CC Resolution 2005-003RESOLUTION NO. 2005-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2004-103, ZONE
CHANGE 2004-122, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-074 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32879
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-526
TRANSWEST HOUSING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 40' day of January, 2005, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, previously
continued from the 7' day of December and 211 day of December, 2004, to
consider adoption of Environmental Assessment 2004-526, prepared for General
Plan Amendment 2004-103, Zone Change 2004-122, Specific Plan 2004-074 and
Tentative Tract Map 32879 (hereinafter "Project"), located generally on the south
side of Avenue 54, the east side of Madison Street, the north side of Avenue 55,
to '/4 mile west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH 1 /2 OF SECTION 15, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 14' day of December, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing, previously continued from November 9, 2004 and November 23, 2004, to
consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2004-526,
prepared for the proposed Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 14th day of December, 2004, adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2004-097, recommending to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2004-526, prepared for the proposed Project; and,
WHEREAS, said . Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2004-526) and has
determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce
any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be adopted; and,
Resolution No. 2005-003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 4, 2005
Page 2
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City
Council did make the following findings to adopt said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2004-526.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. Development of the site has the potential to
impact cultural and paleontologic resources. However, the mitigation
measures included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts
to less than significant levels.
3. 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. The site does not contain significant biological
resources.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by
providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction
of 303 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The
project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts
associated with General Plan buildout. Revised traffic information shows that
the area -wide circulation system, as amended under General Plan
Amendment 2004-103, will provide adequate traffic volume capacity for this
and other approved area projects.
Resolution No. 2005-003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 4, 2005
Page 3
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed
project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area- for
PM 10, and development of the site will generate PM 10; however, several
mitigation measures to .reduce the potential impacts on air quality have been
incorporated into project approval. The acoustical study analyzed for this
project indicates that noise impacts will be addressed through mitigation
measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than
significant levels.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-526 and
said reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. 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).
10. 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 correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case;
2. That is does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2004-526 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 4' day of January, 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
Resolution No. 2005-003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 4, 2005
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4
DON ADOLPH, ayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUkE.A3.-A REEK, CMC, ity Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KAT ERINE JEN N, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2004-103, Zone Change 2004-122,
Specific Plan 2004-074, Tentative Tract Map 32879
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Southeast corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. APN: 767-320-001;
002, 004; 767-320-012
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Transwest Housing
47-120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: Current: Very Low 7. Zoning: Current: Very Low Density
Density Residential and Low Density Residential/Equestrian Overlay
Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential
Proposed: 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to modify the land use designation on the
property from Very Low Density and Very Low Density/Equestrian Overlay, respectively, to
Low Density Residential. These amendments affect a property of 199 acres.
General Plan Amendment to modify the roadway classification of Madison Street from a
Major Arterial to a Primary Arterial.
Specific Plan to establish the design standards and guidelines for the development of a master
planned community including 303 residential lots and open space areas. The Specific Plan
includes standards and guidelines for architectural and landscape architectural themes,
internal circulation and common area amenities. The Specific Plan is divided into groupings
by lot size, with 12,000 square foot minimum lot size areas, 15,000 square foot minimum lot
size areas, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size areas, and 40,000 square foot minimum lot
size areas. Smaller lots are located around the perimeter of the site. The largest lots are
located in the center.
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 199 acres into 303 single family residential lots, as well as
lettered lots for a community clubhouse, streets, retention basins and three well sites. The
project will also incorporate an internal equestrian/pedestrian trail system.
-1-
The proposed project is located at the southeastern corner of Madison Street and Avenue 54.
One access point is proposed for Madison Street. Two access points are proposed from
Avenue 54.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Avenue 54, Vacant, Single family, residential (Low Density Residential and Golf
Course Open Space)
South: Single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential and Golf Course
open Space)
West: Madison Street, Single family residential and golf course (Low Density Residential
and Golf Course Open Space)
East: Vacant, single family residential (Very Low Density Residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing
Public Services Recreation Trmsportation/Trafic
Utilities / Service Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems
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
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 INTACT 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
October 25, 2004
Date
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
��
from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
-4-
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 projects
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.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) The project site is currently partially developed with agricultural and equestrian land uses.
Lands on the west side of the property are vacant desert lands. Lands in the southeastern
quadrant of the site are also vacant desert lands. A single family home and equestrian
compound occur in the north -central portion of the site, and are not a part of the proposed
project, although the proposed project will surround this property on three sides. Madison
Street and Avenue 54 are designated Agrarian Image Corridors in the General Plan. As
such, the project will be required to provide enhanced landscaped parkways along both
streets to meet the standard of this designation. The proposed Specific Plan includes a 12
foot parkway on both Madison Street and Avenue 54, and a 20 foot multi -use easement
immediately adjacent to the right of way. These areas will be designed to include multi-
use trails along both streets.
The proposed project will include single family homes of up to two stories in height. The
size of the lots (from 12,000 to 40,000 square feet) and the limitation of single story
development within 150 feet of either Madison Street or Avenue 54 will limit the
potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project. The residential, low intensity
character of the project, and the enhanced parkway and trails provided on the perimeter of
the site, will serve to limit visual impacts associated with the project site. The overall
impacts associated with development of the site are expected to be less than significant.
There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts
associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant.
E�
The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation,
'—` primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels
and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential
lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. Impacts will not be significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
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?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The project site is located adjacent to single family residential development and golf
course on the west and south. Portions of the project site (about 40 acres) and lands to the
east have been or are in agriculture. The site is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the
City, and is not currently under Williamson Act contract. The loss of the 40 acres of
agricultural use within the project site will not be significant. The proposed project will
not prevent the continued use in agriculture of lands to the east. However, in the long
term, this area of the City is expected to develop according to the General Plan land use
designations assigned to the property, and to build out in residential developments of
varying sizes. The loss of 40 acres of agricultural land is not considered to be significant.
50
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,
Project Study)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook, Project Study)
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley,
Project Study)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Project Study)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) An air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The analysis found that the
proposed project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds of significance for operational
and source emissions at project buildout. The study did find, however, that the project has
the potential to significantly impact air quality during project grading and construction
activities. It is estimated that construction and grading activities could result in thresholds
being exceeded for reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides. The study also included
carbon monoxide hot spot analysis, which found that project buildout would not result in
hot spots.
Finally, the study includes a number of mitigation measures to lower the potential
impacts of the proposed project, as summarized below:
"Griffin Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map 32879 Air Quality and Noise Impact Study," prepared by
Endo Engineering, September 2004.
-8-
1. A Fugitive Dust Control Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
2. The project proponent shall comply with all SCAQMD Rules, including but not
limited to rules 403, 1108 and 1108.1, and 1113.
3. Grading activities shall be limited to 13 acres per day to the greatest extent
possible.
4. Earth moving activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
5. Portions of the site being graded shall be watered so that a crust will form on the
ground surface, and watered at the end of each day.
6. All construction roads should be watered, paved as soon as possible and cleaned
at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible after the completion of grading
activities.
8. Construction operations on Avenue 54 and Madison Street shall occur only during
off-peak hours.
9. Architectural coatings shall not be applied when asphalt paving or other high-
VOC emissions are occurring on site.
10. The use of precoated building materials, natural materials, water based coatings,
high efficiency coating equipment and skilled workers shall be used to the greatest
extent possible to limit ROC emissions during the construction process.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with air
quality are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose residents to
concentrations of pollutants.
-9-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ("Biological Assessment..." James
Cornett, August 2004)
X
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
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
("Biological Assessment..." James Cornett, August
2004)
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? ("Biological Assessment..."
James Cornett, August 2004)
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ("Biological
Assessment..." James Cornett, August 2004)
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance ("Biological Assessment..." James
Cornett, August 2004)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
-10-
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? ("Biological
Assessment..." James Cornett, August 2004)
IV. a)- fl A biology study was prepared for the proposed projece. The study included the entire
property, with a particular focus on the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site,
which are undisturbed desert lands. No listed species were found on the project site.
Surveys for desert tortoise and burrowing owl were negative. The Palm Springs ground
squirrel was trapped in the northwestern quadrant of the site. No riparian or wetland
habitat was identified on the project site.
The study further found that the site does not occur within the fee boundary of the
Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and that no fee is
therefore required.
Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant.
2 "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Griffin Ranch," prepared by James W. Cornett, August
2004.
-11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'l5064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey,"
CRM Tech, September 2004)
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey,"
CRM Tech, September 2004)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004)
V. a)-b) & d) Both Phase I and Phase II cultural resources studies were completed for the proposed
project site3. The study identified and recorded six potentially significant cultural resource
sites within the project area, CA-RIV-7521 through —7526. These sites consist of.ceramic
scatters and groundstone fragments which require further evaluation in order to determine
whether they are significant. In order to determine their potential significance, a testing
program was developed and implemented. This program involved the re -surveying,
mapping and collection of materials at the recorded sites. The laboratory analysis for
these recovered materials is not yet complete, however, the archaeologist believes that the
six sites' potential significance has been mitigated by the collection of materials, and the
analysis being performed on them now. The potential impacts associated with the cultural
resources at the site have therefore been mitigated to less than significant levels. The
following conditions were adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and shall be
incorporated into the project approval:
1. Local tribes shall be contacted in writing for comments prior to issuance of the
first grubbing, earth -moving or grading permit. The applicant shall provide the
Community Development Department with all written responses received within
3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Griffin Ranch Project," prepared by CRM Tech, September
2004; and "Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at Griffin Ranch," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2004.
-12-
one month prior to issuance of any grading permit. One Native American monitor
shall be required should the tribes request it.
2. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological and paleontological monitors. Proof of retention of
monitors shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving
or clearing permit.
3. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of the first production home permit
for the project.
4. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the
property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and
records, primary research data, and the original graphics.
5. Results of the final artifact analysis and site interpretation shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department for review by the Historic Preservation
Commission prior to issuance of the first grading, clearing or grubbing permit.
V. c) The proposed project site lies within the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient
Lake Cahuilla. In order to assure that potential impacts associated with paleontologic
resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A paleontologic resource survey shall be conducted on the project site prior to the
initiation of any ground disturbance. The study shall be conducted in conformance
with the City's standards for such a study, and shall be submitted for review and
approval.
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associated with
paleontologic resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? ("Geotechnical Investigation,"
Sladden Engineering, August 2004)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
("Geotechnical Investigation," Sladden
Engineering, August 2004)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Investigation," Sladden Engineering, August
2004)
X
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investigation,"
Sladden Engineering, August 2004)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical
Investigation," Sladden Engineering, August
2004)
X
d) 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
("Geotechnical Investigation," Sladden
Engineering, August 2004)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? ("Geotechnical
Investigation," Sladden Engineering, August
2004)
-14-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site. The study found that the
project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake study zone. The study also
found that development of a residential project on the project site is feasible, with the
implementation of standards already in place at the City. The study included borings,
which did not encounter water at a depth of up to 50 feet, indicating that the site is not
subject to liquefaction. The site is not located adjacent to rock outcroppings or hillsides,
and is therefore not subject to landslides or rock fall. The site is not located on expansive
soils.
The single family units on the project site will be connected to CVWD sewer systems,
and will therefore not require septic tanks.
Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant.
4 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Griffin Ranch Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering,
August 2004.
-15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
X
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
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
X
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? (General Plan MEA, P.
95 ff.)
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-16-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fl)
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 development of single family homes will not create a significant impact on
or from hazardous materials. The City's solid waste contractor implements household
hazardous waste programs which assure that such materials are disposed in a safe
manner. No impacts are expected.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
X
a) Violate any water quality standards or
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.
X
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- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
X
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-18-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use in the offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water
conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of
water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures, 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 City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant is
proposing a series of open space/retention areas on the project site which will be used to
retain storm water in the event of a storm. The hydrologic and hydraulic calculations
associated with this system will be approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of
grading permits for the project site. These existing City standards will assure that the
proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
X
a) Physically divide an established
Community? (Aerial photo)
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant, and its development will not divide an
established community. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and
change of zone from Very Low Density Residential (0-2 units per acre) to Low Density
Residential (0-4 units per acre) on approximately 159 acres of the property (the
southwestern ± 40 acres of the site is currently designated Low Density Residential). The
project site is surrounded on two sides by existing Low Density Residential development.
Scattered Low Density Residential development also occurs east of the project site.
Approved Low Density projects will be constructed to the north of the project site. Staff
has recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone be
revised to designate the entire project site as Very Low Density Residential. The proposed
project associated with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will generate only
303 residential units, less than could be constructed under the Very Low Density
Residential category, even when applied to the entire site (i.e. 199 acres, 398 units).
Therefore, the land use impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change are expected to be insignificant.
The project site is outside the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
x
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? ("Air Quality and Noise
Impact Study," Endo Engineering, September,
2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ("Air Quality and
Noise Impact Study," Endo Engineering,
September, 2004)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Air Quality and Noise Impact
Study," Endo Engineering, September, 2004)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Air Quality and Noise
Impact Study," Endo Engineering, September,
2004)
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)
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
-22-
XI. a)-fl A noise impact analysis was conducted for the proposed projects. The study analysed the
potential noise impacts associated with the development of the project site, both on the
project site, and to neighboring lands. The study found that the .development of the
project will result in both short term (construction) and long term (operational) noise
impacts which could be significant without mitigation. In particular, the study found that
the noise levels associated with vehicular traffic adjacent to the project site have the
potential to exceed the City's standards for residential land uses without mitigation on
both Madison and Avenue 54. On Madison Street, the noise level without mitigation is
expected to exceed 75 bBA CNEL, while on Avenue 54 the noise level is expected to
exceed 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, the project will generate noise associated with
construction on the project site which will exceed City standards for a short period of
time. In order to assure that the potential impacts associated with noise are adequately
mitigated, the study recommends several mitigation measures, which are summarized
below.
1. Construction on the project site shall occur only during the hours prescribed by
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
2. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and mufflered, and the
engines shall be equipped with shrouds.
3. Stockpiling and staging areas, as well as servicing and fueling of equipment, shall
be located as far away from existing residential structures as possible.
4. A six foot wall on a one foot berm shall be constructed on Madison Street. A six
foot wall shall be constructed on Avenue 54. Both walls shall be of solid
construction, without breaks or openings.
5. A final noise analysis shall be completed when final lot layout and pad elevations
have been completed to assure that the wall requirements are sufficient to meet
the City's standards.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise are
expected to be less than significant.
The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip.
"Griffin Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map Air Quality and Noise Impact Study," Endo Engineering,
September, 2004
WI
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The existing General Plan land use designations for the site have the potential to allow up
to 478 single family homes on the project site, resulting in up to 1,200 persons on the site.
The development of the proposed project has the potential to generate up to 303 single
family homes, 62% fewer than permitted under the current Very Low and Low Density
Residential land use designations on the property. Given the project goals and design,
staff has recommended that the General Plan amendment be modified, to designate Very
Low Density Residential over the entire site. The project proposal will generate 303 lots,
with a maximum population of about 758 persons. Even with the entire site at Very Low
Density Residential, the project itself would remain 237 persons and 95. units less than the
maximum population potential under that land use designation. While the specific plan
provides development standards to govern the project as designed, they are based on a
combination of Low Density and Very Low Density standards. Allowing the zoning as
proposed at Low Density Residential would not affect the project as currently designed,
and would allow greater flexibility in housing and lot design. It would also encourage a
greater amount of open space in a subsequent development in the event this project does
not build out and the specific plan is revised.
The site is currently vacant and will not displace any population. Impacts associated with
the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
-24-
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
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XHL 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 and sales tax which will offset
the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government.
The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of
issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. CV Unified has
requested a bus turnout on Avenue 54 based on Sunline Transit standards, but no such
turnout has been requested by Sunline. The City will require that the developer work with
both Sunline Transit and CV Unified School District in siting an appropriate turnout and
incorporating it into improvement plans for Avenue 54. The project will provide some
on -site recreational facilities, and will also be required to pay the City's park fees for
development of off -site park facilities.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
-No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
X
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(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 will include on site recreational spaces/retention areas, and will also
contribute park fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected. A
pedestrian/hiking trail is identified in the City's General Plan on the Avenue 55
alignment, running east from Madison Street, one-half mile along the south project
boundary. At present this trail does not lead to any planned or existing park or other
public facility, nor is it usable within the existing improvements for the area. The City has
provided for multi -purpose trail designations utilizing the entire one -mile grid street
pattern. As Avenue 55 is not planned, either on the Circulation Element or as a local
street, it is recommended that this segment be removed from the General Plan as part of
the General Plan Amendment for this project.
-26-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
("Traffic Impact Study," Endo Engineering,
September 2004)
X
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? ("Traffic Impact Study," Endo
Engineering, September 2004)
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 m 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)? (Tract Map
32879)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tract Map 32879)
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Tract Map 32879)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
-27-
XV. a)-g) A traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project6. The study analysed both
project traffic, and the portion of the requested General Plan Amendment to reduce the
street classification of Madison Street from a Major Arterial to a Primary Arterial. The
study found that the proposed project will generate approximately 2,900 average daily
trips (ADT), of which 223 would be during the morning peak hour, and 292 during the
evening peak hour. The study also found that with development of the project site, and
surrounding development, studied intersections will operate within the City's established
levels of service.
In order to assure that project impacts are adequately mitigated, the study includes several
mitigation measures, which are summarized below.
1. Madison and Avenue 54 shall be improved to their buildout half -width with
development of the proposed project.
2. A Class II bikeway and golf cart path shall be located on Madison and Avenue 54.
3. A left turn pocket shall be constructed in the median on Madison Street at the
project entry to allow for deceleration.
4. Lane geometrics shall be as shown on Exhibit 5.1 of the traffic study.
5. The project proponent shall contribute their fair share to signalization of Jefferson
Street and Avenue 54, Madison Street and Avenue 54 and Monroe Street and
Avenue 54.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment which will reduce the road
classification, and associated cross-section for Madison Street from its current Major
Arterial (6 lanes, divided), to a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided). The potential impacts
associated with this General Plan were studied in a traffic analysis performed separately
from the above -referenced project analysis. The focus of the analysis was to determine
whether Madison Street had been "over -designed" in the General Plan, and whether the 6
lanes were necessary to accommodate existing plus projected traffic at buildout of the
General Plan, given the development which has occurred in this area of the City. The
analysis found that the approved projects in this area, which are under construction, will
generate 22,560 fewer daily trips than that analyzed in the General Plan. The analysis
further found that approximately 50% of these trips will travel on Madison Street.
Therefore, the potential trips on Madison Street will be reduced from the General Plan
assumption of 41,300-43,700 (depending on location) to 30,020 to 32,420 (also
depending on location). The capacity of a 6 lane divided roadway is 57,000 daily trips,
while the capacity of a 4 lane divided roadway is 38,000 daily trips. Since the actual
development affecting Madison Street will reduce the trip generation to 32,420 or less,
the Primary Arterial classification and cross section are acceptable to carry the buildout
traffic, and the proposed General Plan Amendment will have less than significant impacts
on traffic and circulation at General Plan buildout.
6 "Griffm Ranch Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map 32879 Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo
Engineering, September 2004
7 Letter report, dated November 12, 2004, by Endo Engineering, titled "Evaluation of the Madison Street Planned
Classification."
-28-
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. With implementation
of these mitigation measures, overall impacts to traffic are expected to be reduced to a
less than significant level.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
X
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
e) Result in a determination by the
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.)
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project=s solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-30-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
providers.
-31-
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has the potential to impact cultural and paleontologic resources. The mitigation
measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to
less than significant levels.
XVII. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types to future City residents,
consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies.
-32-
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, since it will reduce the total
number of units from the currently allowed 398 to 303.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality, noise and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures provided in this report reduce
these potential impacts to less than significant levels.
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.
-33-
0
d•
I
0
N
a
w
A
O
a
d
o
Z
N
o
O
ri � `t
�o
oaf
� tN N
b
;
-4
a�
�t
Z
E-4
°zz
o
z
5
U
o m
Wai
C7 U
a�
�o
Otoo
H
0
z0
O0.0
�w
C/� A
0-0
U
z
ww
a
0
O
w
F
A
V�
�A
WW
�x
W
OV
a+
o
•�
o
��
d
W
'0
a�
rA
•0
•
to
V
cad
v�
��
rn
0
z
a�
o
o
Q
bo
to
bo
F
to
Cl
cd
•'"
N
°
rA
'b
to
�
a
o
as
o
bobo
o to
bo
bobo
o
a
Q
Q
Cd
a bo
Q
A
Q
Q
a
r,4n�
O
64
Cd
p
0
'
Q
U
to
bA
bA
W
Q
Q
cd
w
cd
C
C
to
to
U
d
V
U
U A
GA
pQ
O
a�
z
' O
O
p '
O
aA
�
�
A-'
bo
0
� cn
Cd
cd o
'�
bQ •�
EA
H
a
.�
I•.
�
�.
co3
o
-d
to
.�
Q�
W
�
a
N
O
O
0
O
N
v V
U
O
"C�
,�
bA
C, O
s.•
cd
sue, CUEi
„C
Q
�,
v�
• ~
a
N
Cd
N
c
Q,
ri
V
C7
V) -v
V)
Z -d 0
Ey
=a
V pq
�A
a�
�U
O�
0
0
0
•V
cd
>
U
a
a
0"
&4
as
o
a
0
0
• 0
0
,o
t7
�j,'
U
ty'j
U
U
V
En
rA
U
U
U
o
on
'w
a4
ap
.0
�,
0
o
A
A
A
as
...,
a+
a
CLI
00
A
A
pq
:3
pq
o a0i
V A
w
Q
��
>,
c�
v
b
G7
0
a
�
b
� b
• y
V�
•� o
��
o
r"
O
0
+� 04
te4-4
0
"0
3
o
'b
U
1
?'
Cd
0
J.-
v5 °�
�c 3
�,
U
Ew-{
A
V �q
�A
a�
Ox
UV
a
w
w
O
U
U
U
U
H
O
O
O
A
A
A
A
a
a
A
~
~
U
Q
a
a
�3
c
°
�
°
z
C.cl.N
w
�
°
4
to
•�
Cis
.9b
40.
�n
-0
U
0
cd
.L "C
cd
>
cis
[--�
+-'
O
D
O
v�
O
N
bA (4-4
U +�
_fl
Z >
cd
O
p
Gq
U
a vi
U C
V