Loading...
CC Resolution 2006-041RESOLUTION NO. 2006-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE 'DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3.3801 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-546 BLAKE JUMPER .WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 18t'' day of April, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Blake Jumper for Environmental Assessment 2005-546 prepared'.for Tentative Tract 33801 located on the west side of Madison Street approximately 500 feet north. of Avenue 60, more particularly described as: APN 766-080-009 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California, Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ifas 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 project 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 `2005-546. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish. or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods. of California history or prehistory. Resolution No. 2006-041 Environmental Assessment 2005-546` Blake Jumper 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 to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of Fong -term environmental goals, as no significant. effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5, The proposed pro ject 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 2005-546 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 aTampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings, of the 'City Council for this Environmental Assessment. Resolution No. 2006-041 Environmental Assessment 2005-546 Blake Jumper Adopted: April 18, 2006 Page 3 2. That -it. does : hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-546 for the reasons: set forth in this Resolution. and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist 'a Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment005-546 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, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: Council Members Kirk, Osborne ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DON ADOL H, MYY or City of La Quinta California ATTEST: Aj JU . CREEK, MMC, City er City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) Environmental. Checklist Form 3 Contact .person and phone number: Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The west side of Madison. Street, approximately 555 feet north of Avenue 60, APN 766-080-009 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Blake Jumper 80553 Jasper Park Indio, CA 92201 6. General Plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, .including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation.. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A proposed Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 2.39 acre site into eight single family residential lots; as well as a lot for retention, and for a private cul-de-sac. The lots are proposed to be a minimum of 8,408 square feet, and range to 9,516 square feet. Access will be taken from Madison Street. The site has been developed as a single family home. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Agriculture (Low Density Residential, Golf Course Open Space) South: Single family homes under construction (Low Density Residential) East: Madison Street West: Vacant lands (Low Density Residential) 10. Other ` public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: t significant effect on the prepared. i significant effect on the ase because revisions in the )roponent. A MITIGATED ct on the environment, and illy significant impact" or vironment, but at least one vent pursuant to applicable easures based on the earlier ;NTAL EMPACT REPORT o be addressed. significant effect on the (a) have been analyzed [ON pursuant to applicable cant to that earlier EIR or tigation measures that are ed. March 16, 2006 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: l) 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 .Tess 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 Tess than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering; program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect. has been adequately, analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier_ Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures.based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that. are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which. were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the. questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -3- Potentially. Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w> Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the. project: . a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including; but not limited to, trees, rocl 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)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 8 single family homes. The City Zoning Ordinance allows single and two story homes to be built. in the Low Density Residential designation. This type of development is consistent with the development currently under way or planned in the vicinity of the site. The site and surrounding area are some distance from the Santa Rosa Mountains, and construction of the homes will not block views to these mountains. There' are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures. on the site. The site is located on Madison Street, which is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan: As such, the project proponent will be required to meet setback and landscaping requirements ' for the corridor, to improve the aesthetic appearance of Madison Street in front of the property. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. d) The construction of 8 houses will result in minor increases in light generation at the site, primarily due to car headlights and landscaping lighting. The car headlights will be intermittent and temporary, and will not impact the area. The City. imposes strict standards for landscaping and residential lighting, which is required to contain lighting within . the site boundaries. Impacts associated with. light are therefore expected to be insignificant. -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant_ Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the roiect: 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 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,. or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X .environment which, due to their location or nature, could result. in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan.Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site has been developed as a single family home, and is not currently in agriculture. Lands to the north, and a small area to the east, are small orchards. The development of the site will not impact the ability of these uses to continue in agriculture.Overall, however, there is no significant agriculture in the area, and the land has been designated in the General Plan for urban uses. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected. -5- Potentially- Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) 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 PM10 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. The proposed project will generate the potential for air quality impacts during both construction and operation of the project. Construction impacts will be those associated with PM.10, or fugitive dust, and grading equipment. The project can be expected to. generate up to .63.1 pounds of fugitive dust per day during grading operations. This falls below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds per day. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on PM 10 emissions during construction. Based on mass grading of the site, and the equipment likely to be required to grade the property, the potential vehicular emissions from construction equipment were estimated. The resulting emissions . are shown in Table 1, below. -6- Table 1 Grading Equipment Emissions - Diesel powered (Dounds Der dav) Equipment Pieces hrs/day CO ROC Nox Sox PM16 Fork Lift - 50 hp 0 . 8 _ _ _ Fork Lift - 175 hp 0 8 Trucks - Off. Highway . 0 8- Tracked Loader 0 8- Tracked Tractor 0 8 - - - - - .Scraper 1 8 10..00 2.16. 30.72 3.68 3.28 Wheeled Dozer Wheeled Loader 0 Wheeled Tractor, 1 .8 28.6.4 1.44 10.16 0.72 1.12 Roller 0 8 Motor Grader 2 8 2.42. 0.62 11.41. 1.38 0.98 Miscellaneous 1 8 5.40 1:20 13.60 1.14 1.12 Total: - 46.46 5.42 65.89 6.92 6.50 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. The proposed project will also result in air emissions in the .long term. These will be primarily associated with vehicle trips to and from the project site. Table 2 demonstrates the resulting emissions, based on an average of 77 daily trips' Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (hounds Der dav) Ave.. Trip Total Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day 77 x 15 - 15155 PM10 PM10 PM10 Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust -Tire Wear - Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 0.23 5.97 1.22 - 0.03 0.03 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 As demonstrated, the proposed project is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance associated with long term air emissions. The proposed subdivision is not expected to create objectionable odors. "Trip Generation, 7`h Edition," prepared by the Institute of Traffic. Engineers, for category 210, single family detached. -7- 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 identified as a candidate; sensitive, or special status species: in local or regional plans; policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological. Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2/06) 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 Technical Report, EcoSystems, 2/06) 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 Technical. Report, EcoSystems, 2/06) 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.) 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? (Biological -8- Technical. Report, Ecosystems, 2/06) IV. a)-f) A biological resource. study was prepared for the proposed project2. The'study included both records searches and on site investigation. The on site survey identified non- native plant communities on the site, consisting of grasslands, tamarisk :and ruderal habitats. No sensitive plants were identified during the site . survey. No sensitive animal, bird or lizard species were observed, nor was sign, identified. A cactus wren was observed foraging off -site The site includes a stand of non-native tamarisk, which could harbor nests of species protected under the Migratory. Bird Treaty Act. In order to. assure that no protected. species are nesting on the subject property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. To avoidimpacts to nesting birds, the removal of potential nesting vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) supporting migratory .birds/raptors. shall be avoided during the nesting season (if feasible), `recognized from February 1 through August 31. If vegetation: removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would. not impact any active nests. Surveys must. be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active. nests are `identified during nesting bird surveys, then the nesting vegetation would be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the nesting vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer (e.g., construction fencing) around the nesting vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the type of bird nesting (i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. This condition assures that the impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than significant levels. The biology study found that there is neither riparian habitat nor wetland areas on the project site. The development 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 "Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by Ecosystems Restoration Associates, revised February 2006. =9- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ _ Signifcant Impact Impact Mitigation Impacf V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a .historical resource as defined in 15 (Cultural Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9/05) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the. significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Cultural Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9/05) 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? (Cultural Resource Survey, Applied Earthworks, 9/05) V.a)-d) ..A cultural resource survey was conducted on the proposed project site The study 3 included both records searches and on site investigation. The on site investigation found no evidence of, archaeological resources on the property. The structures located on the: site were constructed in the 1960's, and are not historically significant. The City's standard policy is to require monitoring of all properties during trenching and grading to assure that any buried cultural resources that might be found are properly identified. The proposed project has been required to comply with this standard policy by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). This standard monitoring requirement will assure that any impacts to currently unknown cultural resources are less than significant. The project site lies on.. the edge of the. ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed. No paleontological resources were identified in the cultural resource survey. While reviewing the survey,. HPC considered the. potential for paleontological resources on the site, and required the preparation of an on -site investigation prior to the initiation .of grading activities. In order to assure that no unique paleontological resources exist on the subject property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. l . Prior to any. grading activity, a field survey shall be. conducted by the applicant in order to identify and document potential surface fossiliferous resources. A report of findings from the field survey shall be transmitted to the Community Development Department and site monitors. This condition of approval 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. "Cultural Resources Survey of Tentative. Tract 33801," prepared by Applied Earthworks, September 2005. =10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant. Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VL 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 Geologisf .for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) : ii). Strong seismic ground shaking? X (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 18-1-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) V1. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The project proponent will be required to implement the Uniform Building Code standards required for active seismic areas such as the City. and region, to assure that impacts associated with ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. -11- The site is located in an area with high potential for liquefaction. The City requires the preparation of site specific geotechnical analyses prior to construction: In order. to assure that this analysis addresses, and provides recommendations for the potential liquefaction hazard; the following mitigation measure :shall be.implemented, I.. Pre -construction geotechnical analysis. shall include a specific focus. on the potential for liquefaction at the site. Should high groundwater levels be encountered, the geotechnical engineering report shall include recommendations for foundation design and site preparation to alleviate the hazard. The site is flat, and is located in an area that is similarly flat. No hillsidesoccur in the surrounding: area, so there is no potential. for. landslides at the site. 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. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, impacts associated with geology and soils will be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project. 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 acutelyy hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? f (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) 0 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 f fl h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, in' or death -13- 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, ultimate development. of 8 homes will notresult inany. mhazards or hazardous materials.. The residents will participate in the household hazardous waste programs implemented by Waste Management throughout theCity. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are. no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. Potentially Less Than. Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VH1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAI,ITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality, standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in .aquifer volume or a lowering of thelocal 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. I1I-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&D 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 hazard delineation map? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants; 1/06) -15 g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X .area structures which wouldimpede or redirect flood flows? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, P&D Consultants, 1/05) VIH..a)-g) The development of eight single family homes is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The. homes will: utilize ground water provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic and f landscaping uses. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient water _ supplies, now and ;in the future, to serve its service area. The City also irilplements water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls and. installation of efficient fixtures. Impacts associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant. 'A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed. project. The study determined the configuration required for the retention basin to be located at the east boundary of the site. The basin is required by the City to contain the .100 year storm on. site. The analysis. resulted in a basin .which will have a capacity of 17;220 cubic feet, which will accommodate the 100 year storm flow of 15,839 cubic feet. The City Engineer will continue to review the hydrology analysis through final. design; ' to assure that capacity is sufficient in the. basin. The 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. The property is not located within a 100 year flood plain, as mapped by FEMA. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wi Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proj ect: . 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 f£) IX. a)-c) The proposed- project is consistent with the General Plan designation assigned to the property. The site contains an unoccupied residential unit, and construction of the project will therefore not impact an existing community. The proposed project will be required to comply with any habitat conservation planin effect at the time of development of the site. No impacts associated with land use are expected. Potentially Less Than Less Than _ No Significant Signfcafit 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. 7.1 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 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. -18- 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 of noise levels in excess of standards : X 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 vibrationor groundborne noise levels? (General.Plan MEA p. 1 l 1 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. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in'the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan ,or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity. of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project Area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XL a)-f) The proposed project will be located in the southern end of. the City, on the west side of Madison Street. Due to the .location of the retention basin adjacent to the roadway, the nearest residential property will be located approximately 100 feet. from the right of way. The project also proposes a 6 foot.. high .block wall across: the frontage on Madison Street. This portion of Madison Street was determined in the General Plan EIR to be an area of relative low noise levels. Build out of the General Plan will -not cause the proposed project to experience noise levels in excess of City standards. -19- -20- 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 ultimate build out of 8 single family residences will not result in substantial population growth, or the need for additional housing. The site is currently vacant, and development of the project will not displace people. No impacts associated with population and housing are expected. -21- 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 fornew 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) 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.) XIH. a) The development of 8 single family homes will have no impact 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. Quimby fees. will be required for the purchase of park lands The project proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time of development to mitigate potential impacts to. schools. 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 5J) 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) As stated above under Public. Services, the proposed project will contribute Quimby and development impact fees to mitigate for potential impacts associated with parks and recreation. No impacts are expected. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant' Significant w/ Signifcant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact W 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 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 33801) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 33801) f). Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 33801) 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 77 daily trips. This portion of Madison Street is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out. The proposed project is consistent with the General. Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project will be less than significant. The proposed project. will include a single straight cul-de-sac accessing Madison Street at a 90 degree angle. No hazards are expected. The proposed project will be required to -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than.*No Significant Significant w/ Significant impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVL 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. 58ff.) - 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 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) Development of eight single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The project is served by CVWD for, water and wastewater treatment, and the development of eight -26- 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 protect have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts .that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects:which will cause substantial adverse effectson human. beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) Biological and cultural resource studies on the project site concluded that impacts associated. with these resources would be less than significant. 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 development of the homes will have no cumulative impacts, because the project is consistent with the land use designations assigned to the site. XVH. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings, -28- 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 whethersuch 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. -29- A A o z A w � 4-4 m o UU CU � U Cd a�i Z w o o � � � .� � ,sue. o . �o °°.� a 0� a� F Cd Cd H bo to ���N O Q Q Cd a O F F O O ° 0 as Oz Q zz �0 � A 0 °- o rn 3-v O •� O c1" V U C� 0. U Q Nt U O O N �.�.0 cn E—' cv GQ F oCd U o o vi id- rA .rA � a o U o a, 142 F E� A U p�q �A UWW OU 4., w a U 0 G.7 0 ' w F .b o M � �i W O a o ao, � a UQ Z W � � � •o � bQ .� �C O•bb �. O �-+ •� Cd O .4-J N cd r-i ^ (4-4 (4;4 M OU rn $.4 U cd