CC Resolution 2013-038CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2013 - 038
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 TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 36403
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2012-621
APPLICANT: CONSTANCE SCHIVARELLI
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the
6" day of August, 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request
by Constance Schivarelli to adopt Environmental Assessment 2012-621, prepared
for Tentative Tract Map 36403, which proposes to subdivide approximately 7.3
acres into eleven lots, generally located on the southwest corner of Madison Street
and Calle Conchita, more particularly described as:
APN: 766-090-008, 766-090-010, 766-080-009
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did,
on the 23rd day of July, 2013, 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 2013-011, recommending to the City Council adoption of Environmental
Assessment 2012-621; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements
of "The Rules to Vmplement the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2012-621) and
has determined that although the proposed project could have a potentially
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. Therefore, the
Community Development Director is recommending that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program
be certified; and,
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that
implementation of the project could result in a number of significant effects on the
Resolution 2013-038
Environmental Assessment 2012-621
Constance Schivarelli
Adopted: August 6, 2013
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 potentially 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 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that
implementation of the project could result in a number of potentially significant
effects on the environment, mitigation measures have been identified, and included
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, to reduce the significant effects to a less -
than -significant level; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department mailed and published a
Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 21092 on the 15`h day of July, 2013 to the
Riverside County Clerk; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published a public
hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on July 26, 2013, 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, said 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, including the
Mitigation Monitoring Program, the City Council finds that there are no
Resolution 2013-038
Environmental Assessment 2012-621
Constance Schivarelli
Adopted: August 6, 2013
Page 3
significant environmental effects resulting from this project.
2. 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 2012-
621 that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. 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 will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends.
5. 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 2012-621 that cannot be
mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. 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. 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 may have a significant effect on the
environrnent that cannot be mitigated by the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
Resolution 2013-038
Environmental Assessment 2012-621
Constance Schivarelli
Adopted: August 6, 2013
Page 4
9. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2012-621
and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
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,
including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Project 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, Community Development 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:
SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 2. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2012-621,
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, "Exhibit A" attached and on file in the
Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 6th day of August, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Franklin, Evans, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 2013-038
Environmental Assessment 2012-621
Constance Schivarelli
Adopted: August 6, 2013
Page 5
V A�LE
DON ADOI1PH, M r
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
SUSAN MAYSELS, Cit Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
►e1�7�i o e �
MjAATMERINE J"ON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, alifornia
EXHIBIT A
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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: Environmental Assessment 2012-621
Tentative Tract Map 36403
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Jay Wuu, Associate Planner
760-777-7125
The southwest corner of Madison Street and
Calle Conchita, La Quinta.
Constance Schivarelli
P.O. Box 764
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Low Density Residential (4 du/acre)
Low Density Residential
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 subdivide 7.3 acres into 11 single family lots having a minimum lot
size of 20,000 square feet and one parcel for stormwater retention purposes. Access to and
from the project will be via a single public cul-de-sac street extending from Calle Conchita,
which connects to Madison Street..
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant lands/Existing single family residence (Low Density Residential)
South: Vacant lands/Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
East: Madison Street/Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
West: Vacant lands (Low Density Residential)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None.
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
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 pursua t to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation �neas es that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Jay Wuu, Associate Planner
Printed name
EoL,
Date
City of La Ouinta
For
-2
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 FIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
3-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
X
on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General
Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors")
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
X
to, trees, rock 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
X
and its surroundings? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (Project description)
I, a)-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 11 single family homes.
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows single and two story homes to be built in the
Low Density Residential designation. This type of development is consistent
with development currently under way or planned in the vicinity of the site. The
site and surrounding area are some distance from the Santa Rosa Mountains, and
construction of the homes will not block views to these mountains.
There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic structures on the
site. The site is located along Madison Street, which is designated an Agrarian
Image Corridor in the General Plan. As such, the project proponent will be
required to meet setback and landscaping requirements for the corridor, to
improve the aesthetic appearance of Madison Street in front of the property.
Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant.
d) The construction of 11 houses will result in minor increases in light generation at
the site, primarily due to house and landscape lighting and vehicle headlights.
Vehicle headlights will be intermittent and temporary and will not impact the
area. The City imposes strict standards for landscaping and residential lighting,
which is required to contain lighting within the site boundaries. Impacts
associated with light are therefore expected to be insignificant.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would
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. III-21 ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
X
their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan Land
Use Map; Site Inspection)
II. a)-c) The southern portion of the project site was previously developed as a single
family home and is not currently in agriculture. The northern portion of the
project site is a former orchard which has been left fallow for a number of years.
Northwest of the project site is one single family home and to the north and west
are vacant lands which are not currently in agriculture. The development of the
site will not impact the ability of these lands to be used for agriculture. Overall,
however, there is no significant agriculture in the area, and the land has been
designated in the General Plan for urban uses. There are no Williamson Act
contracts on or adjacent to the property. No impacts to agriculture are expected.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan? (General Plan EIR)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
X
or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; CalEEMod)
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 (including releasing
X
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(SCAQMD, Final 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan; CalEEMod Model)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
(CalEEMod Model; Appedix C- Mass Rate
LST Look -up Table)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
X
(Application materials)
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)
III. a) The proposed project site 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 SCAB. The project will be developed in accordance with
all applicable air quality management plans, including the recently adopted 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP).
13
The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on
regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use
plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City
of La Quinta's land use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is
consistent with the intent of the AQMP.
b, c) Both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project will result in the
release of criteria air pollutants. 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. Table 1 summarizes the short-term construction -related
emissions, and Table 2 summarizes the ongoing emissions that will be generated at
operation.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities result in the emission of criteria air pollutants from site grading
and ground disturbance, operation of construction equipment, building construction,
and off gassing from paving and architectural coatings. Construction related air
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are temporary and end once construction is
complete. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur in one
phase over a 12-month period from January 2014 to December 2014. Project buildout
will result in 11 single-family homes averaging 5,000 square feet each.
As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average
daily emissions over the one-year construction period, including both summer and
winter weather conditions. It should be mentioned that the Table below shows the
projected unmitigated emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures during
construction will further reduce emission levels. Applicable mitigation measures
include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control practices in
conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy
equipment, and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Impacts to air
quality from construction of the proposed project for criteria pollutants, therefore, are
expected to be less than significant.
Table 1
Construction -Related Emissions Summary
(Pounds per day)
CO NO.
ROG
SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction
56.5
Emissions' 25.40 38.96
7
0.04 10.05 5.25
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 100.0
75.0
150.0 150.00 55.00
0 0
0
0
Average winter and summer emissions, unmitigated.
Construction is assumed to
occur in 2014.
Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2011.1.1.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project that result from area sources
(landscaping equipment, consumer products etc.), energy sources (electric and natural
-7-
gas demand), and mobile sources (vehicles). As shown in Table 2 below, operational
emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria
pollutants.
Table 2
Operation -Related Emissions Summary
(Pounds per day)
CO NO. ROG
S02
PM10
PM2.6
Emission Source:
Area 0.94 0.01 1.70
0.00
0.02
0.02
Energy 0.05 0.11 0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
Mobile 7.74 4.35 0.96
0.01 _
1.19
0.15
Total Emissions' 8.73 4.47 2.67
0.01
1.22
0.18
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.0 75.0
150.0
150.0
55.00
0 0
0
0
Average winter and summer emissions, unmitigated.
Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2011.1.1.
Non -Attainment
The Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is currently
designated nonattainment for ozone. (8-hours) and PM1o. A request to re -designate the
Basin as being in attainment for PM10 was sent on April 28, 2010; however, the
greater region is currently designated "serious" non -attainment by the EPA, and federal
re -designation for PM10 in the Coachella Valley is currently pending (April 2013). In
order to achieve attainment in the region, an Air Quality Management Plan was
adopted establishing strict measures to reduce current emission rates to acceptable
standards. The Final 2012 AQMP relies on a comprehensive and integrated control
approach aimed at achieving the 8-hour ozone standard by 2027, based on
implementation of additional long-term measures.
The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional ozone and
PMloemissions. However, this impact is not expected to be cumulatively considerable.
Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
ozone precursors (NOx and ROG), and the City will require the preparation of PM1u
management plans for construction. The project will not conflict with any attainment
plans and will result in less than significant impacts.
d) The nearest sensitive receptor to the subject property is the existing single-family
residence located immediately north of the site. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above,
average daily emissions are not expected to exceed SCAMQD thresholds during
project construction or operation. However, NO, (precursor to ozone), PM1o; and PM2.5
are also pollutants of local concern in the Coachella Valley, and it is important to
address their potential impact to sensitive receptors near the project site.
Localized Thresholds of Significance were determined using the Mass Rate LST Look-
up Table for a 5-acre site, 25 meters from a sensitive receptor in the Coachella Valley.
Analysis indicates that NO., PM10 and PM2.6 emissions will not exceed localized
thresholds during the construction phase of the project. Additionally, construction
emissions and associated impacts will be further minimized through the
implementation of effective dust control practices in conformance with SCAQMD Rule
-8-
403. These include, but are not limited to, the use of soil stabilizers, routine watering
of unpaved roads and disturbed surfaces, reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads,
routine cleaning of roads, and covering of import/export soils during transport.
e) The project will result in the development of 11 single-family homes, and is not
expected to create objectionable odors.
f, g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions both during the
construction phase and during operation at build out. Based on the CalEEMod model,
construction, emissions will generate approximately 227.81 metric tons of CO2
equivalents over the construction period of 12 months. Construction related
greenhouse gas production will be temporary and will end once the project is
completed.
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 3 describes annual (unmitigated) operational
GHG generation.
Table 3
Annual Operational GHG Summary
Mitigated
(Metric Tons/Year)
Emission Source
CO2
CH4 N2O
— -
CO2e
Area
1.07
--
1.08
Energy
69.44
69.73
Mobile
191.76
0.01 -
191.94
Waste
2.58
0.15
6.78
Water
8.28
0.02
8.94
_
Total
273.13
0.18 ---
277.47
_
Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1.
State legislation aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020;
however there are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. Statewide programs
and standards will help reduce GHG emissions generated by the project, including new
fuel -efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which
will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. The proposed project will also
be required to implement the CalGreen Building and Cal Energy Codes at the time that
building permits are issued. The City's GHG Reduction Plan also includes measures
that will assist in the reduction of emissions from the proposed project. These codes
and the plan include energy efficiency standards which are much more stringent than
they have been in the past. The greenhouse gases generated by the proposed project
will have a less than significant impact on the environment and will not conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation.
-9-
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,
x
either 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
x
any 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.)
10-
IV. a) A biological resource assessment was completed for the proposed project'. The
survey found that the property consists of former citrus and date palm orchard
that had long since been abandoned, along with patches of tamarisk and
disturbed saltbush scrub. Evidence of former structures and debris dumping was
noted. The site survey found no sensitive plants on the project site. The site
survey also did not identify evidence of any sensitive animal species on the site.
The City of La Quinta is a participant in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat: Conservation Plan. The Plan does not identify conservation areas in the
vicinity of project site.
b)-f) The project area does not contain any riparian habitat.,
There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the project site.
The site includes a stand of non-native tamarisk and citrus trees, which could
harbor nests of species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should
the project proponent initiate ground disturbing activities during the nesting
season (February through August), the City requires that the applicant comply
with the Act. This City standard assures that the impacts to nesting birds are
reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed project area is within the area covered by the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project area is not in a
conservation area under the MSHCP, and as such is required to pay a mitigation
fee. There will therefore be no conflict with the Plan, and no impact is expected.
"General Habitat Assessment" prepared by Scott Cameron, Ecological Sciences, Inc., January 12, 2012.
-11-
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
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) The project site is currently vacant. A garage built in the 1970's was demolished
in 2011. There are no historic structures on the site, and previous surveys have
not identified historic structures. There will therefore be no impact associated
with historic structures as a result of the proposed development.
b) Almost all of the lands within one mile of the project site have been reviewed by
prior surveys. The Cultural Resources reportz notes that the southern half of the
project site has been reviewed under at least four prior cultural resource surveys.
The report notes that over 100 historic/archaeological sites and isolates have
been recorded within a one mile radius of the project. However, no cultural
resources have been recorded or identified within or immediately adjacent to the
boundaries of the project site. The report also reiterated that archaeological
resources may occur beneath the surface of the site, and that their disturbance
would constitute a potentially significant impact. As a result, mitigation measures
must be imposed to assure that no archaeological resources are impacted during
the grading of the project site, as follows:
An archaeological monitor shall be present on and adjacent to the project site
during all ground disturbances. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and
redirect construction activities should a buried resource be uncovered, and the
City shall be immediately notified. Proof of retention of a monitor shall be
provided in writing to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing
activity. The monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of
the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the Planning Department. Any
resources identified shall be professionally processed and curated.
z "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report" prepared by CRM Tech, January 12, 2012
-12-
c) The proposed project site lies in the vicinity of the ancient Lake Cahuilla lakebed.
The Paleontological Resources report3 states that the proposed project has a low
to indeterminate potential for impacting vertebrate paleontological resources, but
may have a high impact potential for Holocene -age invertebrate remains among
undisturbed soil areas. The report recommends that grading, trenching, and
excavations beyond the top two feet of soils shall be monitored for fossil
remains. Vegetation removal and leveling of surface soils would not require
monitoring. The report recommends standing policies on excavation monitoring,
resource collection, and the reporting of findings as mitigation measures. As a
result, the following mitigation measures shall be taken, as follows:
1 . On and off -site trenching and rough grading shall be monitored by a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall salvage fossils, and shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment. Recovered specimens shall be prepared
to the point of identification and permanent preservation. All excavation
below a depth of two feet should be monitored to mitigate the impact on
fossil vertebrates that may be present. The paleontologist monitor shall
deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise
grading on the site to the Planning Department.
d) The project site is not a part of a known burial ground, nor is it adjacent to a
known burial ground. No cemetery occurs in association with the existing church
to the north. California law requires that any human remains found when
excavations occur be reported to law enforcement. Further, law enforcement is
required to determine if the remains have the potential to be culturally significant
to local Native American Tribes, and to contact the Tribes if they are determined
to be so. These requirements of State law assure that there will be no impact to
human remains as a result of the widening project.
With the mitigation measures above, overall impacts to cultural resources are
expected to be less than significant.
"'Paleontological Resources Assessment Report' prepared by CRM Tech, January 13, 2012
-13-
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
X
fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (General
Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
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
X
Exhibit 6.4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 1 B-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, 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) According to the Geotechnical report', the proposed project site is not located
within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone. The site will,
however, experience significant ground shaking during an earthquake. The site
will require that any construction on the site meet the seismic requirements of
the building code in effect at the time of construction. These requirements are
"Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Tentative Tract 36403 Prepared for Petcon Lands, LLC" C.H.J. Incorporated,
January 12, 2012
-14-
designed to limited impacts associated with construction in seismically active
areas to less than significant levels. These standards will assure that there will be
no impacts associated with ground shaking.
The project site has been identified to be located in an area subject to potential
liquefaction and should be a potential design consideration. It is not considered to
be a hazard due to the current groundwater depth exceeding 90 feet. As the
ground at the project location has been identified as being in an area of active
subsidence and consists of soil conditions that may not provide uniform or
adequate support for structures, appropriate mitigation measures are required, as
follows:
Mitigation shall include a minimum mandatory removal of at least the upper 6
feet of existing soils beneath the existing ground surface and replaced as
properly -compacted soil. Mitigation shall include soil improvement and rigid
mat foundations. Flexible connections to utilities at the foundation interface
are highly recommended, as are increased slopes for gravity flow sewer
pipelines. Because of the potential for differential settlement, the use of post -
tensioned slabs resting on at least 36 inches of properly compacted fill
material for structural support shall be required. The recommended measures
identified in the project's Geotechnical Report shall be implemented.
a) iv: The location is generally flat, is not adjacent to any manufactured hillsides or
slopes, and is not susceptible to landslides.
b) The proposed project will be subject to soil erosion due to wind and water during
its construction. The City will implement PM10 Management Plans for grading,
consistent with its standards for all projects, to assure that wind erosion is
controlled. The City will also implement best management practices relating to
storm water management during and after the construction process, to assure
that storm water is not polluted by soils from the site or up stream sources.
These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with soil erosion
will be less than significant.
c) The project site's soils are generally granular and considered to be non -critically
expansive. The results of expansion index testing in the Geotechnical Report
indicate a "very low" expansion index.
d) The proposed project occurs in an 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.
15-
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
public or the environment through
X
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
X
included 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
X
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 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
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (General
-16-
Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands? (General
Plan land use map)
VII. a) - h) The ultimate development of 11 homes will not result in any impacts from
hazards or hazardous materials. The residents will participate in the household
hazardous waste programs implemented by Burrtec throughout the City. There
are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project
has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some
years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site and the
site is not located in an area at risk for wildland fires.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187Jf.)
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 granted)? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
X
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
X
drainage 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
X
which 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. III-187 ff.)
g) Place within 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows:' (Master
Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
Vill. a) & b) The development of 11 single family homes is not expected to violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The homes will utilize ground
water iprovided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic and
landscaping uses..CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan identifies sufficient
water supplies, now and in the future, to serve its service area. The City also
requires water conservation through landscaping irrigation controls, the
installation of efficient fixtures, and appropriate landscaping design. Impacts
associated with groundwater are expected to be less than significant.
c)-e) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project'. The study determined
the configuration required for the retention basin to be located at the northeast
parcel of the site. The basin is required by the City to contain the 100 year storm
on site. The analysis resulted in a basin which will have a capacity of 1.3 acre
feet, which has been identified to be able to accommodate the 100 year storm
flow. The City Engineer will continue to review the hydrology analysis through
final design, to assure that capacity is sufficient in the basin.
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans (PWQMP) has been submitted for
the project. The City requires the implementation of best management practices
during construction to assure that water erosion does not contaminate surface
water. These requirements will reduce potential impacts associated with erosion
of soils to less than significant levels.
f)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. Further, no
structures are planned, and no one will occupy the site for any period of time. No
impact is expected.
5 "Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report,
2012.
e "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan,
2012.
Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January
Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January
19-
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 plan, policy, or regulation of an
X
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) The project site is currently vacant and will not divide an established community.
b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation assigned to
the property. The site and adjacent areas are generally vacant and construction
of the project will therefore not impact an existing community. The proposed
project will be required to comply with any habitat conservation plan in effect at
the time of development of the site. No impacts associated with land use are
expected.
c) 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.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) No mineral resources are expected to occur within the project area. There are no
significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project. The project site has
been designated for urban use for a number of years. No impact will occur.
-21-
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
X
generation 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
X
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
(General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan
MEA p. 111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an
X
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 the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(General Plan land use map)
f) For aproject 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) & c) The site and most of the surrounding properties are generally undeveloped vacant
land. The noise generated by car engines from 11 homes will be limited, and
periodic, and is not expected to increase noise levels in the long term.
XI. b)& d) The noise study prepared for the project' identifies that the construction of 11
homes will result in temporary elevated noise levels associated with the heavy
"Noise Impact Analysis, Tentative Tract 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January 2012
-22-
equipment which will be used to grade the site. There are no sensitive receptors
in proximity to the project site, as most of the surrounding properties are
generally vacant. Construction will occur during prescribed daytime hours when
noise levels are less impacted by additions to the noise environment. Although
temporary increases in noise due to heavy equipment are expected to occur for
short periods, the impact is expected to be less than significant, insofar as no
sensitive receptors occur in the area.
e) & f) The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip.
-23-
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
X
growth 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, s
P. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
project description)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
(General Plan, p. 9 ff., project
description)
XII. a)-c) The ultimate build out of 11 single family residences will not result in substantial
population growth, or the need for additional housing. The site is currently
vacant, and development of the project will not displace people. No impacts
associated with population and housing are expected.
-24-
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.
X
57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and
X
Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan
X
MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) The development of 11 single family homes will have no impact on public
services. The project will be required to contribute the required development
impact fees, which include police and fire service facilities improvements, as well
as park maintenance. Quimby fees will be required for the purchase of park lands
The project proponent will be required to pay the school fees in place at the time
of development to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use
X
of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Project
description; General Plan Exhibit 5.1)
b) Does the project include
X
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the
environment? (Project description)
XIV. a) & b) As stated above under Public Services, the proposed project will contribute
Quimby and development impact fees to mitigate for potential impacts associated
with parks and recreation. No impacts are expected.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-
29 ff.)
X
b) Exceed, either individually or
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
X
to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Project description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Application materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking
X
capacity? (Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
X
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
description; MEA Exhibit 3.10)
XV. a)-g) The traffic studyB identifies that the proposed project will generate approximately
105 daily trips. This portion of Madison Street is projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out. The proposed project is
"'Focused Traffic Analysis, Tentative Tract Map 36403" Albert A. Webb & Associates, January 2012
-27-
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with the
proposed project will be less than significant.
The proposed project will include a single public cul-de-sac accessing Calle
Conchita, a designated public right-of-way; at a 90 degree angle. Calle Conchita
accesses Madison Street. No hazards are expected. The proposed project will be
required to meet the City's parking requirements. The project will include
pedestrian sidewalks along all developed streets. The proposed project will have
no impact on transit facilities.
-28-
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
X
of 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
X
of 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
X
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and
X
local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p.
58 ff.)
-29-
XVI. a)-g) Development of 11 single family homes will have no impact on utilities. The
project is served by CVWD for water and wastewater treatment, and the
development of eight homes will have no impact on their facilities. The proposed
retention basin will be designed to control the 100 year storm, so that storm
flowsdonot impact City streets. Burrtec serves the project, and will add these
11 homes to their service when constructed. They dispose of waste at several
regional landfills which have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.
-30-
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
X
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 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
X
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that
X
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have
X
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directlly or indirectly?
XVII. a) Biological and cultural resources studies on the project site concluded that
impacts associated with these resources would be less than significant.
XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan, and will not affect
the City's General Plan goals.
XVII. c) The development of the homes will have no cumulative impacts, because the
project is consistent with the land use designations assigned to the site.
XVII. d) The proposed project will not have any significant impact on human beings.
-31-
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.
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.
-32-
_
§
2
2�
S
§
} �\
�
0
2a
:%
],
E"e
\o Cl
t--C>
0u
d)}
d
«
¥
\
\
j
t ,
\
\
§ �_
)
&
!
2
(
2
4
.a
u
3
$k
^
du
§
M
OV
z z
0,0
lw IIFnnQ3
o — 0 u
-a�A
0
c>>
00
�o
ro
00
0
0 ,00
'03
78 A
I
El
0
o
>4
0=
.9
;t4
Ro
o 0 &
Z �0
Ba
0
2
on
MA
OE
8W
- -
— e � , SbQ
W
F
d
q
W�
.a x
aaU
O�
0
ydy
�
U
�
0
m
5U
�7
E
5
op
(a
a
zz
A�
0
a �a
y�]]
E� yu.�"•5'c�
Oy
4y
o o y
o VN
'F
d V�
�I
O
@ y
s v
v V
N�`
�• `�
3 o a°i
cry p,
C'
w ayiw
V1
5 04 p
� �0
W yq-
0
i' OR N y
�•`�
NC U
V
73 O ll
'["
N [1.i
i N '� N .-i
.-. q w
•S Wqm H
G
o
brob
O
W
O D U ,C^n
❑ O 0
y�
VI
U'
waoi
•q=
y
�
� a�p5yi
yy.�
� :^ �
o a�i � .5
a •o
�°~A•° Q�
ii G W W U
240 'J 4