CC Resolution 2000-150RESOLUTION NO. 2000-150
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-068,
CHANGE OF ZONE 2000-094, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-048
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29858
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-401
APPLICANT: RJT HOMES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 215t day of November, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-401 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2000-
068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map
29858, generally located on the southwest corner of 50th Avenue and Jefferson
Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of September, 2000 and the 24th day of October, 2000, hold
duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2000-401 for
General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094, Specific Plan 2000-
048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858, generally located on the southwest corner of
50th Avenue and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs 772-050-007 and 772-050-008
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-401)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of
Zone, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map could have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in
the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map
29858, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed;
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 certifying said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2000-150
Environmental Assessment 2000-401
RJT Homes
November 21, 2000
Page 2
1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or
directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by
Environmental Assessment 2000-401.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 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.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 do not have the
potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental
factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not result in
impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as
development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the
proposed subdivision.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-068, Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048 and Tentative Tract Map 29858 will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either
directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would
affect human health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolution No. 2000-150
Environmental Assessment 2000-401
RJT Homes
November 21, 2000
Page 3
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-401 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 21 st day of November, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOFW,V PEIVA, yor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUqk S REEK, CMC, C' lerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2000-150
Environmental Assessment 2000-401
RJT Homes
November 21, 2000
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0-6� L-::�
M AT RI E JENSON City Attorney
Ci of La Quinta I ornia
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-068,
Change of Zone 2000-094,
Specific Plan 2000-048
Tentative Tract Map 29858
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwestern corner of Jefferson Street and 50th
Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RJT Homes
50842 Grand Traverse
P.O. Box 810
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Tourist Commercial
Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Current: Tourist Commercial
Proposed: Low 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.)
1) Change of land use and zoning designation from Tourist Commercial to
Low Density Residential.
2) Design Guidelines and development standards for 178 single family
attached and detached homes on 73 acres.
3) Subdivision map creating 162 residential lots, street, access and open
space lots.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Commercial and single family residential designations, currently
vacant.
South: Existing single family residential
East: Jefferson Street, neighborhood commercial and single family
residential designations.
West: Single family residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAChecklistPalmilla.wpd Page 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
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 applicant. 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" 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
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature
CHRISTINE DI IORIO
Printed Name
Date
CITY OF LA QUINTA
For
N]
I
F
u
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAChecklistPalmilla.wpd
Page 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 reference 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. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," 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). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
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. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold use
d
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\EAChecklistPalmilla.wpd Page 3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
KI
K4
91
X
X
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Specific Plan Project Descr.)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Specific Plan Project Descr.)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, 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? (Biological Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June
2000)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on 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? (Biological
Assessment, Ogden Environmental, June 2000)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
_ but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Biological Assessment, Ogden
Environmental, June 2000)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (Biological Assessment, Ogden
Environmental, June 2000)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (Archaeological Testing & Evaluation, CRM Tech,
Sepember, 2000)
X
X
X
X
X
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person)? (Archaeological Testing & Evaluation, CRM
Tech, Sepember, 2000)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontological Resource Assessment, LSA, July
2000)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Testing &
Evaluation, CRM Tech, Sepember, 2000)
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 or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan, page 8-7)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32)
*51
K4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the 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 reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
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 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
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
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 (i.e., 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, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Hydrology Study, MDS
Consulting, June 2000)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
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 rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site? (Hydrology Study, MDS Consulting, June
2000)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Hydrology Study, MDS Consulting, June 2000)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan
Project 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 costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Master Environmental Assessment 2-1 1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
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 use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
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 of other agencies?
(Noise Impact Analysis, LSA, August, 2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Noise
Impact Analysis, LSA, August, 2000)
X
FN
X
X
9
X
X
X
P_
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Noise Impact Analysis, LSA, August,
2000)
d) 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 the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan map)
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 extension of
roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials; site visit)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
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, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
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
facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
X
X
0
0
e
0
X
X
K9
91
a
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 trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126
ff.)
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, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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 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 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 viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
X
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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
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.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-401
I.a)&c)
Jefferson Street is a Primary Image Corridor in the City General Plan. 50th
Avenue is a secondary image corridor. The Specific Plan has delineated
sufficient setbacks to accommodate the required landscaping parkway.
Subsequent site development permits for the project perimeter landscaping
plans and entryway treatments will assure that the project meets the City's
standards for these corridors. This will ensure that the impacts to visual
resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The proposed lighting on the
project site will be typical of that for residential development, and will primarily
occur on the interior of the site. The site's lighting impacts are not expected to
be significant.
III. c) & d)
The proposed project is less intense than the original Tourist Commercial
designation assigned for the site. Therefore, the potential impacts assigned to
the site associated with residential development are expected to be less than
those analysed in the General Plan EIR. Based on the residential land uses
proposed, the project can be expected to generate approximately 1,900 trips
per day'. Based on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not
exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 46.7 2.1 8.39 0.0 0.21 0.21
7
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 1900 trips/day and average trip length of 5.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition, for single family residential.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 1
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has
determined that the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is
pending. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests
mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following
mitigation measures:
1 . No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded
with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 2
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate
transportation measures.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in
technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles
or transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site
are not included in the analysis.
IV. a), b), d), & f)
A biological resource analysis was performed for the proposed project2. The
findings of the biological resource analysis are summarized below. The site has
previously been in agriculture, and as such has been substantially disturbed.
Wildlife species were found to inhabit the site, however. The Black -tailed
Gnatcatcher was observed on the site. Once he project is built, the species is
likely to relocate to surrounding habitat. As a result of the biological resource
analysis, the project shall be subject to the following two mitigation measures:
1. Native landscaping shall be used throughout the common areas of the
site to the maximum extent possible.
2. No clearing activity shall be conducted on the site during the spring and
early summer (March through June).
The project occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The project proponent will be required to pay
the mandated $600 fee per acre prior to development at the site. This
mitigation measure will reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of
insignificance.
V. a), b), & d)
Two archaeological resource analyses were conducted for the proposed project'.
Seven prehistoric sites were identified on the project site. These sites were
tested and evaluated, utilizing professional protocol. The analysis determined
that the recorded sites, once testing was completed and artifacts were collected
and catalogued, do not meet the criteria for significance as defined in CEQA.
The following mitigation measure will ensure that potentially buried deposits are
identified and protected during construction activities.
2 "RJT Home Site, Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street Biological Assessment," prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, June 20, 2000.
3 "Cultural Resource Research Design..." prepared by LSA, July 6, 2000, and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Sites CA-RIV-6352 to-6357," prepared by
CRM Tech, September 11, 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 3
1. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all grading and
trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural
resources be encountered. Upon discovery of a cultural resource, work
should stop in the vicinity of the find, and a plan for its evaluation and
treatment should be developed in consultation with the Community
Development Department.
V. c) A paleontological assessment was completed for the proposed project4. The
study determined hat the subject property is located within the high shoreline
of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Fossil mollusks were located on the project site. The
following mitigation measures are required to reduce the potential impacts of
the project on paleontological resources:
1. A paleontological monitor shall be present during all grading and
trenching activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural
resources be encountered. Upon discovery of a paleontologic resource,
work should stop in the vicinity of the find, and a plan for its evaluation
and treatment shall be developed in consultation with the Community
Development Department.
VI..a) i)
The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. No known
earthquake fault occurs within several miles of the proposed project. The
potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) ii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has
adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard.
Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these
standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The soils on
the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic event.
The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific soils analysis in
conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less
than significant level.
4 'Paleontological Resource Assessment," prepared by LSA, July 6, 2000,
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 4
VI. b) & c)
The site is located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils on
the proposed site are loose silty sand. As such, unstable soil conditions can
occur from improper grading or excavation. The City's standards for site
preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to
reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed
site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City
Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include
recommendations designed for the specific structures being constructed.
VIII. a)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. The water will be retained in a system of lakes and water features which
shall be designed to meet the standards established by the City Engineer. This
requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when necessary
to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system.
This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality
standard to a less than significant level.
Vlll. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The District will require the installation of water conserving landscaping, as well
as the adherence to building code requirements for water conserving fixtures
within the homes. This will reduce the potential impacts associated with the
proposed project to a less than significant level.
VIII. c), d) & e)
Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for
percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and
roadways will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into
the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed
project will direct surface runoff to lakes and water features located within the
project. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that any
drainage is properly treated, if needed. No significant impact is expected.
IX. b) & c)
The project site is currently designated for Tourist Commercial in the General
Plan. The proposal would change this designation to Low Density Residential.
This represents a considerable reduction in the potential impacts of the project
site on the area surrounding it. The proposed project will be impacted by its
location (see item XI, below) more than the project will impact surrounding
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 5
properties. The development of the project site will still provide a buffer to
properties to the west and south, and will have lower impacts on traffic, noise
and air quality than originally analysed in the General Plan. No significant
impacts are expected.
XI. a), b) & c)
A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The study identified
two potentially impacted areas: existing development to the south and west,
which will be impacted by construction of the project; and the project area
itself, which will be impacted by the surrounding noise environment. Further,
the study identified two types of noise impacts: short term impacts associated
with the construction of the project; and long term impacts associated with the
location of sensitive receptors on the project site. The noise analysis results in
the following mitigation measures in order to mitigate the impacts of noise to
a less than significant level:
1 . All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is
directed away from the southern property line.
3. Construction staging areas shall be located along the northern property
line.
4. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
5. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by a 4
foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade for
all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 10 foot
wall. The project shall be surrounded on the north and east boundary by
a 2 foot berm topped with a 6 foot wall, as measured from finished grade
for all areas shown in Figure 3 of the Noise Analysis as requiring a 8 foot
wall.. Design of the berm and wall shall be subject to Site Development
Permit review.
6. Any house proposed to be two storeys in height along the eastern or
northern boundary of the proposed project shall be required to be
designed with sufficient building upgrades to ensure an interior noise
level of 45 dBA CNEL or less. Such documentation shall be provided to
5 "50th and Jefferson Project Residential Development Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA, August 11, 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 6
XII. a)
the building department for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits, should it be necessary.
7. A solid eight foot high gate shall be installed at the emergency access
point at the northwest corner of the property.
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as added residents
will generate a need for added businesses, and employees for these businesses
will require housing. The potential impact is not expected to be significant.
XIII. a)
The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential
impacts for all public services. The property, once developed, will generate
property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set
the potential impact to public services. All development has an impact on
governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be required to
participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway
improvements. The proposed project will be required to pay school fees in effect
at the time of development to mitigate for the impacts to schools. The proposed
project is not expected to have a significant impact on services or facilities.
XIV. a) & b)
The project will create up to 178 homes, which will generate an added need for
parks. The project will contribute to the City's Impact Fee Program, which
allocates funds for the provision of parks. This mitigation will reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project was analysed as a Tourist Commercial development in the
General Plan. Such development has a considerably higher trip generation than
residential development. The impacts of the proposed project, therefore, are
expected to be lower than those forecast in the General Plan EIR, and are not
expected to be significant.
XVI. f)
All development impacts utilities and service systems. The proposed project,
however, will be required to meet the standards of the City and service
providers in constructing facilities which are energy efficient and water
conserving. The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact
on solid waste disposal. However, the residents will be required to participate
- in the City's AB 939 programs, which are designed to reduce the impacts to
landfills. The overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to
be significant.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA401 RJTAddendum.wpd Page 7