or near the building pad and access road, including those that constitute a rock fall hazard, will be excavated and removed from the site or moved elsewhere onsite for decorative use on the retaining wall, or use as a barrier in potential rock fall areas. Alteration or damage to rock outcroppings outside the area of disturbance is not anticipated, and overall impacts to rock outcrops are considered less than significant. c) The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which constitute an important scenic resource for residences in the immediate vicinity and those at a distance. Undisturbed rocky slopes, exposed bedrock, and outcroppings are located throughout the property, in the form of the slope that surrounds the site on the west, south and east sides, and the slope that occurs to the north of the existing pad. The existing building pad occurs at an elevation of 91 feet, approximately 40 feet higher than surrounding residential properties. The pad elevation of the house is proposed to be reduced to 87 feet, which will lower the overall appearance of the house from surrounding residences. According to the Land Suitability Study prepared for the project, approximately 1.44 acres of the property has already been disturbed by previous grading of the building pad and access road. The remaining 1.72 acres is undisturbed, including the rocky slopes above the access road, an existing ridge, and areas east of the ridge to the flood control channel. The proposed residence will be built in the northeast corner of the existing pad, and the pad will be lowered to an elevation of 87 feet. The building pad will be expanded somewhat to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle turnaround and the proposed residence with garage. Viewshed analyses prepared for the project show that the structure will be largely shielded from view from the east by an existing and preserved ridgeline. The proposed limit of disturbance is 1.10 acres, with the remaining 2.06 ag.. acres undisturbed, including the highest elevation slopes on the northern and eastern portions of the property. The structure will be single -story with a roofline that is largely flat and limited in height to 17'11". Building elevations show that colors and materials will complement the natural environment. The style, scale, materials, colors, and amenities (pool, spa) of the proposed residence are consistent with other residential development in the area. Project design has been approved by the Homeowner's Association. Photo simulations were prepared to illustrate design elements, such as retaining walls consisting of faux rock and the thoughtful placement of natural desert landscape materials that will help shield the structure from surrounding properties and mitigate aesthetic concerns. Existing and proposed views from the south and east of the site are shown in Exhibits 4A and 4B. The Exhibits demonstrate that the proposed design and landscaping elements will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. d) Lighting and glare will be limited to that generated by one single-family residence, automobiles accessing the property, landscape lighting, and lighting placed at outdoor amenities, including a pool and spa. Light and glare can be expected to be similar to that generated by existing single-family development in the vicinity. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The CVMSHCP establishes guidelines for development adjacent to a conservation area in an effort to minimize edge effects on the conservation area, including a policy that lighting be shielded and directed toward the developed area (Policy 4.5.3 Lighting). The project lighting plan will also be required to adhere to the regulations of the City's Municipal Code (Section 9.60.160) to assure proper shielding of light sources and prohibit spillage onto adjacent properties. Lighting plans will be conditioned to prohibit lighting at the overlook area, and landscaping lighting will be required to be shielded and oriented away from the mountain slopes. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with light and glare remain less than significant. W V V V I E ' E . ?log .� AS, AM Source: Hermann Design Group, The Altum Group, Prest Vuksic Architects, 2015 F, Swenson Residence rAn:oit a Visual Simulations - Views A-C TERRA NOVA �A �� La Quinta, California E e< � V \ W v 1.. V • r ra'�# ` N Source: Hermann Design Group, The Altum Group, Prest Vuksic Architects, 2015 r Swenson Residence r.zninu ® Visual Simulations - Views D-G � � TERRA NOVA La Quinta, California Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 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 X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside Co. Important Farmland Map, 2010, CA Dept. of Conservation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? (La Quinta Zoning Map 2007; X Riverside Co. Williamson Act Lands map, 2006, CA Dept. of Conservation) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Project aerial & site photographs) II. a, b, c) The subject property is located within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and consists of sloping rocky terrain, including ridges and outcroppings. There is no agricultural activity currently, nor has there been in many years, in the project vicinity. The parcel is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. The project does not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, nor does it involve other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. -12- 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? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; CalEEMod Model) 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 X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; 2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley; CalEEMod Model) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (aerial photographs; CalEEMod Model) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description, CalEEMod Model) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the X purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description; CalEEMod Model) III. a) The Coachella Valley is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM10 SIP). SCAQMD recently released the Draft Final 2012 AQMP, which will supersede the 2007 plan once adopted. -13- The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The property consists of one lot immediately adjacent to existing single-family residential development, consistent with the City's land use designations for the area. The project is limited in scope (one single-family residence), and the proposed area of disturbance is limited to 1.10 acres, 0.80 acres of which have already been graded. Given its location adjacent to an existing neighborhood and limited scope, the project will be consistent with the intent of the AQMP. No impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are expected. b, c) Criteria air pollutants will be released during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the project. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated at operation. Construction Emissions The construction period includes all aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur over a 6-month period from June 2016 to December 2016. 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 6-month construction period, including summer and winter weather conditions. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that 700 cubic yards of material would be exported from the site. Due to the presence of bedrock on -site, it is anticipated that the grading process will generate abundant oversized (greater than 6" diameter) rocky materials, including boulders. Although some of this cut material can be screened to remove oversized rocks, then re -used on -site as fill, the model assumes all cut material will be unusable and exported off -site. Emissions account for standard reduction measures during construction, which include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control plans in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Impacts to air quality for criteria pollutants from construction of the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. -14- Table 1 Swenson Property Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary CO NOX ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 16.98 25.82 5.99 0.02 3.60 2.44 SCAQ'MD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, 2016. Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 outDL:t tables generated 12.22.15. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electric and natural gas), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions at operation of the proposed project. Table 2 Swenson Property Operation -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NO, ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5 Operational Emissions 0.69 0.12 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.03 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, 2016. Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. As shown in Table 2, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. The data are conservative and reflect unmitigated operations; implementation of standard reduction measures will further reduce pollutant emissions. These include, but are not limited to, the use of low-VOC architectural paints and coatings and energy -efficient appliances. Non -Attainment Historically, the Coachella Valley, in which the project site is located, has been classified as a "non -attainment" area for PMIo and ozone. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and PMIo emissions. However, given its limited size and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMIo or ozone precursors (NOx), and appropriate standard reduction measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences immediately west, south, and east of the project site. Their distance from the building pad ranges from approximately 120 to 200 feet. The nearest residence to the access road (driveway) is located approximately 20 feet southeast of the road. To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of La Quinta and subject property are located -15- within Source Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley). Given the project's size and proximity to existing housing, the 1-acre site tables at a distance of 25 meters was used. Table 3 shows on -site emission concentrations for project construction and the associated LST. As shown in the table, LST will not be exceeded for any criteria pollutant. It should be noted that emissions account for reduction measures, which include best management practices and standard dust control measures (SCAQMD Rule 403). Therefore, air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Table 3 Swenson Property Localized Significance Thresholds Qbslday) CO NOx PMin PM2.5 Construction 16.98 25.82 3.60 2.44 LST Threshold 878.00 132.00 4.00 3.00 Exceed? No No No No Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look-uE Table, SCA MD. e) The project will result in the development of one single-family home and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f, g) The project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. Construction -related emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is built. As such, impacts to air quality resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases associated with construction activities will be less than significant. Construction - related emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of construction equipment, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. Operation of the project will create ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and transport and pumping of water. Table 4 describes annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Table 4 Swenson Property GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities 103.02 0.02 0.00 103.51 Operational Activities 17.74 0.01 0.00 18.15 — - _.... ---. _ ......._ CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 12.22.15. Values shown represent the total annual, unmitigated GHG emission projections for construction and operation of the proposed project, 2016. _ State legislation, including AB32, 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, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars and =19 expanding the use of renewable energies, will help reduce GHG emissions over the long-term. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project will be less than significant. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 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 X and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; CVMSHCP) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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 X or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) 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 X removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) 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 X native wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013.) -18- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; X Biological Assessment & Impact Analysis of the Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013; Project Planting Plan) IV. a) Intensive biological surveys were conducted on -site and on adjacent land to the west, north, and northeast in May 2013. No individuals of any special -status plant species were found in the project area. No officially listed invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or birds were detected. Efforts to locate sensitive species not covered by the CVMSHCP (desert tortoise, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike) were made, and no observations or evidence of the species were found. The property contains suitable habitat for Palm Springs pocket mouse, which is considered a state Species of Special Concern and is a covered species under the MSHCP. Although no species were detected onsite, they could occur within the project area. The subject property is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsoni), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Although no bighorn sheep were observed and no evidence of them was found on the subject property, evidence (scat and possibly a very old bedding site) was found approximately 200 yards north and east of the project site. It is possible that one or more sheep could wander onto the site. This is a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation. Because the subject property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, additional required measures will apply, including the following: A biological monitor familiar with Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. 2. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in the appendix of the project Biological Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease transmission to the bighorn sheep population shall be implemented. The project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose, and -19- 4. CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which requires the construction of an 8-foot fence or functional equivalent separating the development from adjoining habitat if, I. bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or II. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. b) The subject property does not contain any blue line streams, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities. The site -specific biological survey found no sensitive plant species or vegetation communities that would be adversely impacted by the project. No additional surveys are required, and impacts are not expected. c) The subject property is located within the rocky foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. No wetlands, marshes, vernal pools, or coastal resources are located onsite or in the project vicinity. The project will have no impact on these features. d) Biological field surveys conducted onsite and on adjacent land to the north and east revealed no evidence of regularly used wildlife corridors on or through the project area. The site is not known to contain any important migratory corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Given that Peninsular bighorn sheep are known to occur in the project vicinity, it is possible that one or more sheep may wander onto the site. However, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the movement of the species, and the imposition of the CVMSHCP Required Measured described above will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There is no significant vegetation on the project site, and the City has no ordinances pertaining to trees or other vegetation. f) Because the project is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, it is subject to payment of the City's Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Also, because it is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP, the project is subject to additional adjacency guidelines that mitigate indirect or edge effects of development. The proposed project will comply with these guidelines, as described in response IV.a, above. The imposition of the mitigation measures and the payment of the required fees will reduce potential impacts associated with the CVMSHCP to less than significant levels. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? X (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Historical/Archaeological X Resources Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Resources X Survey Report for Swenson Residence at The Enclave Mountain Estates, CRM Tech, May 28, 2013.) V.a-b) A cultural resources study and site survey prepared for the subject property in April and May 2013 did not identify any historical or archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project area. Twenty-one (21) tribal representatives were contacted to inquire about potentially sacred or significant lands in the project area, but no specific archival information regarding them was identified. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. c) The project area is not known to harbor any unique paleontological resources or geologic features. Some ground disturbance has already occurred during previous grading of an access road and elevated building pad, and project development will require minor expansion of the pad, remedial grading, and removal and/or relocation of rock. The soils on the site consist of rocky soils not generally suitable for the location of paleontological resources. Impacts are not expected to be significant, and no alteration of unique geologic features is proposed. d) The subject property was closely inspected for any evidence of human remains during the site -specific cultural resource field survey in May 2013, and none was found. The proposed project is not expected to disturb any human remains. Further, California law requires that any remains unearthed by excavation or grading activity be reported to the County Coroner, who is required, if he/she identifies historic remains, to contact -21- Tribal representatives. This requirement of law will assure that impacts associated with human remains will be less than significant. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 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 X a known fault? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the X Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, X Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) iv) Landslides? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property X (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and Update Letter, May 7, 2015) 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 X disposal of waste water? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013 and -23- Update Letter, May 7, 2015; Project Easements and Utility Plan) VI. a)i. The subject property does not lie within a currently delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. Development of the project will not expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture. a)ii. The closest active or potentially active faults to the subject property are the San Andreas fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 18 miles to the southwest. Moderate to severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on these and other local and regional faults could occur on the subject property. Engineered design and earthquake -resistant construction methods will be implemented into the proposed structure. At a minimum, seismic design will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) in effect at the time that building permits are sought, to provide collapse -resistant design. a)iii. The potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading to occur onsite is considered nil due to the presence of shallow or exposed bedrock and a lack of saturated soils. However, the potential for seismically induced ground subsidence and collapsible soils is considered moderate to high due to the dry, loose (and undocumented) nature of the shallow fill soils onsite, which can settle and densify when subjected to strong ground shaking. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the site will be supplemented with design -specific geotechnical analysis to be required by the City as part of the building permit submittal. The geotechnical analysis and 2015 update letter identified the need for: • removal and recompaction of existing fills with properly compacted engineered fill; • recompaction of a zone beneath building pads, or utilization of deep foundations, as appropriate and in conformance with the geotechnical engineering report; ■ site clearing and grading shall be observed by a geotechnical engineer in conformance with the CBC; • specific grading recommendations provided in the project -specific geotechnical evaluation shall be followed;. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with ground subsidence are reduced to less than significant levels. a)iv. The proposed project occurs on a lot which was rough -graded some years ago. The geotechnical analysis considered the hazards associated with the steep bedrock outcrops that occur throughout the subject property, and the potential topple hazards, which vary with location. Topographic and geologic conditions generally preclude instability issues for the proposed pad location, although several loose or perched rocks above the pad were identified during the geophysical survey and are recommended for removal and/or relocation. -24- The existing access road is bounded by a vertical to near vertical cut face exposing bedrock, and precariously perched boulders north of the road pose significant falling rock hazards that represent a safety hazard and could obstruct access to the site. The geotechnical analysis examined the original proposal, and subsequently analyzed the changes to the project plans prepared in 2015. The changes primarily involved moving the house to the northeast on the site, which will result in greater encroachment into the hillside, and the need for a retaining wall behind (to the north) of the garage area. The Update Letter provided by the project geotechnical engineer indicated that the amended site plan and proposed construction were feasible, with the implementation of design recommendations. Both the original analysis and the 2015 update were transmitted to the County Geologist for review. The County Geologist found both analyses adequate, and concurred with the recommendations of the reports. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering report and the 2015 update letter, the proposed project shall be required to include the following design components: • Construction of retention systems to absorb rockfall impacts, decelerate moving boulders, and contain rock debris. • For the lower portion of the access road, a 5 to 7-foot high retention system consisting of a combination of berms, walls, ditches, and boulders is required. • For the higher portion of the access road, a retention system 3 feet high that positions and embeds large boulders (>4 ft. in diameter), or equivalent feature, approximately 5 feet upslope from the top of the cut face is required. • The installation of rock anchors to strengthen the retaining wall to the north of the garage. Project site plans indicate that rock fall protection walls, consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project. Actual designs should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Further, the geotechnical analysis was reviewed by the Riverside County Geologist, who determined that these design components are sufficient to reduce the risk of rockfall on the property. The County Geologist also will require that the wall designs be prepared by a structural engineer, to ensure that the parameters of the geotechnical report are followed. These requirements are expected to reduce potential hazards associated with rockfall to less than significant levels. b) The project is not expected to result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Remedial grading and limited expansion of the existing building pad is proposed. However, approximately 45% (1.44 acres) of the subject property has already been graded, and the proposed project minimizes site disturbance by utilizing the previously graded building pad and access road to the greatest extent feasible. Approximately 2 acres of the site will remain undisturbed. Nonetheless, the Coachella Valley region is characterized by seasonal flooding, and shallow soils are moderately to highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. A dust mitigation plan shall be required by the City as a standard requirement of development, and implemented by the project contractor to minimize fugitive dust generated during the development process. Water erosion prevention measures will be required through the implementation of Best Practices associated with the City- -25- required SWPPP and WQMP, both of which are designed to assure that water erosion is controlled and disposed of in a manner consistent with NPDES standards. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) Lab testing conducted by the project geotechnical consultant, and the granular nature of onsite soil deposits, indicate that the expansion potential of soils is considered very low. However, as recommended in the geotechnical report, Expansion Index testing shall be performed on the as -graded site soils prior to construction to confirm or modify these findings. Should expansive soils be identified on the site, the grading recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be modified to address them. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with expansive soils are less than significant. d) The proposed residence will connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. No alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed or required. No impacts are expected. -26- Vll. 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? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan Exhibit 4.1, Public Facilities) 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? (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a 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? (Figure S-11, Wildfire Susceptibility Map, Riverside County RCIP) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X -27- VII. a-c) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence in an existing residential neighborhood. The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than that associated with typical household cleaning chemicals and those required for maintenance of an onsite pool and spa. There is no foreseeable risk of a release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. No schools are located within '/-mile radius of the subject property, and no handling of hazardous materials or waste is anticipated from the proposed project that could pose a risk to an existing or proposed school. The property is adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. In accordance with Policy 4.5.2 (Toxics) of the CVMSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for Projects Adjacent to Conservation Areas, the use, generation, or discharge of any chemicals or bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife and plant species, habitat, or water quality on the adjacent conservation area will be prohibited. d) The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e-f) The project site is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and approximately 10 miles northwest of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. It is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or private airport, and therefore, will not result in an aviation safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. g) The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway networks or implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Emergency access to the property is available from the existing street grid. The proposed driveway is designed to provide adequate turn -around space for emergency vehicles. No adverse impacts are anticipated. h) The Santa Rosa Mountains adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property are categorized as a "Low" wildfire zone, due primarily to the sparse vegetation that occurs on these slopes. The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildfire hazards. -28- 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? b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (CVWD UWMP, December 2010) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 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- X or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) 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 X manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for 29- Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth X Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013; FEMA FIRM map; Project preliminary precise grading plan and hydrology study) VIII. a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The residence will be connected to an existing 8-inch sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista, and wastewater will be transported to and processed at Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. The project site will be subject to the City's requirements for surface water pollution prevention, as prescribed by NPDES standards. The City will require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address and prevent pollution during construction and long term operations at the site. The City's requirements include best management practices designed to prevent surface and groundwater pollution. The property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As such, it is required to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the conservation area is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. The southernmost edge of the conservation area, where it meets the subject property, occurs at a higher elevation (f 140 feet above mean sea level) than the building pad (91 feet). Runoff from the building pad currently flows downslope to an existing concrete -lined drainage channel and proposed retention basin in the southerly portion of the site (site improvements are described in more detail in response VIII.c-e, below). No runoff is expected to be directed toward the conservation area. b) Long-term water consumption associated with the proposed project will be limited to that required by one single-family residence, pool, and spa. Drought tolerant plant materials are proposed to limit water consumption for landscaping. In the short-term, water may be required during site grading as part of the dust mitigation program. Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD through an existing 12-inch water line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which is a long-range planning document that helps CVWD plan for current and future water demands. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the project. Impacts associated with water supplies are expected to be less than significant. c-e) The subject property does not contain any streams or rivers, and storm water issues associated with the project will be limited to local drainage, including that from higher -30- elevations west and north of the building pad. The geotechnical analysis prepared for the project notes that shallow or perched groundwater and surface runoff within and immediately adjacent to onsite drainage courses and fractures can be expected depending on seasonal precipitation. It also indicates that debris flow potential at the proposed building site are considered low. Existing flood control improvements serving the subject property and those in the immediate vicinity include a flood control channel that intercepts flow from the site as well as regional storm flow generated from the north and east of the project site. The channel conveys stormwater westerly to two, sixty -inch (60") diameter reinforced concrete pipe culverts, then southerly under Loma Vista to the La Quinta Resort Mountain Golf Course. Easement access to the concrete channel will continue to be provided on the property's access road/driveway near Loma Vista. The City has required the preparation of a hydrology study for the project site. The City's standard requirements will be imposed on the proposed project, to retain the 100 year storm on site, and to design flood control facilities that do not increase currently occurring volumes or velocities as they discharge to downstream properties. Proposed drainage patterns are generally consistent with existing drainage patterns. Storm flow from areas above the existing access drive, which currently flow down the access drive, will be conveyed to a depressed landscape area near the driveway entrance, where they will be be infiltrated. Additional terrace drains, storm drain inlets and pipe will intercept storm flow and convey it to an underground retention system or to the existing flood control channel. The underground retention system will consist of a pre-treatment chamber to capture debris and an infiltration facility such as a perforated pipe. These facilities are shown in the hydrology study to be sufficient to convey storm flows across the site, and not impact surrounding facilities or properties in a 100 year storm, as required by the City. The hydrology study will continue to be reviewed by the City Engineer, to assure compliance of the proposed project with all the City's standards relating to flood control. The building pad and access road have been graded for many years. Proposed expansion and remedial grading of the pad and road are not expected to significantly alter existing onsite drainage patterns or result in significant erosion. With the imposition of the City's standard requirements and conditions of approval, impacts associated with flooding will be less than significant. f-g) The building pad does not lie within a designated flood zone. Project development will not place housing within a flood zone or place a structure in a flood zone such that it would impede or redirect flood flows. -31- 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 community? (aerial photographs; project site X plan) 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, X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1; La Quinta Zoning Map, 2007; Project's CUP application) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (CVMSHCP; Biological X Assessment & Impact Analysis for Proposed Swenson Residence, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants, May 14, 2013) IX. a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The site is located at the edge of an existing residential community (The Enclave) and is immediately surrounded on the southwest, south, and east by single-family residences. To the north and northwest are the vacant slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. b) The property is currently designated as Open Space — Natural (OS) in the General Plan and Open Space with Hillside Conservation Overlay (HQ in the Zoning Ordinance. It is also within Planning Area III of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, which allows a residence on the lot. A conditional use permit is being sought by the project applicant to facilitate the project, based on the City's requirements for development within hillside areas. The processing of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's standards, in both its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, relating to development in the hillsides. With approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. c) The City of La Quinta has adopted the CVMSHCP, and the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Plan. As such, the project proponent will be required to pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) as mitigation for any potential impacts to sensitive biological species covered by the plan. The property is also located immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP and is therefore subject to additional required measures set forth in the MSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. These -32- requirements are described in detail in section IV (Biological Resources) of this Initial Study. With imposition of the mitigation measures included in Section IV, the project's impacts on the Plan will be less than significant. of 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? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) 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? (Special Report 159, CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X. a-b) The California Division of Mines and Geology has studied much of the Coachella Valley to determine the location of local mineral resources. The subject property and its immediate surroundings are designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which indicates areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The property is not known to contain important mineral resources, and is not used for mineral recovery. The City's General Plan designates the property and surrounding lands for open space and residential uses. No existing or proposed mineral extraction occurs in the vicinity of the project site, which is located within the City's core. The project will have no impact on mineral resources. -34- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE _ Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013). b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Geotechnical X Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (Geotechnical Engineering Report for Swenson Residence, Earth Systems Southwest, March 26, 2013) 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, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI.a, b, d) The project will result in the development of one single-family residential structure and onsite amenities, including a pool, spa, and overlook area. Temporary noise impacts will be generated during the grading and construction process by typical construction equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks. The building pad and access drive have already been rough -graded, which will limit the extent to which excavation and mass grading are needed. Construction noise will generally be typical of that experienced for any single family home, and will be temporary and short term. However, expansion of the pad and -35- remedial grading are proposed, and removal of oversized rocks and installation of rockfall mitigation features will be required. Loose fill soils and very weathered rock should be easily excavated without ripping or with minor light ripping. Although no blasting is proposed, ripping of very hard bedrock may be required depending upon rock hardness and spacing, and the presence of joints and fractures. This will require the use of special tools and equipment, such as rams, hammers, and tractor -dozers. The use of heavy equipment on the site for these purposes could generate noise levels of 95 to 110 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels will decrease by 8 to 12 dB with the doubling of distance. Homes closest to the project site are located 75 to 110 feet away from the building pad area, and 140 to 180 feet from the area of slope that will require removal. The driveway from Loma Vista to the building pad is immediately west of an existing home, approximately 25 feet separating the driveway from the home. Noise levels of heavy equipment will vary based on where the equipment is located on the site. Equipment working on the excavation and ripping of the base of the slope in the northeastern portion of the site will generate the highest noise levels. If this equipment generates noise levels of 75 to 110 dBA at 50 feet, the noise levels at the closest house, 140 feet away, can be expected to range between 60 and 90 dBA while the equipment is active. These noise levels will be temporary and periodic, based on the limited area to be excavated, and the activity of the heavy equipment on any given day. The Municipal Code exempts construction activities from noise standards, if these activities occur during prescribed time periods. The time periods occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, when ambient noise levels are higher due to activity in any neighborhood. However, grading, ripping, and construction activity will create temporary groundborne vibration and noise, that can be mitigated to the greatest extent possible, as follows: 1. Construction activity, including days and times of operation, will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 2. The contractor will provide notice, 24 hours prior to any rock ripping activity, to the residents within 200 feet of the subject property. The notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard -gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. 3. Blasting on the site is prohibited. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, noise and vibration impacts during construction are expected to be less than significant. c) Permanent increases in ambient noise levels will be less than significant. The project is limited to the construction of one single-family residence, and permanent noise sources can be expected to be limited to typical household appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles accessing the property. Noise levels will be consistent with those of adjacent single-family residential development. The subject property is immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP sets forth land use guidelines to mitigate indirect or edge effects of development adjacent to conservation areas. The following guideline pertains to noise levels on adjacent properties: "activities that generate noise levels greater than 75 dBA Leq hourly should incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls, as appropriate, to minimize the effects on adjacent conservation -36- areas." Long-term operation of the proposed project is not expected to exceed this threshold. e, f) The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project will not expose people working or residing on the property to airport -related noise impacts. SW 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 in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (application materials; 2010 Census) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (application materials) XII. a) The project proposes the construction of one single-family residence. Given the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's contribution to population growth will be insignificant. The project will not require the extension of any roads, utilities, or other infrastructure. b-c) The subject property is currently vacant. The project will not result in the displacement of any existing housing or people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. -38- 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 application materials) Police protection (application materials)? X Schools? (General Plan; application materials) X Parks? (General Plan; application materials) X Other public facilities? (application X materials) XIII. a) The proposed project will result in the construction of one single-family dwelling unit within an existing residential neighborhood. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), the project's demand for additional public facilities and/or services will be less than significant. The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection for the City. The nearest fire station to the project. Station #32, is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project at 78111 Avenue 52. The Fire Department will impose conditions of approval on the project to assure access to the site in the case of an emergency, including driveway slope and turn -around space. Police protection is provided to the city through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The nearest police station is located at the Civic Center at 78495 Calle Tampico. Emergency access to the project will be provided by the existing roadway network, and the site plan provides adequate turnaround space at the top of the driveway for fire vehicles. Increased use of schools, parks, and other public facilities is expected to be insignificant. The project will not require the construction of any new public roads or enhanced public transportation services. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to public facilities, including transportation, parks and recreation, Civic Center, fire, library, community center, and school facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (application materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (application materials) XIV. a, b) The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence. Based on the City's average household size of 2.52 persons per household (2010 Census), impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities will be less than significant. The project includes several onsite private recreational facilities, including a swimming pool, spa, sports court and outdoor overlook that will further minimize the demand for public facilities. The project proponent will be required to pay development impact fees that mitigate potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. -40- 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 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (application materials) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (application materials) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X 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, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (application materials; La Quinta Bike X Map; Sunline Transit Bus Route Map; Final CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update, September 2010) XV. a-b) Development of the proposed project will result in short-term traffic increases generated by construction vehicles and equipment typical of a single family home construction project. Construction traffic is not expected to significantly impact area roadways, traffic volumes, or levels of service. Over the long-term, the proposed project will generate minimal traffic from one single-family residential unit. It is not expected to result in significant increases in -41- vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratios, or congestion at intersections, and will not exceed established levels of service. c) The project does not propose any facilities or activities that will affect air traffic patterns or levels. d) No sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or vehicle incompatibilities are anticipated with the project. Access to the residence will be provided by a driveway at a cul-de- sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Construction vehicles and equipment will travel to and from the site during the construction phase, and long-term vehicle usage is expected to be consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Construction vehicles will park either on site or along the cul-de-sac, as would construction vehicles at any single family home development site. e) Access to the property will be provided by an 18-foot wide driveway which located at the cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Emergency vehicles will use Loma Vista and the existing roadway network to access the site. Fire truck turnaround space is provided at the top of the driveway. f) The proposed project consists of a private residence with a 3-car garage and large parking pad at the top of the driveway. The parking exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family homes. No additional parking is required. g) Loma Vista, from which the project is accessed, is not designated as an existing of proposed City bike route or Sunline Transit bus route. The project will result in the construction of one single-family residence within an existing gated neighborhood. It will not conflict with plans or policies pertaining to alternative transportation. -42- 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 requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (application materials) b) Requite or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials; CVWD 2010 UWMP) .._. ... —......... — — - c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (application materials) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD UWMP, 2010) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient) permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? XVI. a) Wastewater discharge requirements for the Coachella Valley, including the subject property, are administered by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be connected to an existing sewer line at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Household wastewater will be transported to and processed at CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) in Thermal. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge and water quality. Although the proposed project will -43- increase wastewater flows to the treatment plant marginally, it will not adversely impact water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b-e) The subject property falls under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic water and wastewater treatment services. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, a long-range planning document, demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve additional development in its boundaries. Additionally, WRP-4 has a capacity of just under 10 million gallons per day (mgd) and processes approximately 5 mgd. Therefore, the plant has more than sufficient capacity to serve additional development, including the proposed project. The project will connect to existing 12-inch water and 8-inch sewer lines at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. Given its limited scope (one single-family residence) and size (6,093f square feet), the project is not expected to require the expansion or construction of water or wastewater facilities. CVWD is also responsible for regional stormwater management in the Coachella Valley. The subject property includes an existing flood control easement with a 15- foot wide concrete stormwater channel along its southerly boundary, and an existing storm drain is located at the westerly terminus of Loma Vista. These facilities protect adjacent properties from runoff from the subject property and higher elevation slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the north and west. The project proposes a conveyance system and dry well, and a retention basin and emergency overflow basin south of the building pad to collect and manage onsite flows. The City will impose its standard requirements for the retention of the 100 year storm on site for the proposed project. Please also see Section VIII, Hydrology. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. f,-g) Given its limited size (6,093f square feet) and scope (one single-family residence), the project is expected to generate less than significant levels of solid waste. The subject property will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to one of two transfer stations in the Coachella Valley, then to regional landfills, all of which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. -44- 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 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 X 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 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X 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 effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Biological Resources The subject property is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and immediately adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the Plan. It is considered suitable habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelson), which is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Threatened by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. An intensive biological field survey was conducted on the subject property. Although no sensitive plant or animal species were observed onsite, evidence of bighorn sheep was identified within 200 yards (north and east) of the property, and the potential exists for sheep to wander onto the site. The proposed project is not expected to eliminate or significantly reduce the quality of the habitat or range of the species; however, it will bring the edge effects of development closer to the species, M particularly through construction noise and the installation of new landscape planting materials. Potential impacts to sensitive biological species will be mitigated through the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). Because of its adjacency to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area, the project is also subject to the CVMSHCP's Required Measures 8, 10, and 11, which address landscaping, lighting, drainage, noise, fencing, and other issues as they pertain to development of the property. Implementation of mitigation measures, as identified in this Initial Study, will reduce project -related impacts to sensitive species to less than significant levels. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey and site investigation were prepared in April and May 2013. No historical or archaeological resources were identified within or adjacent to the project area. No impact to historic or archaeological resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b) The proposed project is consistent with existing residential development in the vicinity and with the City's long-range plan for development within the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area. Public utilities and roadway infrastructure are already in place and capable of serving the project. Given the limited size and scope of the project, potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to, less than significant levels. Long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. c) The project will result in incremental environmental impacts typical of new residential development, such as increased emission of criteria pollutants during grading and increased demand for public utilities. However, the project is limited to construction of one single-family residence, and impacts are expected to be less than significant when considered in connection with other projects. d) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not cause substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly, on human beings. The mitigation measures included herein, such as the installation of rock fall protection walls and limitations on construction activity, will reduce potential hazards to less than significant levels. -46- 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. -47- CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: February 22, 2016 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 658-200-004 CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 2013-152 PROJECT LOCATION: 77210 Loma Vista EA/EIR NO: 2013-630 APPROVAL DATE: In Process APPLICANT: Case and Lisa Swenson @ THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A biological monitor familiar with Planning Division During ground disturbing Report by monitor. Peninsular bighorn sheep shall be activities present onsite whenever ground disturbance, such as grading, rock scraping or removal, excavation and digging, occurs or is considered. Should bighorn sheep be observed in the project area, all ground disturbance activity will cease, and the monitor will determine when it can be resumed. CVMSHCP Required Measure 8, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (included in Planning Division Approval of Final Approved Final the appendix of the project Biological Landscaping Plan Landscaping Plan Assessment) which pertain to lighting, drainage, noise, and other topics that are addressed elsewhere in this Initial Study. The landscape plan shall incorporate only those plant materials listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-112. No invasive, non-native plant species will be used for landscaping, including those listed in CVMSHCP Table 4-113. CVMSHCP Required Measure 10, which pertains to eliminating disease Code Compliance Evidence of animal Photographic transmission to the bighorn sheep husbandry on project site. evidence of animal population shall be implemented. The husbandry project proponent will not be permitted to engage in the husbandry of'. domestic sheep or goats, and therefore no physical barrier shall be required for this purpose. CVMSHCP Required Measure 11, which Planning Division Approval of fence or Construction of requires the construction of an 8-foot functional equivalent with fence fence or functional equivalent CDFW approval. separating the development from adjoining habitat if, A .bighorn sheep are documented to begin foraging or watering on the project site, or B. unauthorized trails, paths, routes, or ways are documented to proliferate from the project site into adjoining habitat. (In this case, neither bighorn sheep nor unauthorized trails or paths have been documented onsite as of this writing.) The fencing requirement shall be deferred until such time as bighorn are documented to be feeding or watering on the project site, or unauthorized trails or pathways are documented onsite. Should one or both of those conditions occur, the provisions of Required Measure 11 (pertaining to cost, appropriate location, and responsibility for installation and maintenance of a required fence) shall be implemented. SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE XI. NOISE Construction activity, including days Building Department During construction Compliance with and times of operation, will be hours of construction required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. The contractor will provide notice, Receipt of proof of 24 hours prior to any rock ripping Building Department, Project During rock moving activity distribution. Notice activity, to the residents within 200 Contractor posted at guard feet of the subject property. The gate. notice shall be in writing, delivered to each residence or residence mailbox, and posted at the guard - gate for the project. The notice shall include the dates and times during which ripping is to occur. Blasting on the site is prohibited. Building Department During construction Inspection. LQ DEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 6.22.12 Verizon Engineering Dept. C/o Chris Brown Time Warner State of California 295 N. Sunrise Way 41-725 Cook Street Water Quality Control Board Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92211 73720 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Southern California Gas Co. Sunline Transit AgencyEunice LoviPlanning Director Riverside County , Attn: Deborah McGarrey Fire Protection Planning, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail 211 North Sunrise Way 77-933 Las Montanas Road, Ste 201 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Pete Sorenson Peggy Davis, Facilities Planner MountainsConservancy US Dept of Fish & Wildlife 47-950 Dune Palms Road 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 205 6010 Hidden Valley Road La Quinta, CA 92253 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Ms. Mary G. Urguhart Mr. Seam McVeigh Mariann Nolan 1210 Chelten Way 270F N. El Camino Real, # 324 1212 Wellinton Avenue South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Pasadena, CA 91103 Ca, Dept of Fish & Game South Coast Air Quality Torres -Martinez Eastern Sierra Inland Desert Reg. Management District Desert Cahuilla Indians 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., C-220 21865 Copley Drive Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson Ontario, CA 91764 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Ms. Katie Barrows, Dir. Of Env. Serv. City of Indian Wells Coachella Valley Assoc. of Govts. Planning Division 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste 200 44-950 Eldorado Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Burrtec Waste Disposal Joe Cook Imperial Irrigation District Operations Manager Operations Electric Street Coachella Valley Water District Alfonso Rodriguez, Asst. Eng. 41-575 Palm Desert, is Street 85-995 Avenue 52 81-600 Avenue 58 Coachella, CA 92236 La Quinta, CA 92253 The Altum Group Mr. Joe McVeigh Vice President Doug Franklin, P.E. Emily Perri Hemphill P. O. Box 1008 1325 Howard Avenue 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 219 PMB 602 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Burlingame, CA 94010 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP Attn: Amy Minteer Ms. Mary G. Urquhart Mr. Sean McVeigh 2200 Pacific Coast Highway 1210 Chelten Way 270 F N. El Camino Real, #324 Suite 318 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Encinitas, CA 92024 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Mariann Nolan 1212 Wellington Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 1of10 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Conditional use Permit shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal e La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sand Unified School District (DSUSD) Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) m Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ti California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) State Water Resources Control Board SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 4. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant, who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI") and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 2of10 Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. 137-2013-001 1 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permittee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 3 of 10 E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. F. The applicant shall execute and record an agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction BMPs as required. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 1 1 . The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, and common areas. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 4 of 10 12. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of- way, or access easement, the approval of this conditional use permit is subject to the applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties. 13. Written approval from IID and CVWD is required for the proposed rockfall protection wall which is within the CVWD and IID easement. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets. 15. The rockfall protection wall and retaining wall shall be designed in accordance with the Earth Systems Southwest recommendations. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 18. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal (20 scale optional) B. PM 10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal (if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre) C. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 5 of 10 All plans shall show existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. Grading plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 17. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 18. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 19. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. rc :7i\91101[ei 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 21. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 6 of 10 C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control) if disturbed area is greater than 1 acre, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). E. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with PM 10 requirements as required by the City Engineer. 23. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures. 24. Building pad elevations on the grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the CUP exhibits, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved CUP exhibits, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. nRAINAC;F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 7 of 10 27. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Swenson Residence CUP 2013-152, or as approved by the City Engineer 28. Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer. 29. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 31. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 33. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 35. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-201 3-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopment Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs for PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 8 of 10 the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2013- 0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2013-001 1 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 36. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 37. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 38. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 40. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of landscaping, access driveway, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 41. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 9 of 10 checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING 42. No lighting shall be permitted on the path to, or within and surrounding the retreat, to the west of the residence. 43. Replace the proposed swing doors for the utility closet within the garage to facilitate the full use of the parking space. 44. Use a cast of the existing on -site rocks in the design of the faux rock wall. 45. Keep overall site disturbance to a minimum including establishment of the overlook area. 46. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans) 47. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 4& All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 6 inches. 49. All plants shall conform to the approved plant list of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for lands adjacent to conservation areas. 50. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape) 51. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Community Development Department as a minor final landscape plan, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Community Development Director approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Community Development Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Community Development Director and/or City Engineer. 52. Prior to final approval of the installation of landscaping, the Landscape Architect of record shall provide the Community Development Department a letter stating he/she PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2016-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-152 APPLICANT: CASE AND LISA SWENSON ADOPTED: MARCH 8, 2016 Page 10of10 has personally inspected the installation and that it conforms with the final landscaping plans as approved by the City. 53. If staff determines during final landscaping inspection that adjustments are required in order to meet the intent of the Planning Commission's approval, the Community Development Director shall review and approve any such revisions to the landscape plan. MISCELLANEOUS 54. The mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2013-630 shall be implemented for this project. 55. Should any excavation, grading, trenching or other ground disturbing activity result in the unearthing of a potentially historic or archaeological resource, the contractor shall cease all activity until a qualified archaeologist and Tribal member can determine the significance of the find. The City shall be notified immediately. If monitoring or resource recovery occurs, a final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project.