CC Resolution 1999-034d_X RESOLUTION NO.99-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-372 PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 25691
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-372
APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 1 6th day of February, 1 999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-372 prepared for Tentative Tract 25691, located on
Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet west of Dune Palms Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of January, 1 998 hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-372 for Tentative Tract 25691, generally located on
the north side of Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet west of Dune Palms Road,
more particularly described as follows:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 604-072-005; THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 20, T5S, R7E, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1 970 as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study EA 98-372)
and has determined that although the proposed tentative tract could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
included in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 25691, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_XResolution No.99-34
Environmental Assessment 98-372
World Development
Adopted: 2?16I99
Page 2
1. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the communitv, either indirectly, or directly, in that
no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 98-372.
2. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory, as no new impacts have been
identified.
3. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 does not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by
the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area are similar to that planned in the proposed subdivision.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the tentative tract map
as proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at
time of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Resolution No.99-34
Environmental Assessment 98-372
World Development
Adopted-. 2116199
Page 3
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 98-372 for the reasons
set forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment
Checklist and Addendum attached and on file in the Community Development
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 1 6th day of February, 1 999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ENA,a;or
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
PNDRA L$JuH?ity Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Appenaix I
Environmental Cbecklist Forn
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 25691
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di Iorio
760-777-7000
4. Project Location: North side of Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of Dune
Palms Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: World Development
78-120 Calle Estado, #104
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
10.12 Acre site, to be divided into 38 lots and 5 lettered lots, averaging 7,733 s.f. Streets
are proposed to be public.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefiy.describe the project's surroundings.
West: Vacant
East: Vacant
North: Single Family Residential
South: Miles Avenue
10. Other agencies whose approval is required e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
p.?nvironmcntal Chcdd is' Form.?
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this pro] ect..
involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportationlCirculation Public Services
x Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
x Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
X Water Haaards CuItLiral Resources
X Air Quah? Noise Recreation
Mandato Finds of Si ificance
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 DECL?ON will be prepared.
x I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation meas'tres
described on an attached sheet have been. added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECL?ON will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
arid an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed proj cet MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pur?t to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact
or potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
p:\n?irotimental Clecklist Form wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X 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 reference 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?wlll 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 pro?ect-level,
indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate
if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more
Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated
Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from Potentially Significant Impact" to a 5Less 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 1 5O63(c)(3)?). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate
into the checklist references to mformation 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.
See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
p:?nvironincntal Chcckl? Form?wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_XSample question:
Poienflilh
Potcndally Signifleant Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Lnless Significant c
Impact Miattited Impati Imp'
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? 1,6) x
Attached Source list explains that us the general plan, and 6 is a USGS
topo map. This answer would probably not need fii?er explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? Source#(s): 1) x
lans or policies I I I
I I I II
b) Conflict ble environmental? I adopted by x
agencies wiwd?thju???ilcttioton
over the project.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2) x
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations e.g., impacts to soils or I?If?
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 2 I?i?L?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ff
mx
community including a low-income or minority community)? 2
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? x
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly e.g. x I
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major I
infrast::ructure)? 1
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I x
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 3 x
p:?rivironmei'tal Checklist Form.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Potennill'
Potenfl lily SigRifici Nit L?s Thin
SignifiCant Lnless Significint No
I,pnd Mitigated Im?act Inpie!
Issues and Supporting information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? 3 I Ix I 1
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 x
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 3 x
e) Landslides or mudflows? 3 x
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from I
Ix I I I
excavation, grading, or fill? 1,3 I I I
g) Subsidence ofthe land? 3 x
h) Expansive soils? 3 x
i) Unique geologic or physical feanzres? 3 x
V. WATER. Would the proposal iesult in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount I I Ii
x II
of surface runoff? 3 I I
I. I Dx
b) Exposure of people or property to water related haaards such as
flooding? 3
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water x
quality e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 3 I I I
P:?nvironmen? Chccklist Form.?
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X PcIennaII?:
potentia?I?: Significant Less Than
Significant Uness significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 3) x
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water f
3)
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by III
L Iffil
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? 3
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 3 x
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 3 x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise I
I I Ix I
available for public water supplies? 3 I
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute to an existing or I I
I I I
projected air quality violation? 3) I I I
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 3) x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any I.
I I
chaDge in climate? 3
d) Create objectionable odors? 3 x
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
p:?nvironmentai Checklist Fotm-?
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X PottndaII?
potentiali': Significant Leis Thin
lisuet ind supporting In(ormation Sources): Significant Limless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,3 x
b) Hazards to safety from design features e.g., sharp curves or x
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e.g., farn
equipment)? 1, 3
c) inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 2 x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on?ite or off-site? 6 x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 4 x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative I I I I x
transportation e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1 I I I I
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? I x
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats I
including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and
birds)? 1,3 I
b) Locally designated species e.g., heritage trees)? 1, 3 x
c) Locally designated natural communities e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, et?)? 1,3 liii!
d) Wetland habitat e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? 1,3) x
P:\nvironmentai Checklist orm.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Poteiltl'RI?y Psoigtncniftl;:aInI?.I L? Thin
Sjgnjfi?nt Uniess Si1nificin? No
Issucs md Supportlug Information Sour?es):
lupad Mitigated Impact Impic?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 1,3 x
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCE?
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1) x
b) Use non?renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient x
I I
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that I I I x I
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? j I I I
Ix HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve;
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
jjm
including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
ffi]
emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
1,3)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health I I Ix I
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or x
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 3,4) x
p:?rivironmcrital Chccklist Fomi.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X PotentiiII?
PotentiiI? signiricint Less Thin
Itiuts and Suppor(ing Info rmition Sour?et).' Significant Unless Significant
I,pitt Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 3, 4). x
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result In a need for new or altered government services IR any of the
followini areas:
a) Fire protection? 3 X
b) Police protection? 3) x
c) Schools? 3 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, indudmg roads? 1, 3 x
e) Other governmental services? 1,3 X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new Systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 3
b) Communications systems? 3 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 3
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 3 X
e) Storm water drainage? 3 X
P:\nvironmtntai Chccklist Form.?
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X
PotfrltlIII?:
polenn ally Significant Less Th:?
Issues Eand Supporting Informition Sources): Sigulficint Linless Significant N.?o
linpict Mitigatel Impact Impact
f) Solid waste disposir. 3 x
g) Local or regional watCr supplies? 3 x
xlii. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a Scenic vista or scenic highway? 1,3 x
b) Hive a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 1, 3 x
c) Create light or glare? 1,3 x
xlv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 3, 5 x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 3, 5 x
c) Affect historical resources? 3,5 x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect I I
unique ethnic cultural values? 3,5 I I I I
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential I I
I I I?
impact area? 3,5
xv. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? 3 liii
P nvirorumttal chtclclist Fomi.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Po??nti ally
potendaib Significint Less Than
Significlult URiels Signifleant No
Issues land SLippotting Information Sources): Impa? Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 3 x
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of. fish or wildlife
pecics, Ca use a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to
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 I ri
I II
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? I
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, b!t X
cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable' means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future proj ec?)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause III?xI
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or ffi?
indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the turing,
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.
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.
P;?nvirowncn? Checkl? Fotm.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X 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 the'
address sit?specWic conditions for the project
P:\Erivlwinental Checklist Form??
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X Sources Cited Above:
1. City of La Quinta General Plan 1992
2. Aerial Photograph provided by applicant, dated 6122/98
3. City of La Quinta General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 1992
4. Noise Impact Analysis, TT25691, Giroui & Associates, November 20, 1998
5. Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 25691, Archaeological Associates, November 20,1998.
6. City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance.
P:\nviyonmental Chcckljst Fcrm.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_XAddendum, Environmental Assessment 98-372
The discussion provided below analyses those potential impacts which may be signflcant, as identified in the
checklist above.
III. a. & b. The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed tract map is located in
Zone IV groundshaking zone, approximately 2.0 miles east of an infelTed and inactive fault. The
City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The
project will be required to conform to these standardL This mitigation measure will ensure that
impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance..
III. f. The grade differential proposed for the individual pads in this tract could potentially result in
an erosion hazard. The City requires that all soils be properly compacted. In?addition, each of
the slope types will be analysed to ensure that they do not exceed the City's standards retention
basin, landscaped parkway, individual lots). The Building Department and City Engineer will
review all grading plans to ensure that City standards are met. These mitigation measures will
ensure that impacts from erosion or unstable soil conditions are reduced to a level of
insignificance.
V a. The construction of homes on currently vacant desert lands will reduce the permeable surface
available for absorption, and will increase surface runoff. The proposed tract has designed a
retention basin which is of sufficient size to accommodate the 100 year, 24 hour storm. The
retention basin will allow for the controlled release of storm flows, reducing the impact on the
rate of surface runoff. The retention basin will be re?vegetated, and will allow absorption, auj
percolation into the soil will occur. The construction of the retention basin, to the satisfacti
of the City Engineer, will reduce the impacts to surface water runoff to a level of insignifean
V c. The paving of surfaces within the proposed tract will increase the risk that poflutants will affeet
surface waters. As these surface waters travel through the project, they win be subject to such
pollution. Once in the retention basin, however, surface waters which percolate into the soil will
benefit from the City's standards for retention basins, which include the installation of tridling
sand filters and leachfields. These mitigation measures, in the form of conditions of approval,
will decrease the potential imapets to surface water to a level of insignificance.
IV. f. The construction of the proposed project will result in an increased demand for domestic water.
The Valley's water supplies are being recharged through contractual agreement with the
Metropolitan Water District, utilizing California Water Project resources. Althougli the
regional groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, the efforts of the Coachella Vailey
Water District, the City's water conservation requirements, and other outside agency efforts are
mitigating the regional draw-down of groundwater.
P:\Enviiunrriefltal Checklist Fomi??
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_X VI. g. The proposed tract's access road occurs on Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of Dune
Palms Road. The Miles Avenue traffic at this intersection will be uncontrolled. Traffic exiting
the proposed tract and turning left could result in a traffic hazard on Miles Avenue. The City
Engineer has reviewed this potential impact, and determined that project traffic exiting Lot B
will only be allowed to turn right In addition, Lot C will be constructed to the western property
boundary to connect to future roads on adjacent properly which will eventually provide a
controlled intersection which will allow for left and right turns from this area.
VII. a. The projeet parcel can be characterized as an area of sand dunes, created by regional winds and
supporting a number of specicis. The proposed project is within the Coachella Valley Fringe-
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee mitigation area. The proposed tract will be required
to contribute a fee of S600.O0 per acre for the mitigation of impacts to this protected species. The
contribution for the fring?toed lizard will also contribute to the preservation of habitat for
other species which live in similar habitat The site is only 10.12 acres in size, and is in an area
of the City which is experiencing rapid growth. The loss of this site is not expected to have a
significant impact on biological resources.
x. b. A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed tract map, and significant impacts were found
to be possible, unless mitigation measures are implemented. The noise levels along the Miles
Avenue corridor are currently elevated, and the General Plan requires that all new development
mitigate these impacts, and provide an exterior noise level of 60 ElBA or less for residential land
uses. The noise study found that a six foot wail along the property line of individual Iota whose
back yards will occur adjacent to Miles Avenue will reduce exterior noise levels to 59.5 ElBA
CNEL, which will meet the City's standard. Furthermore, the study found that the use of
STC=23 or higher windows in these units will reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or
less, which meets the City's standards for interior noise levels in residential land uses. These
mitigation measures are sufficient to lower the potential impact to eventual residents of this
proj ect to a less than significant leveL Should the applicant propose 2?tory homes on these lots,
further mitigation will be required, and should be incorporated into Development Review
conditions of approval at that time.
XI. c. The proposed project will generate potential new students for the Desert Sands Unified School
District. The State of California has developed an impact fee for all residential and commercial
development to mitigate the impacts to school facilities. The proposed project will be required
to contribute its share to the District, as required by City codes. The payment of the fee will
lower the impact to the District to a less than significant leveL
XI. d. The proposed tract will create new City roadways, in the form of Lots B, C and D. These
roadways will be incorporated into the City's street system, and require maintenance. The
construction of the roadway will be the applicant's responsibility. The maintenance of a City
street is a General Fund expense for the City. Once constructed, the homes on this tract will
generate property tax, which will be deposited into the City's General Fund. These incraased
revenues will help to off?et the cost of maintenance of the roadways. The impact is expected to
be less than significant.
P:\Enviroiim?WI chcckiist orm.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02
d_XXIII. a. The proposed tract occurs on one of the CIt"'s secondar" image corridors. These corridors
require that special care and attention be given to the streetscape. The proposed project meets
the City's requirement in this regard, and mitigates the potential impact by creating a
landscaping parkway with an average width of 20 feet. Once landscaped, this parkwav wil?
improve the image of the roadway.
XIV. h. AD archaeological resource assessment was conducted for the proposed project. The assessment,
which included both records search and site survey, concluded that the probability of
archaeological resources on the site is low. The study further states that no further monitoring
or additional analysis is necessary. The impact to archaeological resources is less than
significant.
p:\Environmental Chcddilt Form.wpd
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:50:24PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
34-U02