Loading...
CC Resolution 2005-097RESOLUTION NO. 2005-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33085 CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-537 APPLICANT: CORE HOMES, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did hold a duly noticed public hearing, on the 1 51h day of November, 2005 and continued said hearing to the 61h day of December, 2005, to consider a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2005-537, prepared for Tentative Tract 33085, a request to subdivide ±4.3 acres into seven single-family residential lots and several lettered lots, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PM 16457, MAP BOOK 100/48 OF MAPS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 251h day of October, 2005 and continued to the 8th day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on said Environmental Assessment 2005-537, and further, did take action to recommend that the City Council certify said Environmental Assessment, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2005-055; and, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2005-537) and has determined that, although the proposed Tentative Tract 33085 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 filed; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, the La Quinta City Council did make the following findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: Resolution No. 2005-097 Environmental Assessment 2005-537 Core Homes; LLC December 6, 2005 Page 2 The proposed Tentative Tract 33085" will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not .be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. The project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat or 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. The site has been identified as having the potential for cultural and paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated which will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the site may be suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, and a pre -construction survey for the species has been required. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed. Tract 33085 will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. A pre -construction survey for the burrowing owl species will be completed to determine if any members of that species exists on the site, with appropriate mitigation to be identified and carried out prior to any construction. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The construction of seven residential units will not have any significant cumulative impact and is consistent with the General Plan. Resolution No. 2005-097 Environmental Assessment 2005-537 Core Homes, LLC December 6, 2005 Page 3 6. The proposed Tentative Tract 33085 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that Tentative Tract 33085 may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2005-537 and determined that it 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 City records relating to this project is the Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; and 2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-537 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, all 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 6th day of December, 2005, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Perkins ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2005-097 Environmental Assessment 2005-537 Core Homes, LLC December 6, 2005 Page 4 Uliy OT La uuinTa uallTornla ATTEST: JUN GREEK, C C, City rk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. &KATHIEfT-INE JE N, City Attorn City of La Quinta, California 1 0a 3 4 Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: Lead agency name and address Contact person and phone number Project location: Tentative Tract Map 33085 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 Southwest corner of Madison Street and Beth Circle. APN 772-270-013. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Applicant: Core Homes, LLC Attn: David Neale 470 S. Market Street San Jose, CA 95113 6. General plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential Residential (up to 2 du/acre) (up to 2 du/acre), Equestrian Overlay 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.) The project is a proposed residential development of seven detached single family dwellings which will be built upon 4.36 gross acres, upon which an active grapefruit orchard is now located. The project is located at the southwest corner of Beth Circle and Madison Street. Madison Street is designated as a primary arterial, with a l 10 foot ultimate right of way, and is also an agrarian image corridor. Beth Circle is a private road. Beth Circle, rather than Madison Street, is to provide access to the tract, and has street improvements, although these were not installed in accordance with City -approved plans. The improvements were associated with Tentative Tract 30378, which remains unrecorded and which expired on June 18, 2004. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: A grapefruit orchard is located immediately north of the subject property. It is in transition from agriculture to residential. Some street improvements are in place including paving and three foot wide culverts along both sides of Old Orchard Lane. The land use designation for this property is VLDR (Very Low Density Residential of up to two dwellings per acre.) South: An active date farm is located immediately south of the proposed project. It has a land use designation of VLDR (Very Low Density Residential of up to two dwellings per acre.) West: These lands have a land use designation of Very Low Density Residential, and are also transitioning from agricultural to residential usage. East: The property's eastern boundary is Madison Street. Properties east of this section of Madison Street are within the City of Indio, and these properties including the Empire Polo Club, have a land use designation of Country Estates, indicating that very low density residential usage is planned. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District Coachella Valley Unified School 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 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: X Signature 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 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. 10-2i-00 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. -4- 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 -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? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) 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) Madison Street is an Agrarian Image Corridor. The City requires maximum building height in an image corridor to be 22 feet within 150 feet of an image corridor road. Because of the layout of the proposed development, the parcels that will be located within the image corridor include Parcel 6 (rear and sides); the retention basin in the southeast corner of the property; and the sides of parcels 5 and 7. The proposed project will be required to include parkway landscaping consistent with the agrarian image corridor, including citrus trees, which should be replanted from within the site. The proposed development is located along an agrarian image corridor, but if treated as discussed above, its adverse impacts upon this image corridor will be less than significant. b) Madison Street is not a state scenic highway, and the damage to scenic resources will be less than significant if the above City standards are implemented. c) _ The implementation of the City's standards for Agrarian Image Corridors will reduce the potential impacts associated with degradation of the character of the area to less than significant levels. d) Light and glare are expected to emanate from the seven proposed dwellings in the development. Likewise light and glare from vehicular traffic and future street lights will occur. -6- Standard design features included in the City's Municipal Code, such as low lighting levels should be used to mitigate potential light impacts to acceptable levels. These standards include features such as shielding and directing all outdoor lighting downward to preserve the night sky. No illumination of land outside the development perimeter and outside of any individual lot perimeters will be permitted. Building practices should minimize the use of glass and other reflective surfaces. Impacts associated with scenic resources are generally expected to be less than significant with the implementation of City standards discussed above. dZ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X 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 f.) 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; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) Maps from the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicate that the site under consideration is not prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed subdivision will not impact local agricultural resources as numerous nearby farms continue in operation, including other grapefruit orchards, a date farm immediately to the south, and numerous large, active farms within one mile of the site. The La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan shows that the property has been set aside for residential use, rather than for farmland. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the land. Residential development of this property will not cause any significant impacts to agricultural resources. -8- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions 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, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) It is expected that vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be the most significant generators of air pollutants. The proposed project will result in seven single-family homes, which have the potential to generate up to 67 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. "Trip Generation, 6'1, Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached. -9- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build -out (hounds Der dav) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 67 x 15 = 1,005 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear 'Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 90 2,341 480 - 10.0 10.0 Pounds at 50 mph 0.20 5.17 1.06 - 0.02 0.02 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 1,132 ADT. 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 above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than significant. The City of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project: CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads - and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The proposed project will generate 115.1 pounds of dust per day during construction. This does not exceed the 150 pound per day SCAQMD threshold for PM10. However, the City of La Quinta requires compliance with PM10 plan preparation and implementation through its own local ordinance (Chapter 6.16, LQMC), which this project is subject to. -10- III. d) & e) Sensitive receptors near the proposed Core Homes development are other residential developments. There are no schools or hospitals within a mile of the proposed seven unit development. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants. Odors from grading, laying of asphalt, construction vehicles and other sources are expected to be minimal and very short-lived. Overall, the air quality impacts of this proposed development are expected to be less than significant with mitigation. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: 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, p. 78 ff.) 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, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? (General Plan -12- , p. 78 ff.) N IV. a) The property is currently being used as a grapefruit grove and consists of relatively level terrain with an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the grapefruit trees located in this densely planted orchard, vegetation observed within the project area includes sunflowers, saltbushes, goat weed, and various grasses There were ten rows of grapefruit trees running east -west across the property and terminating just west of Madison Avenue. The site has been an operating orchard for some time, and as such does not contain natural plant communities. The presence of agricultural rows creates the potential for habitat for the burrowing owl, a species of concern. In accordance with the policies contained in the General Plan, the project proponent is required to complete a pre - construction survey of the parcel prior to construction, in order to assure that impacts to this species will not be significant. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. I. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the project site, the project proponent shall cause a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey to be completed, submitted to the Community Development Department, and approved. Should the species be identified on the site, the biologist's recommendations for relocation shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any ground disturbing permit. b) Due to the long term use of the site in agriculture, the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) There are no wetlands on the site. The project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d) The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, e) There is no conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy. f) As the development site is already disturbed and has been used for agriculture, no interference with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is expected. Overall, impacts to biological resources from this proposed development are expected to be less than significant. -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the.significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey ... TTM 33085 CRM Tech, January 2005) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey ... TTM 33085 CRM Tech, January 2005) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Paleontologic Resources Assessment TTM 33085... CRM Tech, January 2005). d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V. a) A historical resources survey was performed by CRM TECH and after close inspection of the 4.36 acre site, no evidence of any human activities dating to the historic or prehistoric periods was found on the property. The nearby area has yielded a number of significant historic resources, however, and the paleontologic resources monitor for the project should also be aware of the possibility of finding such resources'. b) No archaeological resources have been found on the site and CRM TECH (cited below) has recommended a finding of no impact with respect to this resource. Nevertheless, archaeological resources have been found within a mile of the site; and a qualified archaeological monitor will need to be present during all earth moving and grading activities due to the general sensitivity of the area for subsurface cultural deposits, to assure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are less than significant. 1. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities. - The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect such activities if resources are identified. The findings of the monitoring effort shall be documented in a 1 "Historical/ Archeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085", by CRM TECH January 17, 2005; with Addenda April 14, 2005, and May 19, 2005. -14- report delivered to the Community Development Department no more than 30 days from the completion of monitoring activities. c) Based on previous discoveries over a mile from the project area, the San Bernardino County Museum has assigned the project area a high paleontological sensitivity, and declared the proposed project to have a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources. The on -foot field survey did find shell material mixed throughout the soil of the project site. The material consisted mainly of shell fragments. The top layer of soil has been disturbed by the agricultural use of the property. However, the study area's ancient lakebeds have a moderate to high potential for invertebrate remains below the disturbed top. Because of this, paleontological monitoring of earth -moving activities is warranted once the undisturbed subsurface is reached. Because of previous surface disturbance, no monitoring of tree removal, grubbing, or surface grading is recommended. Monitoring should be restricted to undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds and any undisturbed subsurface older alluvium, which might be present below the surface. Earth moving activities impacting the undisturbed subsurface soils of the project area are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene -age sediments present at the site. In the entire proposed project area, beneath the quaternary dune sands, there may be older Quaternary deposits, including deposits of lacustrine and fluvial origin known as the Lake Cahuilla beds, that may well contain significant terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate fossils. These Lake Cahuilla beds occur at the surface immediately adjacent to the southeastern portion of the proposed project area. The closest fossil vertebrate localities are slightly higher in elevation, but in the same continuous Lake Cahuilla beds, almost directly south of the proposed project area, and just east of the current Lake Cahuilla on both sides of Madison Street north of 58"' Avenue. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented for the site: 1. On -and off -site monitoring of earth -moving and grading for the entire site shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. Monitoring shall be especially thorough in the southeastern portion of the site. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving permit. 2 Letter from Samuel A. McLeod. Ph.D., of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, dated December 15, 2004, to CRM TECH re: Paleontological Resources for Proposed Tract 22085 Core Homes. -15- 2. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. d) The site does not occur in an area known to have previously been used for burial. California law requires that anyone uncovering human remains during a construction project notify the authorities. The project contractor will be required to conform to these regulations, and will report any remains, should they be identified. 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, 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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2; October 2004 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Core Homes site.)) .iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems -16- where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a) i) & ii) The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone as designated by the State. Major fault zones considered to be the most likely to create strong ground shaking are the San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto Fault, the former of which is 9.5 km (5.9 miles) from the site and the later of which is 32.4 km (20.1 miles) from the project site. The site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and it is likely that the proposed structures will experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake event during the life of the development. The City requires that structures be designed based upon Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 design criteria. The potential for liquefaction or other geologic/ seismic hazards occurring at the site is considered to be quite negligible, as the applicable soil profile type is SID, generally described as stiff or dense soil I. The geology of the site has been shown as recent alluvial -fan, flood -plain, lake, and sand dune deposits. The soil is a mixture of sandy silt and clay. iv) The project site is surrounded by other lands which are fairly level, and the site is not subject to significant landslide hazards. b) The project is located within the edge of a very severe wind erosion hazard area. To prevent erosion and loss of topsoil, the PMIO mitigation measures discussed in the Air Quality section of this Initial Study will mitigate potential erosion. Retention of significant grapefruit trees should also help mitigate erosion and topsoil loss. c) The surface soils within the upper five feet consist primarily of silty sands. Expansion testing indicates that the surface silty sands are generally non -expansive and are classified as "very low" expansion category soils in accordance with Table 18-IB of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.2 d) The City requires connection to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) sewer system, and the District has indicated in its April 11, 2005 letter to the La Quinta Planning Commission that the proposed subdivision will be annexed into Improvement District Numbers 55 and 82 for sanitary sewer service. I October 2004 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Core Homes site (page 4). 2 April 2002 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden Engineering for adjacent property, immediately north of the Core Homes site (page 2). -17- 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? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) 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 plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) -18- 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 construction of seven homes on the subject site will not have an impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous substances generated in the home. Development of the seven parcels needs to occur in accordance with all applicable fire and safety codes and will not hinder or conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project is not expected to result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The subject property is not known to previously have been a hazardous materials site, and therefore, the proposed development is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Core Homes development is not located adjacent to wildlands, and is not expected to pose any risks related to wildland fires. Impacts of the project related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be negligible. -19- 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. 1II-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there wouldbe 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 which X 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 hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation -20- map? (General Plan E1R 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) The proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has indicated that it wishes to review plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation to ensure efficient water management. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The proposed project is not expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, ensuring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. c) The development site is about 15 feet above sea level. The terrain is relatively level, but slopes slightly to the east. The applicant is proposing to accommodate drainage in the subdivision by way of a retention basin in the southeast corner of the property. The 10,366 square foot retention basin would be located between proposed lots 5 and 6 in the development. The project site includes Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral 119.2, 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: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall relocate Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation Lateral No. 119.2 to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. d) The development is not expected to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. However, the capacity of the retention basin must be reviewed to make certain of this, and the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: me e) f & g) 1. The project shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin #97.03, and the approved preliminary hydrology plan dated 9/14/05. The City requires that all projects retain the 100-year storm on site. The City Engineer will review final plans and hydrology analysis to assure that these basins are sufficient to adequately retain water, prior to the issuance of grading permits. Stormwater and project -generated urban runoff will be managed through the use of catch basins, stormwater retention facilities, and other standards in accordance with the California Storm Water Pollution Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required of the project prior to grading. The District has indicated that the development site is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. According to the Coachella Valley Water Districts, the property under consideration is designated as being in Flood Zone X on Federal Flood insurance rate maps. Flood zone X refers to areas that are outside the 500-year floodplain. t Letter to La Quinta Planning Commission from Mark L. Johnson, Director of Engineering, Coachella Valley Water District, re: Tentative Tract 33085, Core Homes, LLC, dated April11, 2005. -22- 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; General Plan Exhibit 2.1 Land Use) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) Construction of the seven unit Core Homes residential development will not divide an established community. The development does not conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Historically the 4.36 acre property has been a grapefruit orchard. There are no houses or other buildings currently onsite. Conversion of this property from a grapefruit orchard into a residential development of one-half acre parcels conforms with the City's land use plan. The land use designation for the property is Very Low Density Residential, allowing up to two dwellings per acre. The permitted maximum project density is 8.6 units for the site, so the 7 proposed lots are below the density allowed and are consistent with the City's Land Use Plan. -23- 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 consists primarily of silty, fine-grained sands. The site is, located in an area of the City that is transitioning from agricultural to residential uses. It is in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1. This refers to areas where adequate information exists to support the conclusion that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. -24- 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. l I I ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff. Impact Sciences Noise Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 33085, April 2005) 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. I I I 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)-d) Noise will be generated during project construction. There are no major sensitive receptors located adjacent to the project site. -25- In general, increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are expected to fall into two categories, short-term and long-term. Short-term, temporary noise impacts associated with the operation of heavy machinery are expected to occur during the grading and, construction process. This requires the following mitigation measure: 1. To minimize impacts during the grading and construction process, all construction equipment shall be fitted with well -maintained mufflers. 2. Construction activities shall take place only during hours permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Exterior Noise Based upon measurements from April 2005, noise levels at the site were approximately 55 dB(A) and thus are at the upper range of normally acceptable" levels, per Table 8.1 of the City of La Quinta General Plan. Traffic on Madison Street and Avenue 52 are both expected to increase dramatically by year 2020. Based upon Avenue 52's greater distance from the site and the intervening orchards, noise from Madison Street is the primary concern. Up to 28,200 daily trips are expected on Madison Street in 2020, based upon the City's General Plan traffic element, and CEQA requires long term noise levels to be at acceptable levels. The CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) that would be 80 feet from the centerline of Madison (where the closest residence would be located) is 68.7 dB(A) CNEL. This exceeds conditionally acceptable exterior noise levels - the City considers 55 to 65 dB(A) to be conditionally acceptable. A six foot block wall would reduce noise by 6.5 dB(A). This will bring the development to 62.2 dB(A) CNEL - and this is within the range that is considered to be conditionally acceptable according to the City's noise element. Based upon this, the following measures are required for the mitigation of exterior noise levels, to allow the proposed development to comply with interior and exterior noise level thresholds: 1. Construct a six-foot block wall that separates the entire eastern edge of the site from Madison Street. 2. If Lots 5, 6, or 7 are proposed as two-story homes, any exterior balconies, decks, or patios on the second stories for homes on these three lots must face away from Madison Street. Interior Noise Interior noise should not be a problem as Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code calls for insulated walls, glazed windows, and weather stripping on all doors and windows opening to the exterior. Insulated stucco walls and double paned windows can reduce exterior noise levels of 25.0 to 31.0 dB(A). As such, interior noise levels experienced in the proposed residential units will remain below the 45.0 dB(A) CNEL threshold required by Title 24. e & f) The Core Homes development site is over three miles from the Desert Resorts Regional Airport, so noise impacts will be minimal. The proposed development site is -26 not within an airport land use plan. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the noise impacts from the Core Homes development are expected to be less than significant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w> Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial, numbers of X existing housing; necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the project site. The City's build -out population of 60,639 not including adjacent planning areas or spheres of influence, will not be significantly challenged or impacted by growth from the seven proposed dwellings. No individuals will be displaced to create this development. No replacement housing will need to be built elsewhere. The impacts of this development upon housing and population will be insignificant. -28- 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)Build-out 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. Build -out of the proposed project will generate sales and property tax that 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, fire mitigation fees, and park in lieu fees at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the financial impacts to those services. The Police Department has recommended that construction materials be kept in a locked storage facility during the construction period for this project, and that the homes to be constructed should incorporate wide -angled peepholes into all dwelling front doors and all solid doors where visual scrutiny is compromised. The proposed development site has been designated to provide for outdoor lighting and other measures that will reduce the need for police protection. These requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. Schools are managed by the Coachella Valley Unified School District, and the developer will need to pay fees to the School District. The District has indicated that, -29- due to overcrowding, students from the development may need to be transferred to a school within the district that can accommodate them. Parks and recreation areas are provided by both the City and the County, and the impact of the development upon these parks is expected to be less than significant. The property owner will be required to pay a"parkland fee prior to recordation of the final map, -30- 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; General Plan Exhibit 5.1 Existing and Proposed Parks) 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 City's 2002 Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the closest existing or planned parks in La Quinta are over two miles west of the proposed Core Homes development. The City has numerous parks, and has set a standard of at least 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Due to the small size of the proposed development, however, impact of the development on recreational resources will be less than significant. Irregardless, the project will be required to pay Parkland Dedication fees as required by Chapter 13.48 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wL Significant Lnpact 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)? (TTM 33085) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 33085) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 33085) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10 Trails) XV. a) & b) The proposed project is not expected to cause any substantial increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Madison Street has a right of way of 110 feet and is designated as a Primary Arterial. The proposed -32- development will not exceed the level of service standard established by the City for Madison Street or other nearby roads such as Avenue 50 or Avenue 52. c) The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Likewise, rail and waterborne traffic patterns will not be impacted. d) The project does not substantially increase hazards due to any design features. In fact. the choice of access from Beth Circle rather than from Madison Street adds a significant safety -enhancing feature to the development. The City's Engineering Department has already specified in a memorandum of April 8, 2005, that left turn movements out of Beth Circle will not be permitted, and this adds an additional layer of safety to the proposed project, as well as to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists utilizing Madison Street. e) The project is not expected to result in inadequate emergency access. The private roads inside the development are "T" shaped and extend southward from the private street called Old Orchard Lane. These private roads meet minimum standards for safety including two dead ends, each of which meet the required minimum turning radius of 38 feet. f) With the proposed parcels each being one half acre, no shortage of parking capacity is anticipated. In addition, no streets in the proposed development will be less than 36 feet wide at any point, and, therefore parking on both sides of the street is permissible. g) The proposed development and division of land are not expected to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. According to the City's Trails Map, this section of Madison Street is a pedestrian/ hiking trail; an on -road bicycle lane; and a multi -purpose trail. These improvements will be required as part of the project approval conditions. -33- 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 that 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 f.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -34 XVI. a) The Core Homes proposed subdivision will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District, and CVWD has already indicated the requirement to annex the seven proposed parcels into CVWD's Districts 55 and 82 for sanitation service. b) The proposed project will ultimately lead to the creation of seven dwellings, therefore it will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. c) The area is protected from regional storm flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional storm flows except in rare instances. d) The Coachella Valley Water District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of the District Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and CVWD has indicated that certain fees and charges will be paid by the subdivider to obtain water service. CVWD has also indicated that additional domestic water pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for the District to provide service to all parcels. Impacts to water supplies can be reduced by incorporating a variety _ of water - conserving techniques which include the use of low -flow toilets and showerheads, and the use of drought -tolerant plant materials in landscape and open space areas. e) CVWD has indicated in its letter of April 11, 2005, that it has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to its already existing commitments. f) Waste Management of the Desert serves residences within the City of La Quinta, and no strains on landfill capacity are expected to result from the seven parcels in the Core Homes development. g) The project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and future homes on site will participate in the City's recycling program, that is coordinated through Waste Management of the Desert. On -site recycling and solid waste source reduction programs must be implemented at project build -out in accordance with local and state requirements. -3 5 - 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. These impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as stated in Sections IV (Cultural Resources) and V (Biological Resources). XVII. b) The proposed project will augment the housing options offered to the City's residents, a goal of the General Plan: XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area, and construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts. -36- XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to noise impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential impacts related to noise. These are outlined in Section XI. 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. -37- i25 W E-� A pq zU ~x a U W OV o � � F b a� U a. o. d z bA F �b 0 0 a W � o �O zz Q i>-, Wao a Z o 0 U () on O F '3 0 E+ o � U 40, o a F d A z dA OU a a a d d F Cd al �b an Q Q 0-4 O a� a� z Q Q o 0 o a> UC:) UQ z 1' Q° ° c E E S �d F 03 o. o a o o U o 0 �. d -o a: -o W F� d A U p�q �AW x U W OU 4 p a � a F �U o Cd o 0 ate'. d d to to �n �n 0 0 a a W � o �. �a w c U C: U 0 E� d N V � °ax Cd � co a' W E� d A w z� �A U W uU d a w � x U U � U � a � � H U U N L1, G G bq L b ^^G 1�1 MM FY O z wa Y a � � � z� C13 c W aU aU � b W � z Y ^� Y L� r- 00 Y L d O O aS 0 L V/ O U O U C fj O U U � G L � 16 O