Loading...
CC Resolution 2006-039RESOLUTION NO. 2006-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF LA. QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE . DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 20057557 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34243 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-557 INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES (FOR MASQUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC) WHEREAS, ,the City Council of the City of La Qunta, California; did, on the 18" day of April, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Innovative Communities for Environmental Assessment 2005-557 prepared for Tentative Tract 34243 located on the. north. side of Avenue 58, 1,000 feet west of Madison Street more particularly described as: APN: 762-240-014 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental, Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The Community Development Director has determined that the project will. not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that this Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and WHEREAS, .upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 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 2005-557. 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. ore ndangered: plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Resolution No. 2006-039 Environmental Assessment 2005-557 Innovative. Communities Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page. 2 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. 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 2005-557 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quintal 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. 2006-039 Environmental Assessment .2005-557 Innovative Communities Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page 3 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-557 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 .2005.557 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 181h day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne,. Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOL H, Mayor City of La Quinta California ATTEST JUN EEK, MMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. K THE NE JENSON 'Ci ttorney City of La Quinta,. Califor a City Council Resolution 2006-039 Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2005-557 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 34243 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 Avenue 58, approximately 660 feet west of Madison Street, APN 762-240-014 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Innovative Communities 200 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 Escondido, CA 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.) The proposed subdivision of a 20J acre parcel into 70 single family lots, as well as lots for streets, open space and retention basin.. The proposed.. lots. will be an average of 9,100 square. feet, with the smallest lot :being 8,627 square feet, and the largest being 15,888 square feet. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family attached and detached development, (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) South: Avenue 58, vacant desert lands (Medium Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) East: Single family residential (Low Density Residential) West: Single family residential (Low Density Residential) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- City Council Resolution 2006- 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. X 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. Signature -2- March 16, 2006 Date City Council Resolution 2006-039 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- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 light or glare which. would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed Tract Map would ultimately result in the construction of 70 single family homes on lots of at least 8,627 square feet. Homes will be limited to one and two stories, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the development within PGA West and Puerta Azul to the north, and approved Specific Plan housing to the south (Coral Mountain Specific Plan) The site is flat, and is surrounded by similarly flat lands. Views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west will not be significantly blocked by single family home development. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. This portion of Avenue 58 is not designated an Image Corridor in the City's General Plan. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the site. d) Single family home development will increase light in the area, since the site is currently vacant. Impacts will be those associated with. landscape lighting and car. headlights. The City regulates lighting and prohibits spill over onto adjacent properties. Car headlights will be a temporary and sporadic intrusion. Neither impact is expected to be significant. -4- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.: Would the ro' ect: 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 A 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; Site Inspection) H. a)-c) The project site is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the site are developed in single family residential land uses. Lands to the south are vacant, but are not in agriculture. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. The proposed project site and surrounding lands are designated for urban development, and have been so for some time. No impacts to agriculture are expected. City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 .implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute _substantially. to an existing or X 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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors .to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a).- e) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for the monitoring of air quality in the City, and the implementation of air quality management plans. The development of air quality plans by the SCAQMD was based on the City's General Plan land uses and mapping. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to be consistent with these plans. Development of the site will result in both temporary (construction) impacts, and long term (operational) impacts to air quality. Each of these issue areas is addressed below. Construction impacts will be those associated with PM 10, or fugitive. dust, and grading equipment. Assuming a mass grading condition, the proposed project can be expected to generate up to 530.6 pounds of fugitive dust per day during grading activities. This exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds per day. The proposed project will be required to implement a PM10 management plan, which will include "Best Control Measures" established in the 2002 PM10 Management Plan for the Coachella Valley. These include: -6- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 These measures will reduce impacts associated with PM 10 generation. at the site to less than significant levels. The equipment likely to be required to grade the property has been estimated in the table below. The resulting potential -vehicular emissions from. construction equipment is also shown Table 1 Grading Equipment Emissions Diesel powered (DoundS Der dav) Equipment Pieces hrslday CO ROC Nox Sox PMio Fork Lift - 50 hp 0 8 - - - - - .Fork Lift - 175 hp 0 8 - - - - - Trucks - Off: Highway 0 8 - - - - - Tracked Loader 0 $ - - - - - Tracked Tractor 0 8 - - - - - Scraper 1 8 10.00 2.16 30.72 3.68 3.28. Wheeled Dozer 0 8 - - - - Wheeled Loader 0 8 - - - - - Wheeled Tractor 1 8 28.64 1.44 10.16 0.72 1.12. Roller 0 8 - - - - - Motor Grader 3 8 3.62 0.94 17.11 2:06 1.46 Miscellaneous . 1 8 5.40 1.20 13.60 1.14 1.12 Total: 47.66 5.74 71.59 7.61 6.98 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 As demonstrated in the Table, emissions from, equipment used during the grading process are expected to be less than significant. Operational impacts will be those associated with vehicle trips to and from the . site. Table 2 demonstrates the long term emissions, based on an average of 670 daily trips1. 1 "Trip Generation, 7 h Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, single family detached. -7- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Table 2 Moving E%haust.Emission Projections at.Project Build -out (pounds per day) Ave. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day.. Length (miles) miles/day 670 x 15 1 U5.0 PM1O PMI0 PMIO Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph. 2.00 51.9.1 10.65 - 0.22 0.22 SCAQNM Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 As shown in the Table; .the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance associated with long term air. emissions. The development of a single family subdivision is, not expected to create objectionable odors. -8- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,, either, X. directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identif ed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ouregional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) 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? (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) 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? (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) 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 conservation plan? (Biological Resources Assessment, AMEC 6/05) -9- City Council Resolution 2006-039 IV. 4)-f) A biological resource study was prepared for the proposed project2. The study included both records searches' and on site investigation. The survey found that the site consists primarily o.f non-native grasses, with some native vegetation sparsely occurring on the site. No species of concern were found. on the site, and none are expected to occur, due to the lack of native habitat. The study concluded that the potential for impacts to biological resources on the site is less than significant. No riparian areas or wetlands were identified on the property. The study further found that the build out of the site will not. conflict with any City preservation ordinances; or with the implementation of either the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan or 'the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. 2 "APN 762-240-014 Biological Resources Assessment," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, June 2005. -10- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 Report, CRM Tech 5105) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Historical/Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5/05) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains; including X those, interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Report, CRM Tech 5105) V.a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site3. ' The study included both records searches and on site , investigation. The study found. no surface evidence of cultural resources, and no historic resources on the property. The City requires, however, that ' pro' ects include on -site monitoring during grading and trenching activities, due to the high probability of occurrence of resources in the City. Monitors shall include a Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians designee. The proposed project has been required to comply with this policy by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This monitoring will assure that impacts to cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed tract occurs within the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. A paleontological survey was prepared for the proposed proiect4. The survey found shell fragments on the project site during the on site survey. In its consideration of the project, the HPC required the monitoring of grading and trenching activities. This requirement will assure that potential impacts associated with paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels. Overall impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. 3 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-014," prepared by CRM Tech, May 2005. 4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Tentative Tract Map No. 33085,"prepared by CRM Tech. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wL 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? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan. MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 1.8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) 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 Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) A geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the project site. The study found that the site is not located. in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The area is seismically active, however, and the City requires implementation of the Uniform 5 "Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 20-Acre Residential Development," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, May 2005: -12- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Building . Code standards required for active seismic areas, to assure that impacts associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant. levels. -- The soil did not encounter groundwater in borings, and although historic data indicates a high groundwater level in this area, the study concluded that development, water pumping and the evidence provided in the soil borings. lead to a conclusion that liquefaction hazards'.on the site are very low. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat. No..hillsides occur_ in the vicinity. The potential for landslides is therefore non-existent.Soils in the City are not expansive. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer, and no septic systems will be installed. Impacts associated- with. geology and soils- will be. less than significant. City Council Resolution2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/. Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the ro'ect: 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) h) Expose people or structures to a X si nificant risk of loss, injury or death -14- City Council Resolution 2006-039 -involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas , or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VH. a)-h) An Environmental :Site.. Assessment (ESA), and Additional Investigation, were prepared for the proposed project The ESA. found piles of stained dirt on the south and west boundaries warranting further investigation; that the site had been in agriculture in the past, and that pesticides, including DDT could be present; and that potential existing for underground fuel tank(s) on the property. In'order to ascertain the potential impacts, additional investigations were conducted. The results of the site testing which was part of these investigations were that no significant, amounts of hazardous materials were in the. piles of soil; that levels :of pesticides on the site. were not above reporting limits,. and that no underground tanks` were identified on the site. The studies conclude that impacts associated with hazardous materials on the .site . are less than significant. The proposed project will generate waste from household cleaners and similar products in. small quantities. These wastes will be disposed of through the City's franchise waste collection, Waste Management, which operates _a household hazardous waste program in the City and region. Impacts associated with hazardous materials in the project are expected to be less than significant. The site is not identified in regional, state and federal databases as being the location _ of contamination. The site does not occur in an influence area for an airport or airstrip. There are no wildlands. located: adjacent or near the project site. 6 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," and "Report of Additional Investigations," both prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, April 2005 and June 2005; respectively. -15- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less. Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation. Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --.Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards .or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. II1-187.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 anted)? (General Plan EIR p. I11-187 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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&I) Consultants, 1 /06) 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.?. (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants,, 1 /06) 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? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1 /06) 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 hazarddelineation map? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, l /06) -16- g) Place within a100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1106) , VIII. a)-g) Residential development on.the project site is not expected to violate.any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) will provide domestic water to the site for domestic and landscaping uses. CV WD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water. supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also implements water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls and installation of efficient fixtures.. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant. A preliminary drainage study was prepared for the proposed 'project7.. The study found that the site drains ` traditionally from the northwest to the southeast. The study found that during the 100 year storm. event, the site will generate 103,700 cubic feet of water which must be retained on site. The site plan includes a central retention basin, which has been sized to accommodate up to 178,800 .cubic feet of water, in excess of the 100 year storm generation on the site. The retention basin is therefore sufficient to control the 100 year storm on site, as required by City standards.. The City . Engineer will continue to review the hydrology analysis through final design, to assure that capacity is sufficient in the basin. In compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) City requires the implementation of best management practices during construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface water. These requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion of soils to less than significant levels. 7 The property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA. "Preliminary Drainage Reportfor Tentative Tract 34243," prepared by MDS Consulting; October 2005. -17- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community, conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) TX. a)-c) The proposed project site: contains one unoccupied single family residence. Construction of the homes will not divide an established community. The project is consistent with the land use designation assigned to the property in the General Plan, and will be constructed in conformance with the City's. Zoning Ordinance. The project will be required to conform to any habitat conservation plan in effect at the time of development. No impacts are expected to land use and planning. -18- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 o 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. X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -19- City Council Resolution 2006-039 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 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project - vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. l l i 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. All 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) A noise study was prepared for the proposed project$. The study identified current and projected noise levels in the area of the proposed project, and found that exterior noise _levels at lots 1, 66 through 70, inclusive, would exceed City standards at General. Plan build out.. These lots are located adjacent. to Avenue 58, and will have back yards adjacent to that roadway. The exterior noise levels, without mitigation, are expected to -'La Qumta Residential development Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 2005. -20- City Council Resolution 2006-039 be approximately 72.3 dBA CNEL on these lots. Traffic generated in this area will be the primary source of future noise. In addition, the study found that. in order to provide interior noise levels which meet City standards on these .lots, mechanical ventilation must :.be - provided, to allow a "windows closed" condition. Because noise standards will be. exceeded, this represents a potentially significant impactwhich requires mitigation, as follows: l . The applicant shall . construct a 6 foot wall on top of a one foot .berm . on the southern and western boundary of lot ` 1. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the house on this lot. 2. The. applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a , one foot berm on. the southern boundary of lots70 and 69. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the houses on these lots. 3. The applicant shall construct a 6 foot wall on top of a 1.5 foot berm on the southern boundary of lots 67 and 68. The wall shall be complete prii or. to occupancy of the house on this .lot. 4. The applicant 'shall construct. a 6 foot wall on top of a 1.5 foot berm .on the southern and. eastern boundary of lot 66. The wall shall be complete prior to occupancy of the house on this lot. 5. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to the homes ., constructed on lots 1, 66 through 70, inclusive. Noise will also be generated on the site during construction. Sensitive receptors are -- located to the north; west and east of the site. These homes could be impacted by noise levels generated by project construction. Walls currently occur on the property lines of these tracts, which will help to lower the noise levels generated on the site. Further, the noise during construction will be temporary .and periodic, and primarily associated with grading. In order to assure that construction impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 6. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 7. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be mufflered and kept in ;good operating condition. 8. All equipment and : materials storage areas shall be located in the south central portion of the site, as far from existing homes as possible. The property is not located within the' influence area of an airport or airstrip. With the implementation of the mitigation measures. listed above, the impacts associated with noise on and from the project site will be less. than significant. -21- City.Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact - Impact Mitigation Impact XII: POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: X a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, - byproposing 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 consists of the construction of 70 single family homes. The homes will be absorbed into the market based on normal population growth in the City. The project will not induce substantial population growth. The site is currently the location of an unoccupied single family home. The development of the site will therefore not displace any people or housing. Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be insignificant. -22- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No significant Significant w/ Significant . Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIH. 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.) XHL a) The ultimate construction of 70 single family homes on the project site will have: less than significant impacts on public services. The project will be required to contribute the required development impact fees, which include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well as park maintenance. In addition, the property tax and sales tax generated from the homes and residents, respectively, of the proposed project will help to offset costs associated with the provision of public safety services. The proposed project will also be required to contribute Quimby fees for the purchase of park lands in the City. The project proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development to mitigate potential impacts to schools. -23- City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially. Less Than. Less Than No Significant Significant .wt Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- X a) Would the project increase the use of ` existing neighborhood and regional parks .or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would .occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) X b) Does the project :include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion. of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) -24- City Council Resolution. 2006-039 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)? (TTM 34243) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? .(TTM 34243) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM34243) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) The proposed project will generate approximately 670 average daily trips.. The project is consistent- with the land use designation- applied to the parcel in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR, therefore, considered the density of the proposed project in its traffic analysis The roadways surrounding the proposed project were found to operate at acceptable levels at General Plan build out, and this project is not anticipated to alter that condition. -25- City Council Resolution 2006-039 The proposed project will include a single access point on Avenue 58, which will be improved to City standards to assure traffic safety. A secondary access is provided for emergency vehicles to the east of the primary access. The City Engineer will continue to review the project to assure that the interior design of streets provides for efficient and safe circulation, within City :standards. The proposed project will be required to meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed project will have no impact on transit facilities. Overall impacts associated with traffic and circulation are expected to be less than significant: City Council Resolution 2006-039 Less Than No Potentially Less Than 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 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X I tatutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) The project is served by CVWD for water and wastewater treatment. The District has developed plans for service based on General Plan land use designations. This project -27- City Council Resolution 2006-039 is consistent with the land use designation on the property. Therefore, the project will not generate a need for additional facilities. The City will require that the project retain the 100 year storm on site, to limit the potential impacts to the City's streets during a storm event. Waste Management of the Desert is . the City's franchisee. 'for.solid waste. Waste :disposal occurs at several regional landfills which have capacity to serve the proposed project. All utility providers structure ;connection and service fees to include expansion of services as growth occurs. The proposed project, and future residents, will be required to pay these connection and service fees, to offset the cost of service. Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be insignificant. City Council Resolution 2006-039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wL 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? X c) Does the project have.. impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection. with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects .which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) Impacts associated with biological and cultural resources were found to be less than significant, due to the conditions of approval and City standards imposed on. the proposed project. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the. City General Plan, and will not affect the City's General Plan goals. XVII. c) The project's density was considered in the General Plan EIR. Cumulative impacts are expected. to be consistent with those identified in that document. XVII. d) The proposed project will have impacts on human beings from noise generation. The mitigation measures required in this Initial Study, however, assure that impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. -29 City Council Resolution 2006-039 XVIH.. 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. .. G z� MCI H� a H A W U' p �A � W C) a d o 0 0 0- o 0 o . C)0 .� ., W 0 a a a a a C En Ln rA cn Cd m cd v v v 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 cvi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 an 0 0 0 .0 0 •� a, r. w as a a A A A 0 w� aPL z 0-4a z 0 A o. q 04 A a Q =4 Q a. A Q A Oct b pq GA � � GA GQ AG GQ +, c 00 �, 0 z 0 0 Cd a� V1 ;-•. El " 0 > 0 d a� Cd 00 ° ° N ° cd •+J ^d 0 40, 0 �° u, N �, 0. 4° .b .� U 2 -d 0 C � A 0 "° "o 0. `°g � 4)= 0 0 m °?� 0'b a z V Q O V] U o U o V o U o� a W W' H Q 0 W U m Z 0 Q W Y -ja. 2w 0= UU o � U F� U U cis rn . b4 to o > 0 03 to cl }}v,, to OA U s�� cd U E, O 0 _O U � A A a~ E `w) C) cz oa cu U CO) U A o ° o 0 0= o o Cd °'> w p ° o Z � � . E ' C13 i 4-j ci C'sai M U o0 00 a o a; oo a� A o 0 0 .• °� A 4-4 c o o °' 0 b W— .b .d o • .• C-•1 U 0 ° ti -o o �/�