Loading...
CC Resolution 2012-059RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE LA QUINTA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011-617 APPLICANT: LENITY GROUP, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 16t' day of October, 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by Lenity Group, LLC to adopt Environmental Assessment 2011-617, prepared for Development Agreement 2003-006 Amendment 3, General Plan Amendment 2011-123, Zone Change 2011-140, Specific Plan 2001-055 Amendment 3, Tentative Parcel Map 36405, Site Development Permit 201 1-921, known as the La Quinta Retirement Community, a 9.5-acre retirement community, generally located on Seeley Drive, East of Washington Street, South of Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: APN: 604-630-027 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 25th day of September, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on said Environmental Assessment, and after hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-019, recommending to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 201 1-617; and, 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 2011-617) 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated (Exhibit A). Therefore, the Planning Director is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program be adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the project could result in a number of significant effects on the City Council Resolution 2012-059 Environmental Assessment 2011-617 Lenity Group, LLC / La Quints Retirement Community October 16, 2012 Page 2 environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less -than -significant level; and, WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision -making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department mailed and published a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092 on the 28" day of August, 2012 to the Riverside County Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 5, 2012 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify adoption of said Environmental Assessment: 1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Assessment, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the project. Based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this project, the City Council finds that there are no significant environmental effects resulting from this project as conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures. 2. As conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2011-617. City Council Resolution 2012-059 Environmental Assessment 2011-617 Lenity Group, LLC / La Quinta Retirement Community October 16, 2012 Page 3 3. As conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the 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. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the project, as conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. As conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified under Environmental Assessment 201 1-617. 6. As conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the 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 City will not be significantly affected by the project. 7. As conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not create 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. 8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program and any comments received thereon, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project, as conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, may have a significant effect on the environment. 9. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2011-617 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. City Council Resolution 2012-059 Environmental Assessment 2011-617 Lenity Group, LLC / La Quinta Retirement Community October 16, 2012 Page 4 10. 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). 11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the project, as conditioned and subject to the recommended mitigation measures, has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code §711.2. 12. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based upon, are located in the La Quinta City Hall, Planning Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. 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 Environmental Assessment 201 1-617 reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 201 1-617, which includes a mitigated negative declaration and associated mitigation monitoring program for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 161" day of October, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Council Resolution 2012-059 Environmental Assessment 2011-617 Lenity Group, LLC / La Quints Retirement Community October 16, 2012 Page 5 D N AD LPH, M r City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: e% Y ► `� Susan Maysels, City C rk City of La Quinta, California (City Sea[) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Af K therine Jen , City Attorn City of La Quinta, alifornia City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 1. 2. California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study (as required by Sec. 15063 of the Public Resources Code) To be completed by the lead agency Project Title: La Quinta Retirement Community EA 2011-617 Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. Existing General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jay Wuu, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 Seeley Drive, east of Washington Street, south of Miles Avenue Assessor's Parcel Number 604-630-027 Lenity Group, LLC 471 High Street, Suite 10 Salem, OR 97301 Medium Density Residential (8 du/acre) Medium High Density Residential (12 du/acre) Existing Zoning: Medium Density Residential Proposed Zoning: Medium High Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed La Quinta Retirement Community is an approximately 111,000 square foot retirement community located on an approximately 9.5-acre vacant parcel within the Centre Pointe commercial development in the City of La Quinta. The proposed community consists of a three-story, 132-suite retirement facility, four independent living duplex cottage units, a two-story, 72-suite assisted living facility, and a one-story, 32-bed memory care facility. Two development phases are proposed; the first phase includes the retirement facility and duplex units, along with parking and landscaping, and the second phase includes the assisted living and memory care facility. Access into and out of the proposed community is off of Seeley Drive. A restricted fire department access is also located along Seeley Drive. Multiple applications have been filed for the proposed project, including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, and Site Development Permit. City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Parks & Recreation (P) East: Low Density Residential (LDR) Existing community park Existing residential community South: Office Commercial (0) West: Office Commercial (0) Vacant, un-entitled land Existing medical health center 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Coachella Valley Water District 2. City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Jay Wuu, Associate Planner City of La Ouinta Printed name For 3 City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 4- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -5- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 scenic vista? (La Quints General Plan X Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors", Project Cross Section Exhibit) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X its surroundings? (Aerial Photograph) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (Application materials) a) The proposed project site currently has scenic views of the distant San Jacinto Mountains to the west, Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest, and limited views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the Indio hills to the northeast. The project site is in an urbanized area and immediate views surrounding the property include an existing residential neighborhood, multiple commercial buildings, and community recreational facilities. There are no Image Corridors adjacent to the project site, as defined by the General Plan. Westward views from the existing single family residential community located immediately east of the project site could be reduced by construction of two and three story buildings. These buildings could reduce the view of the foothills to the west, but would be expected to maintain the views of the peaks above structures. The location of the proposed three story building, over 180-feet away from the nearest existing residential home to the east, as well as the incorporation of a flat roof design, will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) No scenic highways exist near the proposed project. The project site is currently a vacant parcel. There are no historic buildings or significant stands of trees or rock outcroppings on the site. Therefore, there will be no impact to scenic resources as a result of the proposed project. c) The project site is located in an urbanized area in the northern portion of La Quinta. Existing surrounding uses include a hotel, medical facility, a single family residential neighborhood, and a public park. The development of the project is consistent with the character of the area, as the mass and scale of the proposed project will be compatible -6- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A with existing uses. The proposed project will therefore have no impact on the visual character of the area. 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. Furthermore, the type and quantity of lighting used for the community, which primarily consist of low wattage landscape lighting, wall -mounted fixtures, and parking lot lighting, is generally limited, and of low intensity. Impacts will not be significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, CA Department of Conservation) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Riverside X County Williamson Act Lands 2007, CA Department of Conservation) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) a) - c) The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City. There are no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) resources, no Williamson Act contracts, nor any land zoned for agricultural use, within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, this project will have no impact on such lands. -7- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 r.ki i, e Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X 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 net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases? (Project description) a) The subject property is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. All development within the Salton Sea Air Basin, including the proposed project, is subject to the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM,o State Implementation Plan (2003 CVPMJe SIP). 8- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants that are based, in part, by the land use plans of the subject jurisdiction. The proposed project is consistent with the City of La Quinta's land use designations and is therefore consistent with the AQMP. b) & c) Construction and operation of the La Quinta Retirement Community will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants both locally and regionally. Criteria air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from construction activities will be temporary, whereas air emissions from daily operation of the project site will be ongoing for the life of the project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction and operational emissions are described individually below. Construction Emissions As discussed above, construction activities result in the emission of air quality pollutants from site preparation, grading, building construction, and off gassing from paving and architectural coating. The site is currently vacant and does not contain pre- existing structures or facilities. Criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities are short term, and will end once construction is complete. Construction of the project will occur in two sequential phases. Phase I will result in construction of the independent living portion of the project to be located on the northeastern portion of the site (approximately 5.86 acres) with an estimated completion date of 2014. Phase II of construction will result in total build out of the project (2017) with development of the assisted living and care center located on the remaining 3.59 acres. The table below shows the average daily emissions of criteria pollutants throughout the entire construction period. The table provides unmitigated emission factors for both Phase I and Phase II of construction. Implementation of mitigation measures such as soil stabilization techniques, minimizing speed limits on unpaved roads, use of emission reducing filters, oxidation catalysts, and use of low volatile organic compound paint will further reduce emissions, although it is projected that no thresholds will be exceeded. Additionally, a dust control plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403 will be required. As shown below, emission levels for all criteria pollutants are below established SCAQMD thresholds. M City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Table 1 Construction Emissions for the Proposed Project CO NOx ROG sox PM10 PM2.5 PHASE I: 2012-2014 14.27 2013 62.39 75.61 12./4 U.1U -/.63 J.40 2014 41.89 41.42 72.34 0.07 5.05 2.51 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No 2015 42.80 70.93 9.09 0.08 23.00 13.26 2016 47.40 51.06 8.41 0.08 9.93 5.35 28.84 52.30 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod. Values shown represent the average values of summer and winter. See Appendix A and B for detailed tables. Operational Emissions Air quality emissions from operation of the proposed project result from area sources, energy sources and mobile sources. As previously stated, construction of the project will occur in two sequential phases. For analysis purposes it is assumed that operation of the Phase I facility begins 2014, and Phase II in 2017. Because Phase I will be in operation upon the completion of Phase II, operational emissions for Phase II reflect operational emissions of both Phases which represents operation at ultimate project build out. Therefore, build out operational emissions are the combined total of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2 Operational Emissions for the Proposed Project CO NOx ROG Sox PM10 PM2.5 PHASE I: 2014 Area Source 11.98 0.14 5.11 0.00 0.06 0.06 Energy Sources 0.24 0.56 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Sources 73.74 41.49 9.14 0.10 11.29 1.43 SubTotal Phase I 85.96 42.19 14.32 0.10 11.40 1.54 PHASE I1: 2017 Area Source 7.51 0.09 2.80 0.00 0.04 0.04 Sources SubTotal Phase II 21.52 8.23 4.60 0.02 2.61 0.33 Combined Total 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.1. See Appendix A and B for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter. 10- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A As shown in the table, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. The data reflects unmitigated operations, and implementation of mitigation measures is only suggested to further reduce pollutant emissions. These include, but are not be limited to the use of energy -efficient appliances and alternative modes of transportation within the project (walking, bicycles and golf carts). Non -Attainment Historically, the Coachella Valley, which includes the proposed project site, has been classified as a "non -attainment" area for PM10. In order to achieve attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan was adopted, which established strict standards for dust management for development proposals. The region is currently designated as a "serious" non -attainment area by the EPA, and federal re - designation for PM10 is pending. The region is also categorized as a non -attainment area for ozone by the EPA; however, this designation was upgraded from "serious" to "severe-15"in May 2010. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and PM10 emissions. However, this impact is not expected to be cumulatively considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PM10 or ozone precursors, and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) The nearest sensitive receptors to the subject property are within 25-50 feet and include single-family homes immediately east of the site, and a community park immediately north. However, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 above, both construction and operational air pollutant emissions will be below SCAQMD thresholds. The project will generate pollutants associated with household activities and vehicle use, and is not expected to increase the amount of noxious odors to the area. Therefore air quality impacts on sensitive receptors, related to criteria air pollutants and odors, will be less than significant. e) The project will result in the development of 221 retirement and assisted living residential units, and is not expected to create objectionable odors. D & g). The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions both during the construction phase and during operation at build out. Based on the CaIEEMod model, construction emissions will generate approximately 2,723.09 metric tons of CO2 over the construction period of 5 years. Construction related greenhouse gas production will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Table 5 provides GHG emissions for Phase I and Phase II of construction. City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Table 3 GHG Emissions from Construction of the Proposed Project (metric tons) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities: Phase I 2012-2014 1,475.78 0.14 0.00 1,478.81 Construction Activities: Phase I1 2015-2017 . 1,242.16 0.10 0.00 1,244.28 Total 2717.94 0.24 0.00 2,723.09 See Appendix A and B for detailed tables. Values shown represent the total GHG emission projections for construction of the monmed nrniect_ Operation of the proposed project will create on -going greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and the transport and pumping of water for domestic use. Table 4 describes annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Table 3 GHG Emissions from Operation (metric tons/vear) Emission Unmitigated CO2 Source Equivalent Area 1.76 Energy 292.58 Mobile 1,774.87 Waste 35.21 Water 6246 I and II Area 2.87 Energy 474.57 Mobile 2,181.01 Waste 72.15 See Appendix A for CalEEMod output tables. Values shown represent the annual GHG emission projections for operation of the proposed project As shown in Table 4, operation of the proposed project will generate approximately 2,832 tons of CO2e equivalent annually. Various statewide measures and programs have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars, and increasing renewable energy sources. There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases established for individual development projects. The proposed project will be required to abide by statewide measures for reducing greenhouse gases, such as the CalGreen Building Code, which includes energy efficiency standards which are more stringent than previous codes. The proposed -12- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A project will also be required to comply with the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, This Plan includes a range of reduction measures designed to meet or exceed State mandated reductions in GHG emissions. As a result of these requirements, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measures I. Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working order and equipped with oxidation catalysts and filters to limit criteria pollutants. 2. Construction activities will be phased, as appropriate, to reduce the simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of construction equipment. 3. To reduce fugitive dust emissions, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which may include the following: • apply water and/or chemical stabilizers to exposed and disturbed soil areas • cease all construction grading and earth -moving operations when winds exceed 25 miles per hour • spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • use street sweeper to clean paved roads adjacent to site • reduce vehicle speeds on unpaved roads • wash off trucks before they leave the construction site • cover import/export soils transported to/from construction site 4. Low -emitting architectural coatings and products shall be used in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 1113. -13- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local X 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 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by . the X 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 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 X removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state X habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -14- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A a) — f) The project site is located in a highly urbanized area, and has been significantly impacted by roadway development and existing surrounding development. The site is sparsely vegetated, and isolated, and does not provide significant habitat. The project site is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan boundary, but is not located in or adjacent to a conservation area. It is located in the fee area, however, and development of the site will require payment of the mitigation fee in place at the time that development occurs. This fee is designed to mitigate impacts to locally sensitive species by allowing the purchase of conservation lands in sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, no impacts associated with biological resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in'] 5064.5? (General Plan MEA) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X (Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site, July 2001) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? (General Plan MEA) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Monitoring X Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site, July, 2001) a) The proposed project site is currently vacant land. The previous archaeological monitoring program concluded that previous soil removal operations in the project area had No Effect on any historical resources, and that no further historical/archaeological investigations will be necessary'. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project will have no impact on historic resources. "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech, July, 2001. "Final Report on Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February, 2001. -15- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A b) & d) Several cultural resource studies were completed for the subject project site 2. The surveys included extensive testing and the excavation of a cremation site. A small number of remains and artifacts were recovered. The work done on the site to date has been comprehensive, but additional resources may be buried within the project area. As a result, to ensure that the potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present on site during any earth moving activities. Should the monitor identify a resource, he/she shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities until such time as the resource can be properly identified and processed. The archaeological monitor shall be required to prepare a report at the end of earth moving activities and file such report with the Planning Department within 30 days of completion of monitoring activities for any building on the project site. c) The project site is located outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is the only locality in the City where potentially significant paleontological resources have been identified. The soils on the vacant acreage are dune sands, which have been deposited on the land in relatively recent times, as a result of Aeolian transport. These soils are not suitable for paleontological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact to paleontological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. "Final Report Archaeological testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June, 2000. "Phase I Archaeological Assessment -of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 1999. "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue. Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech, July, 2001. "Final Report on Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to Native American Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February, 2001. "Final Report Archaeological testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, June, 2000. "Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 1999. -16- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact 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 delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area X 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, including liquefaction? (General Plan X MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA X Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil,, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Project description) a) i. The proposed project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is located approximately 4 miles south of the San Andreas Fault Zone. There will be no impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site. a) ii. The proposed project site is located in a Seismic Zone IV, as defined by the Building Code. As a result, the City implements specially designed building standards which -17- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A require the reinforcement of structures to withstand strong earthquakes. These standards will be applied to the proposed project, and will assure that impacts associated with ground -shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. a) iii. The project area is not located in an area subject to liquefaction. When the new proposed retirement community submits for grading and building permits, the City will require the submittal of site -specific geotechnical analysis. This analysis will further analyze site soils to assure that foundation design is adequate to support the structures, based on the site -specific conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction are expected to be less than significant. a) iv. The proposed project occurs in the northern portion of the City, in an area far removed from the foothills of surrounding mountains. No manufactured hillsides occur in the area. There will be no impact associated with landslides. b) The project area is susceptible to high winds that can cause wind erosion and accumulation. The project will be required to implement a dust control and management plan as part of the grading permit process, which will reduce impacts associated with blowing dust and sand. Once completed, the project will include impervious surfaces and landscaped areas which will stabilize soils. The impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant. c) The Aeolian soils found on the site are categorized as having a `very low" expansion potential in Table 18-1-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. There will be no impacts associated with expansive soils as a result of project implementation. d) The proposed project occurs in an urbanized area of the City where sanitary sewer service is available. As the City will require that the project connect to existing sewer systems, there will be no impacts associated with septic systems. -Is- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of X hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of X hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X 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 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires, including where 19- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Wildfire Susceptibility, Riverside County RCIP) a) — h) The proposed project will consist of a senior living community, and is not expected to store, use or transport significant hazardous materials, beyond those used for janitorial purposes. In the assisted living and memory care section of the facility, requirements imposed by the State of California and County of Riverside for health care facilities will be implemented if required. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are expected to be insignificant as the project is not located within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is located on the Valley floor, and is in a highly urbanized area; there will be no impacts associated with wildland fires. 6-019 City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General X Plan EIR p. ITI-87 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the X rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan FIR p. III- 87 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation X map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or -21- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 c-k;k4 n redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) 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. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, and a low- to moderate -water use plant palette, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the community. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's 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. c) — d) The project site is located near the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, a regional flood control facility managed by CVWD. The City will allow discharge of storm flows into the Channel, with approval from CVWD, without retention on the site. The project proponent is proposing to implement such a direct discharge on the project site. CVWD has standards and requirements for such discharge to assure that waters are not polluted when they enter the channel, and the project complies with utilization of a settling basin and dry well. These standards will be implemented for the proposed project, assuring that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. e) — g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -22- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial photo; project X description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use 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, X 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 conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) a) - b) The proposed project will include 124 retirement residences, 72 assisted living residences, and a 32-bed memory care facility on 9.5 gross acres. The units will be built to conform to the Medium High Density Residential zoning requirements, and the proposed density is consistent with the proposed zone. The surrounding area includes a community park, low density residential, a medical center, 129-suite hotel, and restaurant. The project site is currently vacant, and therefore will not divide an existing community. The project's conformance to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will eliminate any potential impact with any applicable land use policy, plan or regulation. The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The project site falls within Zone E of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, which considers residential development below 100 feet in height a compatible use. A less than significant impact is expected. c) The project site is within the boundary of the CVMSHCP, but is not within a conservation area. The proposed project will be required to pay fees in conformance with the CVMSHCP to assure consistency with the Plan. There will be no conflict with the Plan. 23 - City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of X the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land X use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey a) & b) The proposed project site is located in 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. -24- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (General Plan MEA P. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 1 I 1 ff.) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) a), b), & d) The proposed project includes the development of retirement, assisted living, and memory care units. Units that face Seeley Drive, Miles Avenue, and Washington Street beyond, may experience elevated noise levels associated with traffic; however proper noise attenuation measures, such as use of double pane windows, HVAC/PTAC units, and proper insulation, will provide for reduced noise levels. To determine which methods are necessary, the City requires the preparation of design -specific noise analysis, which is submitted with building plans. This analysis will include recommendations for construction of the units to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed City standards. Therefore, exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in -25- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance will be less than significant. Construction activity may increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity, including those caused by groundborne noise and vibration. Nearby residents may experience short periods of elevated noise levels, but these will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, and will be temporary and periodic. Construction noise will be regulated by the La Quinta Municipal Code, which restricts construction activity to daytime hours. With the imposition of the City's construction noise standards, impacts are expected to be less than significant. c) The proposed residential project will cause a slight increase in noise levels associated with the running of HVAC/PTAC units, traffic entering and leaving the site, and noises associated with residential living, which will likely marginally increase permanent ambient noise levels above existing conditions without the project. The project site is located in an urbanized area, however, and ambient noise levels associated with the project are expected to be similar to those experienced in surrounding residential developments. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels are expected to be less than significant. e)-f) The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The project site does not fall within any elevated noise contour areas. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with airport noise. -26- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X (Application materials) a) - c) The population increase resulting from the additional residents of the proposed community is minimal, and the project will provide a beneficial impact to the community by providing senior housing. The project is consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designations, and therefore has been calculated and accounted for as part of the build out population. The project is proposed in an already urbanized area, and no additional infrastructure improvements that have the potential to induce growth, such as expanded roads, are needed for the proposed project. Therefore, the project will have no impact in regards to inducing substantial populations. The site is currently vacant, and development will displace no one. -27- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA) X Schools? (General Plan MEA) X Parks? (General Plan MEA) X Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA) X a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract to the City. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The community will primarily be occupied by senior citizens. Senior housing projects do not generate a demand for schools. Therefore, the project will be exempt from the payment of school fees, and will have no impact on schools. The project will be required to pay the City's park fees for development of off -site park facilities. The proposed community will generate a marginal need for parks. However, the project includes recreational facilities, in the form of community common areas, pool area, walking paths, and other recreational amenities, which will address the majority of the needs of the residents. In addition, the City implements Quimby Act requirements, which will require the payment of lieu fees for the purchase of park lands. The added population will not significantly impact existing City parks. -28- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the X facility would occur or be accelerated? (Project Description) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project Description) a) & b) The addition of the retirement community will increase the City's population. These residents will increase the demand for the City's existing recreational facilities marginally. The proposed project, however, will include on -site recreational facilities, which will offset this demand, and will also contribute park fees for off -site park development. Thus, impacts associated with recreational facilities are expected to be less than significant. _29_ City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 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 X trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Centre Pointe Updated Trip Generation & Travel Analysis, September 27, 2011) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads X or highways? (Centre Pointe Updated Trip Generation & Travel Analysis, September 27, 2011) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) a) - b) The City's Public Works Department analyzed the project's potential impacts on surrounding roadways, as required by the City's traffic impact analysis policies, and had no comment. The Updated Trip Generation & Travel Analysis Review' submitted by the applicant concluded an increase of 32 trips per day from the previously -approved traffic impact analysis for the Centre Pointe commercial development2. The previous study found that all surrounding streets would operate at an acceptable Level of Service, and an increase resulting from this proposed project would not significantly affect these -30- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A levels. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact roadway capacity or level of service. c) The project is located 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The proposed project will have no impact on the airport, or on air traffic patterns at the airport. d) The proposed project will be accessed from an existing street, Seeley Drive. All interior driveways and ingress/egress roads will be designed to meet City sight standards, and provide safe access onto to Seeley Drive. No design hazards will be created by the proposed project. e) Emergency access to the project will occur from two points on Seeley Drive. Implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on emergency access. f) SunLine Transit Agency operates bus service along Miles Avenue, located north of the project site. No change in service is expected, so the new residents will continue to have access to transit services in close proximity to the project site. The proposed project will have no impact on alternative transportation. -31- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 1 Centre Pointe Updated Trip Generation & Travel Analysis, September 27, 2011 Centre Pointe Updated Trip Generation & Travel Analysis, January 20, 2003 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 f3) -32- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A a), b), d), e) The proposed project will have no impact on wastewater treatment requirements. The retirement community will marginally increase the demand on wastewater treatment facilities. However, CVWD has capacity at its plants, and operates within the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact is expected. The proposed project adjoins to existing water and wastewater lines. The addition of the proposed community will not significantly increase the demand for water or wastewater treatment, and CVWD has indicated in its management plan documents that it has water available to serve the build out needs of the City. There will be no need for additional facilities. c) The City will allow discharge of storm flows into the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, with approval from CVWD, without retention on the site. The project proponent is proposing to implement such a direct discharge on the project site. CVWD has standards and requirements for such discharge to assure that waters are not polluted when they enter the channel. These standards will be implemented for the proposed project, assuring that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Also please see Hydrology section, above. 0 & g) The City contracts for solid waste disposal with Burrtec, a private contractor. Burrtec transports solid waste generated throughout the City to a transfer station on Edom Hill, west of the City. From that point, solid waste is transported to the Lambs Canyon Landfill. This landfill has capacity to serve the proposed project, and three additional landfills are available to accommodate solid waste in the future. Burrtec is required to comply with all regulations regarding the proper disposal of solid waste. This includes the disposal of household hazardous waste, which is handled through community events, or through the ABOP facility located in Palm Springs. The development of the retirement community will only marginally increase the waste stream. The project will include recycling facilities and programs to assure that the amount of solid waste transferred to local landfills is minimized. No impact is expected. -33- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhihit A 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 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 X 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X 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 effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) The site has the potential to impact cultural resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Development of the proposed project will occur on a site that has previously been partially developed and that does not provide significant native habitat. The City is a "Permittee" of the Coachella Valley MSHCP, and therefore requires new development to pay mitigation impact fees used to protect and conserve important species and habitat throughout the Valley. The project will be required to pay mitigation fees in conformance with the MSHCP. Impacts related to wildlife habitat and species are expected to be less than significant. b) The proposed project will provide a variety of housing types for City residents, meeting the City's short and long-term General Plan goals and policies. The project will be -34- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A developed in an urbanized area, as well as on a site that already has been disturbed, and will take advantage of existing infrastructure. Therefore, there will be no impact in regards to meeting short-term at the expense of long-term goals. c) The project will have minimal cumulative impacts on environmental resources. The project will have minimal impacts on air quality, hazards, utilities and public services, however these were found to be less than significant. d) Human beings will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. The City will impose standard requirements for dust management plans, noise and geotechnical studies for the construction of the project. These studies, and their recommendations, in addition to mitigation measures, will assure that impacts to human beings are less than significant. -35- City Council Resolution No. 2012-059 Exhibit A 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 2001-436 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -36- \ coo §\ .e \ CC, \/ au 4 �S! §�= § a En o \§j k �k G \) / \7 + 2©2) &7/-= )(\j\ \��\} \ mt$§($ a = u C,q d) k a/ j\ )� I W F d q W �w ak U UU a � W ° F U R U c v v� z F = b _ q a o� w � E �O zZ o o Y w� 3 a 0. U •C 'C N W U •C 'd C 'Cf •O v '� C 'C M 7 O ['" N N °_° eq.� o .S 60 E •. c. UeV¢^g=° C o° o ma N=a o `b N �vUi`" �d 0o°�N-M .�.«oE o o '� a W .a a; 4 R a .°'. 3 v 3 •o o x" .o d :d-• > Er lti O� .0 .3 . C ° �-' C G. N C = W. C o .o E o ai o �d •S N �, R R ..... v L R �3 a� •O .°'. N 3 1a '� N .0+ 0rA a ri O ._ .R C o 0 u � g •o Q o7aUi �" OE Umou 0 a�3 \ \� kj ES u ))( / tog @ § E 0 � 7 \ )E §2 e \ \� §2 a , / //\{ / >e o M ]2/22`°Z7\\() _ *� ;/ -a`=a ;=!) e I\N®\= a§r=