CC Resolution 2003-093 TTM 31249 - EA 2003-475RESOLUTION NO. 2003-093
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-475, FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31249
CASE NO. EA 2003-475
APPLICANT: MADISON / 58T" PARTNERS, L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th
day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of
Madison/58`h Partners, L.L.C., for certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-
475, prepared for Tentative Tract 31249, located on the south side of Avenue 58
approximately 'h mile west of Madison Street, more particularly described as:
PORTION OF THE NE Y4 OF THE NW Y4 OF
SECTION 28, T6S, R7E - S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 9th day of September, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-475, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31249; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 9th day of September, 2003, adopt Resolution 2003-060, recommending that the
La Quinta City Council certify Environmental Assessment 2003-475, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31249; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City
Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an
Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2003-475) and has determined that the proposed
Tentative Tract 31249 could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
provided that mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, the La Quinta City
Council did make the following findings to justify their decision to certify said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2003-093
EA 2003-475 / Madison / 581 Partners, LLC
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 2
1. The proposed Tentative Tract 31249 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any
manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when
considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project will not
have the potential to substantially reduce or cause 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.
2. There is no evidence before the city that the proposed project will have the potential
for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
3. The proposed Tentative Tract 31249 will not have the potential to achieve short
term 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 31249 will not have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has
been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative
project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in
conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract 31249 will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land
uses that are substantially similar to those .already assessed under ultimate
development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been
identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have
a significant effect on the environment.
7. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-475 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
Resolution No. 2003-093
EA 2003-475 / Madison / 58'" Partners, LLC
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 3
9. The location and custodian of the -City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of City Council in
this case; and
2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-475, for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, attached hereto, 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 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member Osborne
DON ADOLPH, Moor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU . GREEK, CM ity Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2003-093
EA 2003-475 / Madison / 681 Partners, LLC
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a. RINE JENSO , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
ccreso93.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31249
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: South side of Avenue 58, west of Madison Street.
APN: 766-070-001 & 766-070-002
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Madison 58 Partners, LLC
77-899 Wolf Road, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
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.)
Tentative Tract Map to divide two parcels totaling 33.33 acres into 85 residential lots of at
least 10,000 square feet in size and up to 16,380 square feet, as well as a central open space
area and streets.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant, PGA West
South: Vacant, Coral Mountain Specific Plan
West: Vacant, BOR Levee
East: Vacant, Coral Mountain Specific Plan
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the'
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
10
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 XVH, "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 that 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
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
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The project site is vacant desert land and is flat. The site is not located on a General Plan
Image corridor. Single family residential units, generally single story and possibly two
story, will be constructed on the site. No impacts to scenic resources are expected to
result from implementation of the proposed project.
I. d) The project will generate minor amounts of light from outdoor residential lighting on
lands which are currently vacant. However, all lighting on the site will be regulated by the
City's lighting ordinance, which ensures that lighting levels do not spill over onto other
properties. This standard, combined with the low lighting levels generated by residential
land uses, will ensure that impacts from light and glare are less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
II. a)-c) The project site is vacant desert land and is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the
project site are planned, and partially developed in low density residential and golf
development. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the properties, or on properties in
the immediate vicinity. No impacts to agriculture will result with development of the
proposed project.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
IIl. a) & b) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will
consist of the development of 85 single family residential units and common open space
areas. The residential units will generate approximately 814 vehicular trips per day at
buildout. These trips will generate the following emissions of criteria pollutants.
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
814
Ave. Trip
Length (miles)
x 10
Total
miles/day
8,140
PMIo PMIo PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 732.60 19,047.60 3,907.20 - 81.40 81.40
Pounds at 50 mph 1.62 42.05 8.63 - 0.18 0.18
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./dav) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 85 market rate homes, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions
Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for criteria pollutants.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
�-- 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going issue. These
measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These
include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities : Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 871 pounds per day, for a limited period
while grading operations are active. In order to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with PM 10 dust generation at the site, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior
to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated
with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 58 shall be installed with the first
phase of development.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
10. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff )
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
f j Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land. There are no species of concern
identified for this property in the City's General Plan. The site, which is composed
primarily of creosote scrub habitat, has been heavily impacted by illegal dumping,
previous use as a shooting range and nursery, and off road vehicle use. The site is outside
the boundary of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee area. The site is
likely habitat for common desert flora and fauna, which will be lost at the time the site
develops. However, the City's requirements for desert tolerant landscaping will result in
the planting of materials which will be habitat for these species upon project buildout.
The impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in ' 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
'
Report," CRM Tech, August 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, August 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
Assessment Report," CRM Tech, August 2003 )
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, August
2003)
V. a), b) & d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project site'. The survey,
which included both a records search and a field survey, found that portions of the site
had previously been surveyed. The field survey found no evidence of surficial deposits on
the property, and concluded that the site did not contain significant archaeologic or
historic artifacts. However, the study recommends that during construction activities,
should artifacts be uncovered, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Should any cultural or historic resource be uncovered during grubbing, grading,
trenching or other earth moving activity on or off the project site, all work shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and
determine its significance. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or
redirect earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall file a report with the
Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth
moving activities, on the findings at the site.
"Historic/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 31249," prepared by
CRM Tech, August 8, 2003.
V. c) A paleontologic study was prepared for the proposed project site'. The study found that
the soils at the site are consistent with Halocene sediments from ancient Lake Cahuilla,
which covered the site in prehistoric times. The study included both records search and
field survey. The field survey identified mollusks on the property. The study finds that the
following mitigation measure is required to assure that impacts to paleontologic resources
are lowered to a less than significant level.
l . A paleontologic monitor shall be on site during all earth moving activities. The monitor
shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities on the site. The monitor
shall curate all finds using best professional practices, and shall file a report with the
Community Development Department reporting on his/her findings immediately
following completion of earth moving activities.
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
X
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (MEA
Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit
X
8.3)
2 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, Tentative Tract No. 31249," prepared by CRM
Tech, August 8, 2003.
4
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i), iv),
b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to landslides or high winds. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would
support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards.
VI. a) ii) The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of
significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California
Building Codes, which are intended to lower the potential impacts associated with
groundshaking to less than significant levels. In addition, no critical facilities will be
built at the site, rather single family residences are the only structures planned. These
structures will be required to implement the most recent building codes in place at the
time of construction. Impacts associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than
significant.
VI. a) iii) The site has the potential to be susceptible to liquefaction, due to young alluvium from
the'nearby mountains which has been deposited in this area. The depth to groundwater,
however, is expected to be more than 30 feet. The City engineer will require the
preparation of on site geotechnical analysis as part of the grading permit review for the
project site. This study will include site borings to determine what grading and
construction techniques are required. The standards imposed in the study will include
remediation for liquefaction, should that condition be identified. No further mitigation is
required to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
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
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the construction of 85 single family residences. No
concentration of hazardous materials is expected in these homes. The City implements
household hazardous waste programs through its solid waste franchisee. The site is not
located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor is it subject to wildland fires.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
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- or off -site? (Project Grading,
Site Hydrology)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would
result in flooding on- or off site? (Project
Grading, Site Hydrology)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (Project
Grading, Site Hydrology)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The construction of 85 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it
violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, which will
ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also
be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential
pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that
impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and has
been designed to include retention areas within the open spaces proposed for the project.
r--
The City Engineer requires that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site,
which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of 85 homes will not have an impact on the City's storm drainage
system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is surrounded by vacant or residentially developed land, and will
continue this pattern of development. The land is designated in the General Plan for Low
Density Residential development, and is outside the fee payment area for the Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a), c) & d) The proposed project is in an area of the City where current ambient noise levels are
relatively low. The development of housing will not significantly impact these noise
levels. However, increases in traffic and circulation, the City's primary source of noise,
are likely to occur as a result of the project and other projects in the area. The buildout
noise levels for the southern portions of the City are expected to range between 62.8 and
67.5 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from centerline. The City's General Plan standard is 65 dBA
CNEL for outdoor residential areas, including back yards.
The half -width of Avenue 58 at buildout is expected to be 44 feet (Secondary Arterial
r--- Roadway Classification in the General Plan). The project proposes a landscaped setback
of 10 feet. This will result in backyards at a distance of 54 feet from the centerline. In
addition, the project proposes to construct a 6 foot high block wall along the entire
parkway frontage. Although it is unlikely that this portion of Avenue 58 would reach 67.5
dBA CNEL at buildout, due to its limited access and limited development potential, the
construction of a 6 foot wall will provide noise attenuation of approximately 5 dBA at the
private property line. This would mean that the maximum noise level potential at buildout
of the General Plan would be 62.7 dBA CNEL, well within the City's standards. Noise
impacts at the proposed project, therefore, are expected to be less than significant.
The proposed project site will also generate higher than usual noise levels during
construction activities. These noise levels will be temporary, and will occur in an area
where there are currently no other sensitive receptors. The impacts associated with
construction noise, therefore, are expected to be less than significant.
XI. b), e)-f) Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project is not located
in the vicinity of either an airport of airstrip.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will result in 85 housing units, which are likely to generate about
199 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with
projected growth in the City. No impacts are expected to population and housing.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax, which will offset the costs of
added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated school
fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. The impacts on parks will be less
tha,n significant, since the lots are planned to be large, and the project will include a large
private open space area.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? (Application
materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project has the potential to generate an additional 199 residents, who will
have access to the private open space proposed within the project. These facilities will
offset the need for other recreation facilities within the City.
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 that is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project will develop at a density of 2.6 units per acre, well within the Low
Density Residential land use parameters. The 814 trips per day to be generated will not
have a significant impact on the circulation system, since the land use was analyzed in the
General Plan, and levels of service for this area of the City are expected to be acceptable
at buildout. The project provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles, does not create
safety hazards, and will be required to meet the City's on -lot parking requirements when
homes are proposed for the site. The project vicinity will be integrated into SunLine
Transit's routes as development warrants.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider=s existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity was included in the
analysis of the General Plan, and levels of service were found to be acceptable. No
impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
XVII. a) The project site is significantly disturbed vacant desert, and is not habitat for sensitive
species in the area. The proposed project will not, therefore, degrade existing habitat for
fish and wildlife.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan for a variety of
housing within the City.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those
impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -
attainment area for PM10, which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above,
includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to
a less than significant level.
H
Q
zm
dA
0
OV
-v
O
V
�+ = O
c
C
c
Ow
sm
a
~
a:
w
A
aA v
)
�N>v)
bn
c
bA
c
c
�
c
.o
0
O
�+-�
O
.0
G
cUi r. C
Z
V
U
4-0
bo
bb
[•r
C
c
G
o
rA0
�'.
•v
-o
CO
'�
V
...
V
...
U
do
tb
v
O
+.+
O
O b0 bA
bA
by
O
a
wz
o
0
0
o
>
t
t
t
a
A a
a.
a
c.
O OO
�-
C
A
4)
A
A
A
.'
U
V
V
V A M
GQ
GQ
a�
c
z
O
.
it a
a
co
E�
b�
A
c a�
c4.
10,
Cy
a
a
3 �°
bo c
v
0
v�
FI
...
U
....
.a
bU c
. c
E.
A
`�
c co
' �. y
O
y
E V Q
°'
rCA
V
V
Oil) N U
.0
Cfs4�
m `n
>
�
�
as
a
a ►� a c.
w
v� s�
a
E-�
A
A
ax
a U
OV
V
d
a
w
H
c .N V •� U
(,
�40•U
Cd O L cz O tz
to to
s s
FaCdi
Cd
a'
� • on a�
a
wU
o 0
0.0
rA�
A A
z0-0
a
E t t
E o, E a,
UQ U(�
w
-v O
az O .,
Oczw
0-4
U
V C C •+r
F"
.c o°n ° >
0
o � U
H
O
.E
�+ s.. ..
L. .� '� O cd
"C
O >
E ° E
.O
Cd
Cd
A
cz E bo
0 t t
v�i
U
acdi 0
dco