CC Resolution 2010-019RESOLUTION NO. 2010 - 019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2009-607
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2009-120,
ZONE CHANGE 2009-138 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
35996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2009-607
APPLICANT: SHEA HOMES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16`h
day of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of
Shea Homes for Environmental Assessment 2009-607 prepared for General Plan
Amendment 2009-120, Zone Change 2009-138 and Tentative Tract Map 35996 for
9.02 acres generally located east of the CVWD Dike #4, between Avenues 60 and 62,
and west of Trilogy project, more particularly described as:
APN: 764-280-004
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial
Study (Environmental Assessment 2009-607) and has determined that although the
proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation measures for EA 2009-607
incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a
level of non -significance; 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 impacts or unmitigatable impacts were identified by Environmental
Assessment 2009-607.
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
Resolution No. 2010-019
Environmental Assessment 2009-607
Shea Homes, Trilogy Project
Adopted: March 16, 2010
Page 2
history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any
endangered or threatened wildlife.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any
endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, landscaping will be installed
which may provide some habitat.
4. The proposed project do 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. If the project is approved as
proposed, is will be in compliance with the General Plan and in conformance
with surrounding development.
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 City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2009-607 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
Planning Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 23' day of February, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Shea Homes for an Environmental Assessment 2009-607 prepared for
General Plan Amendment 2009-120, Zone Change 2009-138 and Tentative Tract Map
35996 for 9.02 acres generally located east of the CVWD Dike #4, between Avenues
Resolution No. 2010-019
Environmental Assessment 2009-607
Shea Homes, Trilogy Project
Adopted: March 16, 2010
Page 3
60 and 62, and west of Trilogy project and recommended approval by adoption of
Resolution 2010-003;
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.
2. That the City Council certifies a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact. Said determination is for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as
stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the
Planning Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2009-607 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 161h day of March, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADOVH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2010-019
Environmental Assessment 2009-607
Shea Homes, Trilogy Project
Adopted: March 16, 2010
Page 4
ATTEST:
VERONICA J. N?'NTECINO, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Qulnta, California
(City Sea])-'-*
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Z// rlx� )� _-
M. KATHER E NSON, ity Attorney
City of La Qulnta, California
Resolution No. 2010-019 attachment
Environmental Assessment 2009-607
Shea Homes, Trilogy Project
Adopted: March 16, 2010
Page 1
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: EA 2009-607, GPA 2009-120, ZC 2009-138, TTM 35996 Trilogy Extension
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 760-777-7064
4. Project location: The southwest corner of Tentative Tract Map 30023, located east of CVWD
Dike #4, east of Madison Street, and south of Avenue 60 (at Avenue 61, were it to be
extended). Assessor's Parcel No. 764-280-004
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Shea Homes
60918 Desert Rose Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning:
Low Density Residential w/ Low Density Agricultural/Equestrian
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. Medium Residential. Medium Density
Density Residential proposed. Residential proposed.
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 applicant proposes to change the General Plan designation and zoning designation of a
9.02 acre site from Low Density Residential w/ Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay to Medium
Density Residential. The project will be incorporated into the adjacent Trilogy project.
The Tentative Tract Map request would divide the property into 36 single family lots varying
in size from 6,255 to 11,046 square feet. Two landscaped retention basin lots would also be
created. This Tentative Tract Map will increase the number of single family lots within the
Trilogy boundaries from 1,202 to 1,238. The applicant has stated they will construct the same
senior adult residences being built in Trilogy on the new lots.
The property was rough graded in approximately March, 2009. An Initial Study (EA 2008-
596) was prepared to assess the grading impacts with a mitigated Negative Declaration
approved on March 12, 2009 to permit the grading. That document has been used in the
preparation of this Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Existing single family residential (Trilogy)
South: Vacant desert lands
East: Existing single family residential (Trilogy)
West: Existing CVWD Dike #4
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
California Department of Real Estate
Imperial Irrigation District
Southern California Gas Company
Verizon
Time Warner Cable
Coachella Valley School District
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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.
Stan Sawa 2/11/2010
Signature Date
Z
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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 t(
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatior
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatior
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated of
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specifi(
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informatior
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to
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 o:
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
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
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph; Site Inspection)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
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 include one story high single family homes. The size of the
lots (6,255 to 11,046 square feet) will limit the potential aesthetic impacts associated
with the project. The site is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The land is
isolated, and not visible from scenic vistas or from surrounding parcels. On the north
and east of the site, a perimeter wall for the Trilogy community occurs, which
effectively blocks views into the parcel. To the south is vacant property, and no
development's views will be affected by the project. On the west is the existing levee,
which effectively blocks views of the site from further west. There are no scenic
resources on the site, including historic buildings (please see Cultural Resources
section below for a description of other cultural resources on the site). The site, as
stated above, is isolated, and not visible from surrounding development, and will
therefore not impact the visual character of surrounding properties. Impacts associated
with scenic vistas or resources are expected to be less than significant.
d) The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation,
primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels
and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential
lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. The City standard, combined with
the nature of the land use proposed, will assure that impacts are less than significant.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. ITI-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
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection)
II. a)-c) The site has recently been rough graded and is surrounded by development on the
west, north and east sides. Vacant lands occur to the south. The site is not currently in
agriculture, nor are any parcels surrounding the site in agricultural use. There are nc
Williamson Act contracts on the project site. The project area is designated for low
density residential development, and has been since annexation in 2003. It would be
expected that this type of development would occur in the future on the site. Vacant
lands south of the site are designated for low density residential development. Lands tc
the north and east are designated at Medium High Density Residential density, but
developed at Medium Density Residential densities. The site is not in an agricultural
area, and will not impact agriculture.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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? (General Plan EIR)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation? (General
Plan EIR)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
X
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)? (General Plan EIR)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(General Plan EIR)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Application
materials)
f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions
either directly or indirectly, that may
X
have a significant impact on the
environment? (Application materials
g) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
X
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? (Application
materials)
111. a) The site is only designated for 36 homes, consisting of low density residential
development, and would have been considered for this type of activity when the South
Coast Air Quality Management District undertook preparation of the management
plans for which it is responsible. Development of the site is therefore expected to be
consistent with these plans, and no impact to these plans is expected.
b)- d) The proposed project site has been rough graded to a uniform elevation. Additional
grading will be done to bring the property to finish grade for development of homes
and other improvements.
7
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
As a part of EA 2008-596, an air quality assessment was prepared for the rough
grading activities on the site'. The grading has been undertaken, and that phase of
development is complete. The project currently under consideration will require the
completion of finished grading, which will generate air pollutants. Table 1, below,
illustrates the anticipated emissions during this process.
Table 1
Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary
(hounds uer dav)
CO
NOx ROG SOx
PMto
PM2.5
CO2
97.74 -
4.10
3.76
13,623.20
Equipment Emissions 43.55
10.36
Workers' Vehicle
-
Emissions 2.12
0.13 0.07
0.02
0.01
725.21
Total Grading
Emissions 45.67
97.87 10.43 -
4.12
3.77
142348.41
SCAQMD Thresholds of
Significance 550.00
100.00 75.00 150.00
150.00
55.00
N/A
As shown in the Table,
the proposed grading activity will
not exceed thresholds of
significance established by the SCAQMD.
The grading of the site is not expected to result in pollutant concentrations to sensitive
receptors, insofar as no idling due to congestion will occur as a result of the proposed
grading activities.
Development of homes and other improvements did not immediately follow the
previous rough grading of the site. As a result, due to the potential for winds in the
area of the site, the potential existed for long term hazards associated with blowin€
dust were identified. This represented a potentially significant impact which wa,,
required to be mitigated, as follows:
1. The site shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of grading
activities. Stabilization may include chemical products or a native plan
hydroseeding. Either method shall be monitored by the applicant on a monthl}
basis to assure that the stabilization has not been compromised. Chemica
stabilizers lose their effectiveness if walked or driven upon. Therefore, if the site is
not secure from pedestrian or vehicular access, chemical stabilizers may requirt
repeated application. Stabilization of the site has been done pursuant to thi:
mitigation measure and approved Fugitive Dust Control Management Plan.
1 "Air Quality Impacts for the Rough Grading of the Travertine 9-Acre Parcel," prepared by MSA Consulting, Decembe
2008.
a
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Construction activities will also result in air emissions. For purposes of this analysis, it
has been assumed that all 36 homes will be constructed in one phase, in order to
evaluate the "worst case scenario." Table 2 illustrates the anticipated construction
emissions associated with build out of the tract. As can be seen in the Table, the
proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts
will therefore be less than significant.
Table 2
Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
23.06 41.16 5.83 0.05 2.46 2.19
Equipment Emissions
26.00 20.36 3.41 0.04 0.83 0.68
Workers' Vehicle Emissions
Asphalt Paving Emissions - - 1.05 - - -
Architectural Coatings Emissions 46.25
Construction Emissions 49.06 61.53 56.54 0.10 3.29 2.87
SCAQMD Thresholds of
550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
11
9
Emissions will also occur during the life of the project. These are primarily generated
by vehicle trips to and from the project site, but also include stationary sources, such as
power plants and natural gas consumption. Table 3 illustrates the total daily emissions
expected from the project site on a daily basis in the long term. As demonstrated in the
Table, the proposed project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts
will therefore be less than significant.
n
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Table 3
Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project -Related Emissions
at Proiect Buildout
Stationary Moving Total SCAQMD
Source Emissions Source Anticipated Threshold
Power
Nat. Gas
Emissions
Emissions
Criteria*
Plants
Consumption
(lbs./day)
(lbs./day)
Carbon Monoxide
0.1
5.2
11.78
17.08
550.0
Nitrogen Oxides
0.6
48.1
1.57
50.29
100.0
Reactive Organic
Gases
0.1
1.3
1.31
2.66
75.0
Sulfur Oxides
0.0
Negligible
0.02
0.04
150.0
Particulates
0.0
0.1
0.34
0.40
55.0
Carbon Dioxide
-
-
2,293.95
2,293.95
N/A
* Threshold criteria offered by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance
in determining the
significance of air quality impacts.
Source: "CEQA
Air Quality Handbook,"
prepared
by South Coast Air Quality
Management District April 1993 Revised October 2006
e) The subsequent final grading of the site will generate limited diesel fume odors on the
site, which may be blown onto adjacent properties during the grading process.
Although these fumes may be expected to provide an annoyance should they occur,
they would not be expected to result in significant impacts, as they will occur for a
short period of time.
The development of homes is not expected to generate significant objectionable odors;
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
f) & g) The proposed project will generate Greenhouse Gases (GHG) during construction anf
operation. As described in the Tables above, the project will generate 14,348.41
pounds per day of carbon dioxide during grading. It is estimated that grading will
occur for a period of approximately 10 days. As a result, the project will generate
143,484.1 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 65.07 metric tons. During the construction
process, the project has the potential to generate 9,106.49 pounds per day of carboy
dioxide. It is estimated that the construction process will take approximately 110 days
As a result, the project will generate 1,001,713.9 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 454.2S
metric tons. During the life of the project, there will be 2,293.95 pounds of carbon
dioxide emitted per day, or 379.72 metric tons annually. The project has been designee
to comply with all feasible and applicable measures as identified by the Californm,
Attorney General's Office and the California Action Team, and will be required to
meet the City's green building requirements where they apply. The project i;
consistent with the goals and objectives of the emission reduction targets of AB32
Therefore, the project will not result in significant emissions of greenhouse gases, an(
impacts associated with GHGs will be less than significant.
As described above, overall impacts associated with air quality are expected to be les:
than significant.
in
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
M
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
IV. a) The proposed project site is currently vacant and recently rough graded. Previously, the
site had been impacted by development activities to the north, east and west. The site
was also impacted by off -road use which has resulted in dirt roads and tracks through
the property. The site was sparsely vegetated with creosote scrub. The site is within the
boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, but is
not within a conservation area for that plan. The site is not known to harbor any
species of concern, nor is it likely to do so. The proposed project will be required to
comply with the requirements of the Plan when development occurs. The payment of
fees is designed to mitigate impacts to sensitive species. Due to the recent grading no
impacts are expected.
b)-f) The graded project site does not contain any riparian areas or wetlands. The project site
is isolated, being surrounded by development, and does not provide a migratory
corridor. No policies relating to biological resource preservation will be affected by the
proposed project's build out. No impacts are expected.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa
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? (General Plan MEA p. 123
ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5? (General Plan
MEA p. 123 ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V.a) EA 2008-596 (Shea Homes) was prepared for this site prior to the recent grading of the
site. As a part of the EA a historical/archeological assessment was performed on the
property to determine the potential impacts to historic resources 2. This study concluded
that there are no historic era resources on the project site. As a result, the development
of the site is expected to have no impact on historic resources.
V. b)-d) The historical/archeological study performed for the project site identified two
potentially significant areas where significant archaeological resources could occur in
the area of the project site. The first identified a site which likely was used for the
processing of shellfish collected from the ancient Lake Cahuilla. The site included
surface artifacts which led the investigators to believe that subsurface resources might
occur. The result of the Phase 1 investigation was the implementation of a Phase 2 site
excavation to determine the extent of the resources on the site. The resources were
identified, properly archived, and researched to determine their level of significance.
The artifacts discovered included ceramic sherds, stone flakes and animal remains. The
items were determined to date to the period of 1460 to 1660. The analysis did not
preclude the potential that additional resources occur further below ground. This
constituted a potentially significant impact which required mitigation.
The analysis also determined that human remains occur near the site, but not on the
subject property. These remains were determined to be cremated Native American
remains, and have been blessed by representatives of the Torres Martinez Band of
Cahuilla Indians. The archaeologist determined that the distance to the remains appears
2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Travertine Acquisition for Shea Homes Trilogy," prepared by
CRM Tech, March, 2008; "Draft Phase II Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation of CA RIV 1339," prepared by
MBA, January 2009.
I
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
sufficient to assure that the remains be undisturbed during construction of the proposed
project. However, since grading activities often require staging and working areas,
there is a potential that these areas could be affected by the final grading and
construction activities. This represented a potentially significant impact which required
mitigation. The mitigation measures identified in the EA included monitoring of all
grading activities for both archaeological and paleontological resources.
As required, a mitigation plan was prepared in March 2009, prior to the beginning of
mass grading. During the mass grading done in March and April 2009, the required
mitigation measures were implemented. According to a final update letter from
Michael Brandman Associates dated April 17, 2009, archeologists for the project,
during monitoring of the grading no human remains nor sacred items were detected
and no further monitoring of the site was required.
A paleontological resources assessment was also prepared for the proposed project
site3. The survey identified fossilized mollusks within the boundary of the project site.
These mollusks were associated with the ancient Lake Cahuilla, and represented a non-
renewable resource. As a result, the removal of these fossils had the potential to be a
significant impact, which required mitigation.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Phase I, Phase II cultural resource
assessments, as well as the paleontological study, and concurred with their findings.
The Commission also added their standard mitigation measures to the
recommendations of the reports' preparers.
With implementation of the above -noted mitigation measures completed, no impacts
to cultural resources are expected.
3 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report Travertine Acquisition for Shea Homes Trilogy," prepared by CRM
Tech, March, 2008
IA
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
X
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan 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 the
X
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)
VI. a)-d) A Geotechnical Engineering report has been prepared for the project site4. The site is
not located in an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone. However, the site will be subject to
significant groundshaking in a seismic event. The site is in an area generally
"Geotechnical Engineering Report and Infiltration Testing for Storm Water Retention Travertine Parcel- TTM
35996," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, December 30, 2008
I
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
susceptible to liquefaction. However, the potential for liquefaction to occur at this site
is considered negligible because the depth of groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50
feet. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to significant slopes or rock
outcroppings.
The development of the site will be completed to City standards. Due to the previous
rough grading, there will be no need for disposal of soil elsewhere. The final grading
activity will be required to comply with City standards for compaction and slope
stability.
The City implements NPDES standards to control water erosion and surface water
pollution. These standards will include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will include best management practices to assure that
storm water flows leaving the site are not polluted, and do not include silt. The grading
activity also includes retention basins, to assure that storm water is retained on site
(please also see Hydrology, below). These City requirements will assure that impacts
associated with grading and construction on the site and water erosion will be less than
significant.
The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands.
The single family units to be constructed on the project site will be connected to
CVWD sewer systems and will therefore, not require septic systems.
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts on geology and soils.
14
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff )
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? (Application materials)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
X
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
A A --.-A.
ificant risk of loss, injury or death
lving wildland fires, including where
lands are adjacent to urbanized areas
r
here residences are intermixed with
lands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for
household use. These materials, however, are not expected to be hazardous, and are
not expected in large quantities. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport
land use plan. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project
areas. 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. No
impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected.
5 "Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Griffin Saddle Club Addition," prepared by Proterm Consulting,
February 2006.
10
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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. III-187 ff)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been anted)? (General Plan EIR p. 11I-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -Site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
X
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? (General Plan EIR p. IH-187 ff)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
1n
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b)) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service use in the homes, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared an
Urban Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to
accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will
result in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's WQMP and NPDES
standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters.
These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less
than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The development
of the site will require the approval of a hydrology analysis which demonstrates that
the site will contain the 100 year storm 6. The project includes two retention basins
which will provide this protection to the site from storm water falling on the site and
draining from the adjacent CVWD dike. The City will also implement the best
management practices required of the SWPPP, to assure that storm water flows are not
polluted. These City standards will assure that impacts associated with hydrology and
flooding will be less than significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA and therefore, no impacl
is expected..
6 "Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 35996, dated April 7, 2008, prepared by MSA Consulting"
�n
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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.)
IX. a)-c) The site is currently vacant, and development of the property will not divide an
established community. The project site is designated for low density residential
development with an equestrian/agricultural overlay, but proposed to be changed to
Medium Density Residential to permit the residential project. The only development
surrounding the site is to the north and east consisting of Trilogy, into which this site
will be integrated. The proposed development will consist of units matching those in
Trilogy on lots of approximately the same size as those in Trilogy. The project site
will be isolated from future development to the west by the existing levy. The
integration of the proposed project into the adjacent existing planned community will
assure that impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
will be less than significant.
The project site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be subject to the regulations associated with that
Plan. No impact is expected.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wf
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The development of the project site will have no impact on mineral resources. The
project site is and has been designated for residential development, and does not occur
in the vicinity of any mining activities nor is it in a known mineral resource zone. No
mineral resources are expected to occur within the project site.
in
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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 groundbome 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. I I 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.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The site is located approximately 4,200 feet west of the center line of Monroe Street
immediately adjacent to the west and north boundaries of the Coral Mountain Specific
Plan, of which the adjacent Trilogy project is a part. A noise analysis was conducted
for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR7. The study found that the proposed project
site occurs adjacent to an area where noise levels are not expected to exceed 65 dBA
7 "Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," prepared by Westec Services,
September 1988.
11
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
CNEL, which is the City's maximum noise level for residential land uses. Therefore,
no impact is expected for the project site which is further west of Monroe Street than
Trilogy.
XI. b)& d) The additional grading of the site may also generate some vibration, depending on the
equipment required. This condition will be temporary and periodic, and is not expected
to impact sensitive receptors, due to distance and the nature of the soils in the area.
The impacts are expected to be less than significant.
The further grading of the site will result in increased noise levels during the grading
activity itself The peak noise level for construction equipment that would be used
during grading on the project site ranges from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
The grading activities on the project site will cause temporary increases in noise levels
above the City's standards, but these increases will be temporary and periodic.
Construction noise is regulated by the Municipal Code to occur during the noisier day
time hours, which helps to lower the potential impacts. In addition, the sensitive
receptors located to the north and east of the site are blocked by a 6 foot masonry wall,
which will provide about 10 dBA noise attenuation. The grading equipment will move
throughout the site, and noise will not be concentrated in any one area of the site for
any length of time.
The project will generate noise associated with construction on the project site which
will exceed City standards for a short period of time. In addition, noise generated by
later stages of construction, including the subject area, has the potential to impact
residents within the project.
Since it is possible that short term impacts could occur to surrounding residents,
mitigation measures shall be implemented, as follows:
1. All grading equipment shall be equipped with properly functioning mufflers.
2. No grading vehicle shall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes within 50
feet of the northern or eastern boundary of the site.
3. Any staging areas or storage areas for stationary equipment shall be located in
the southwestern portion of the site. Stationary equipment shall be oriented so
as to direct noise in a southerly or southeasterly direction.
4. All grading activities shall occur in strict compliance with the construction
hours allowed in the Municipal Code.
The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed General Plan Amendment could result in up to 72 residential units on
the property, and a total population of 216 persons. Development of 36 senior adult
single family homes within the boundaries of the tract map will result in up to 90
persons residing in the tract area and the existing Low Density Residential designation
would result in a similar population density. The project therefore will not generate
substantial population growth, but will rather be absorbed by existing growth rates in
the area. The area is currently vacant, and the implementation of the tentative tract will
not displace substantial numbers of persons. No impacts are anticipated.
1C
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Build out of the tentative tract area will have a less than significant impact on public
services. The project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under
City contract. Build out of the project will generate property tax which will help offset
the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government.
The project will contribute to the construction of future public safety facilities through
the City's Developer Impact Fee program.
The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of
issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services.
The project will provide some on site recreational facilities, and will also be required
to pay the City's park fees for development of off site park facilities.
14
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1)
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)
XN. a) & b) The proposed project will include on site recreational spaces/retention areas, as well as
have access to existing recreational facilities in Trilogy, and will also contribute park
fees for off site park development. No impacts are expected.
1I
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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.1II-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)? (Application
materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Application materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Application materials)
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 consist of 36 senior living, detached homes. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) "Trip Generation, 7a' Edition," estimates that senior
living detached homes generate 3.71 trips per day. As a result, the proposed project is
expected to generate 134 trips per day. A letter report on potential traffic impacts wa:
10
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
prepared for this 9 acre tract8. It was prepared assuming traffic for this tract will take
access through the Trilogy project. The report determined that the proposed project
will generate 9 additional trip ends during the evening peak hour, which is only 18% of
the City's standard of significance for peak hour trip generation.
The "Traffic study for the Trilogy Project, Tentative Tract Map No. 30032", prepared
by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (dated March 5, 2001) was based on 1,220 units, while
1,202 units are anticipated without the current project. That traffic analysis utilized
statistical data from early ITE documentation, which has since been revised downward.
With the inclusion of the proposed project, the Trilogy development will total 1,238
dwellings (original 1,202 plus the 36 proposed), The updated ITE ratios result in a
reduction in trip ends, from those considered in the 2001 study. Therefore, it is
expected that the project will generate fewer trips at build out, and have a lesser impact
on surrounding streets than originally analyzed. This is expected to result in less than
significant traffic impacts.
8 "Significance of Potential Traffic Impacts Associated with the Addition of Nine Acres and 36 Senior Adult Dwelling
Units to Trilogy," prepared by Endo Engineering, December 2009.
in
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
X
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
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
in
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
XVI. a)-g) The project area is currently served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. CVWD's
treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability to expand its capacity as
demand rises.
CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficient
water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the proposed project
and other projects in its service area in the long term.
The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property to
retain the 100 year storm, as required by the City. The City Engineer will review the
plans to assure that storm flows are adequately contained, prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
Domestic waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec
currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is
transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands
and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed project.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
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 effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) Biological resources will not be significantly impacted by the proposed construcnot
activities, as the site is disturbed and does not include species of concern
Archaeological and paleontological resources were identified on the project site, bu
the mitigation measures noted in this document and previously completed durinl
rough grading have insured no impacts will occur.
XVII. b) The additional grading of the site will have no impact on short term or long tern
environmental goals, as the property is designated for residential development, and ha
been recently graded for that purpose.
XVII. c) This Initial Study has found that no cumulative impact will occur as a result of thi
proposed project. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change have the potentia
I
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
to marginally increase the total units built in the City. However, the increase is not
significant, and will not significantly increase cumulative impacts associated with
build out of the General Plan.
XVII. d) The proposed project could have short term noise impacts, which could affect human
beings. The mitigation measures included in this document, however, assure that
impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Resolution No. 2010-
Shea Homes
Adopted:
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.
General Plan EIR, 2002.
Environmental Assessment 2008-596, Shea Homes grading of the subject site
These documents are available for review in the Planning Department at City Hall.
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.
V. Cultural Resources — The mitigation measures previously required address Cultural
Resource impacts and have been adequately completed with the previous rough grading of the
site.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatior
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.
XI. Noise — Although the site has been rough graded, additional grading will be necessary tot
construction. The previous mitigation measures therefore still apply to the future grading
They are:
1. All grading equipment shall be equipped with properly functioning mufflers.
2. No vehicle shall be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes within 50 feet o:
the northern or eastern boundary of the site.
3. Any staging areas or storage areas for stationary equipment shall be located it
the southwestern portion of the site. Stationary equipment shall be oriented st
as to direct noise in a southerly or southeasterly direction.
4. All grading activities shall occur in strict compliance with the constructior
hours allowed in the Municipal Code.
IA
a
w
0
0
b
ro
N
� o
v
o
H N
w o
0
o
o ro00 ,�
o
°
7
O
V � y
h
°
45
O44ti
oHQ
'
S
az>�
U
OU
o
W
w
Cd >
U 0 d
d
cn
A
cn
ZZO
>a
da�dd
0
N �
o �
,Nr U
0 0
N �
N �
'd N
F-'
O
oQ�
Q
O o0
M
CDy
N
_
a O
O
O
� to
C 0\
01
cC
wN
0Umcq
V)
F
°z
z�
a„
W
w
F
d
A
�x
U
U
OW
a
°
F
°
Pr
U
T
z
�
H
C7
ocn
Q
Wz
a
�O
Q
�0
x
0
0..
R$
°
O
% �
.� O
.+
O
� • �
°
7 y0
4.
�
°
ca
O
00N
U .y
El
O
o o
q
T
0
d
ri
a
0
0
�q
.
t
°i
o
pa
°
'�
=ao¢
o w
a°i °
°'�y°c
"
•�
cm) do3
0
U
zd°AZ
N
M
4