Loading...
CC Resolution 2005-061RESOLUTION NO. 2005-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33336 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-535 GLC/DUC LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 19" day of July, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-535 prepared for Tentative Tract 33336 located on the north side of Avenue 58, 1,950 feet west of Madison Street more particularly described as: APN: 762-240-012 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to support certification of 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 2005-535. 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. 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. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. Resolution No. 2005-061 Environmental Assessment 2004-535 GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC Adopted: July 19, 2005 Page 2 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. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 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 Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-535 and said Assessment 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 28th day of June, 2005, hold a public hearing to consider this request, and adopted Resolution 2005-029, recommending certification of this Environmental Assessment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 9, 2005, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. Resolution No. 2005-061 Environmental Assessment 2004-535 GLC/Duc La Quints, LLC Adopted: July 19, 2005 Page 3 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-5135 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-535 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 191h day of July, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Perkins ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: J S GREEK, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) CNI�4t InL DON ADOLPH, N&yor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2005-061 Environmental Assessment 2004-535 GLC/Duc La Quinta, LLC Adopted: July 19, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, Ci ttorn City of La Quinta, Californ City Council Resolution No. 2005- Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2005-535) 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33336 2. Lead agency name and address: - City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: North side of Avenue58, approximately 1,950 feet west of Madison Street. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: GLC/Duc La Quinta LLC 14107 Winchester Blvd., Suite H Los Gatos, CA 95032 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 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.) A proposal to subdivide a 8 acre parcel into 23 single family lots of at least 9,900 square feet or more, including the inclusion of an existing single family home. The parcel is 8 acres. A single cul-de-sac is proposed for the center of the site. Access to Avenue 58 is proposed to be shared with the parcel immediately west, which was subdivided under Tentative Tract Map 32279. A large retention area is proposed for the frontage of the property on Avenue 58 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Low Density Residential, Golf Course, existing single family homes & golf South: Low Density Residential, Avenue 58, vacant desert lands West: Low Density Residential, vacant desert lands East: Low Density Residential, vacant desert lands 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, .or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- 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 environment, X 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. May 27, 2005 Signature f Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) _ All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the -mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. ' 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different -formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -3- 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)-d) The project site currently includes one single family home, and vacant lands. Avenue 58 is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor, and the project proponent will be required to make parkway improvements consistent with that designation. There are no rock outcroppings, trees or historic buildings on the project site. The City limits building sizes in the Low density designation to no more than two stories. Although no homes are proposed as part of this subdivision, the project proponent will be required to comply with these requirements, thereby limiting the potential impacts associated with view blockage. The site is surrounded by lands designated and subdivided (although not yet constructed) lands, which are likely to develop in a similar manner. Impacts associated with scenic resources and vistas are therefore expected to be less than significant. The primary sources of light on the property at buildout of the site will be from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Car headlights will represent only a temporary and periodic minor impact to light in the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. 152 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 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? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The site us located in an area of the City which is rapidly urbanizing. The site is designated for Low Density Residential, and residential and golf course development occurs to the north and west. Agricultural lands occur to the east of the property, but are limited and isolated. Agricultural activity is concentrated to the south and east of the site, and not in this area of the City. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site. Impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant. -5- 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) 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 which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) Air quality emissions will result from both project construction, and activities of homeowners once the site is built upon. Each of these impacts is addressed individually below. Construction The City, and the Coachella Valley as a whole, are in a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM 10, a component of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust will be generated by grading activities on the project site. In order to improve impacts associated with fugitive dust, the City participates in, and implements regional plans for its prevention and suppression, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for construction projects. It can be anticipated that the entire 10 acre site will be mass graded. Under mass grading conditions, the site has the potential to generate 265.1 pounds of fugitive dust each day. This level of fugitive dust exceeds the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mitigation is therefore required, as follows: -6- 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed on the affected portion of the site. 4. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Avenue 58, and the project's perimeter wall, shall be installed immediately following precise grading. 6. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 7. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour The implementation of these mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts associated with grading activities to less than significant levels. Operations The proposed project will result in the construction of 23 new single family homes (the existing home on the site will remain), which are expected to generate approximately 220 trips per day'. These vehicle trips will generate the following emissions. Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 220 x 15 = 3,300 PMIo PMIo PMIo Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 0.66 17.05 3.50 - 0.07 0.07 1 "Trip Generation, 7 h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single family detached. -7- SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 220 trips, ITE categories 210. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated, the buildout of the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of significance once the site is built out. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. III. d) & e) The construction of retail commercial space is not expected to generate objectionable odors, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. -9- 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, 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(General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) 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? (General Plan MEA, pages 74- 87) 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? General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state -9- habitat conservation plan? General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) IV. a)-f) The project site has been considerably disturbed. Portions of the site have been cleared, and off -road vehicle use is in evidence. The subject property is not located in a recommended survey area for sensitive species identified in the General Plan. Lands to the north are developed, and lands to the east have been disturbed. Lands to the south are isolated from this property by Avenue 58. The property is therefore isolated habitat, and is not expected to contain sensitive species. There is no riparian or wetland habitat on the subject property. The proposed project site is located outside the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("Paleontological Evaluation Report," Cogstone, March 2005) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Archaeological Survey," ECORP, January 2005) V. a)-b) & d) A cultural resource survey was prepared for the project site2. In preparation for the report, both records searches and field surveys were completed. The records search determined that the project site has not been previously surveyed, but that previous surveys within a one mile radius of the project site had identified 31 archaeological site, one archaeological isolate, and two historic sites. The field investigation did not identify any archaeological or historic resources on the site. However, the high number of sites in the vicinity of the project site results in a potential for buried resources on the site. In order to assure that impacts associated with these resources are reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all grubbing and earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Any resources found on the site shall be properly curated. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that potential impacts associated with cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. "Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for a Property Located at 80600 Avenue 58..." prepared by ECORP Consulting, January, 2005. -11- V. c) A paleontological resource survey was prepared for the project site 3. The survey included both records searches and field investigations. The records search determined that there had been no collection of fossils within one mile of the project site. However, the site was identified as having soils consistent with those associated with ancient Lake Cahuilla. The on -site investigation identified fossilized clams and snails on the property. As a result, the grading and trenching of the project site has the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources, without mitigation, as provided below. l . A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during all grubbing and earth moving activities in areas likely to contain resources. The paleontologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities to adequately investigate potential resources. The paleontologist shall be equipped to collect fossils, so as to minimize delays to construction. The paleontologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Any resources found on the site shall be properly curated. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels. "Paleontological Evaluation Report and Mitigation Plan for a La Quinta 9.78 Acre Parcel," prepared by Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., March 2005. -12- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact. Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General X Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? (General Plan pages 97-106) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined X in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan pages 97-106) 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? (General Plan pages 97-106) VI. a)-e) The site is located in a Zone III ground shaking zone as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Significant ground shaking .can be expected on the site in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is located in an area of the City subject to liquefaction. The City requires, as part of the process of securing building permits, site specific geotechnical analysis of each -13- property. The project proponent will be required to submit such an analysis, and to conform to any standards and requirements for liquefaction, should it be identified as a potential impact on the site. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service which occurs adjacent to the site. Overall impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -14- 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? (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.) 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? ("Phase I Environmental . Site Assessment," Earth Systems, January 2005) 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation -15- 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 23 single family homes on the property. These homes will utilize small amounts of cleaning products and similar materials, but will not transport, use or store any significant amount of such materials. The City's solid waste franchisee is responsible for the proper disposal of these products, and implements programs for household hazardous waste as part of its contract with the City. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site 4, because of historic agricultural use of the southwestern portion of the property. The investigation included research of databases, and on site investigation and sampling. The soil samples identified small amounts of pesticides DDT and DDE, in concentrations well below criteria established for these chemicals, and consistent with past agricultural activities. The impacts associated with these residues were determined to be less than significant. The site is not identified on any database as having had hazardous materials incidents. The site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The site is not located adjacent to hillsides, and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. Overall impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be less than significant. 4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment with Supplemental Sampling," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, January, 2005. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X 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.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X -17- hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. II1-187 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 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, which protect surface waters from contamination. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No 123.45-0.75, an irrigation water line. Prior to development of the site, the line must be relocated to assure that these waters are not impacted by project development. In order to assure that the irrigation water is not impacted by the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall relocate Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 123.45-0.75 to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The proposed tract map includes a retention basin, whose size and capacity will be evaluated and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control, and that impacts associated with storm water are reduced to less than significant levels. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -18- 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 site currently is vacant, so there will be no impact to an established community. The site is designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single family residential uses, and proposes lot sizes consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The site is outside the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. -19- 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. -20- 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? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 f1.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project(General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project(General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport 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)-f) The proposed project site is located in an.area of the City which currently experiences relatively low ambient noise levels. The project site is not expected to experience unacceptable noise levels at General Plan buildout, particularly since the distance from the centerline of Avenue 58 to the first structure on the site exceeds 368 feet. -21- Furthermore, the proposed project will include a wall, and landscaped setbacks, which help to absorb noise. The construction of the single family homes has the potential to result in temporary and periodically high noise levels associated with these construction activities. The location of a perimeter wall, and the sparse development surrounding the site, will not be significantly impacted by these noise levels, which are limited by the City's Municipal Code to the less sensitive daytime hours. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. Overall impacts associated with noise are expected to be less than significant. -22- 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 construction of 23 single family homes will not induce substantial population growth. The construction of the homes will not displace existing housing or people. Impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. -23- 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 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. -24- 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 development of commercial space is not expected to have any impact on recreational facilities in the City. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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)? Proposed site plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Proposed site plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Proposed site plan) 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 result in approximately 2,791 daily trips. This number is likely to be conservative, insofar as no reduction has been taken for pass -by trips, and the type of development within the project is likely to generate pass -by trip activity. The anticipated square footage on the site, 65,000 square feet, is less than the potential 97,200 -26- square feet that could be constructed on the site, based on the 35% building coverage allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total trip generation, therefore, is likely to be less than that analyzed in the General Plan traffic study, which considered the types of uses currently proposed for the site. The traffic study concluded that this section of Highway 111, and the City's general circulation system, would operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on circulation and traffic. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The proposed project parking will be calculated based on the City's Zoning standards, which allow flexibility based on the mix of uses and the preparation of supporting documentation for variations from its standards. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment 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.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -28- 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. -29- 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) XVII. b) The proposed project will provide additional commercial services and products for City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. 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, insofar as it is expected to result in a lower square footage than that anticipated in the General Plan. XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality, noise and hazards are all expected to be less than significant. Impacts to human beings are therefore expected to be less than significant. -30- 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. Environmental Assessment 2004-508 was used in this Study. 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. -31- i E o z o o z� oa a U � 0 �w H�U O a LY M U p M a O � �tn d c� 'r U O a o oz z� a U w F Q' A W �. U pa 0 a U UU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U C.) ci rA S ar S S S 0-4 bn 0 0 0 0 0 0-4w w O O m U to to to to U t U t to W a w C7 W�a on z 03 O -� rA 0 o A A A A A A A i •� b � b � b b to z o Cd� M�1 Go 11.0 O N Cd > by ° En En Cd MCd d O U 2 yascd ° va V) o m � * A lu q A� Qb Q E/ § _ 2§ 04 / & 5 0 � 7 ƒ § \ & m \. / / Ec S o 22 s V • U co c .Q %* OD/ ./ E N 9 ¥ ,u 0 ./� \ to � k 5 o \ § 7 / Q Cd = % § \ > kqu 4�/