CC Resolution 2000-168RESOLUTION 2000-168
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 24197
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-407
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 19T"
day of December, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of
Century Crowell Communities for Environmental Assessment 2000-407 prepared for
Tentative Tract 24197, located on the west side of Jefferson Street, between
Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
Portion of Section 20, TSS, R7E, SBBM
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 2000-407) and
has determined that although the proposed 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 Tentative Tract 24197, and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified: and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any,
of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1 . The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigable impacts were identified.
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
Resolution No. 2000-168
Environmental Assessment 2000-407
December 19, 2000
Page 2
3. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 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.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 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 Tentative Tract Map 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 evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities. The fees will be paid at time
of issuance of building permits.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the Findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-407 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the attached Environmental
Assessment Checklist.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 19T" day of December, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2000-168
Environmental Assessment 2000-407
December 19, 2000
Page 3
STANLEY SNIFF, ayor PrVN
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU S. GREEK, CMC, City ciVk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Sea[)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHE NE JENSON, y Attorne
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 24197
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quints.
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quint&, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwestern comer of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Century Crowell Communities
1535 South D Street, Suite 200
San Bernardino, CA 92408
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential/4 acre park
Zoning: Low Density Residential/4 acre park
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.)
Subdivision map creating 206 residential lots, street, and park lots on 63 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Currently vacant, designated for low density residential
South: Existing single family residential and golf course
East: Heritage Palms, single family residential and golf course
West: Existing single family residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
PACEQAdw&IistEA 00.407.wpd
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
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Air Quality
Land Use Planning
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
Noise
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/rraffic
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.
E
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 unposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is re uired.
I��
Signature Date
Christine di Iorio
Printed Name
PACE0AohecklistPA 00407.wpd
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 then: 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 XVM, "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(cx3)(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 used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
P:`cBQAch=kastEA 00-407.wpd
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
oukaoppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan MR, 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 tight or glare Which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the Califomia 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 pollutent 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)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(General Plan EIR)
rowtt.ay
s� � Sign Lcu Than
No
import M aced Impact
Ian
as Impact Impart
TX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r-r-T
_Xt-
I
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) I I I I X
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.69)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the (mown or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General
Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of en 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? (Phase I
Archaeological Assessment..., Archaeological Advisory Group,
September, 2000)
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)? (Phase I Archaeological Assessment..., Archaeological
Advisory Group, September, 2000)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(L&ebed boundary map, City of La Quint&)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Phase I Archaeological Assessment...,
Archaeological Advisory Group, September, 2000)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
km
X
VL GEOLOGY AND SONS: 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 EK 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 expensive 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)
VIL 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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency, response plan or emergency evawetion plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-1 l)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized meas or where residences we intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIIL 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 to 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 stremn or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Preliminary Drainage Study, Dudek & Associate)
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 rtmoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Preliminary Drainage
Study, Dudek & Associates)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stotmwater drainage systems to control?
(Preliminary Drainage Study, Dudek & Associates)
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)
DX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Application Materials)
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 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conswmdon plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
KI
V4
X
94
X
91
X
Vi
1
0
KI
X
F7"
XIL
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a (mown 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)
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? (Acoustical Analysis, Gordon
Bricken & Associates, October, 2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundboroe noise levels? (Acoustical Analysis, Gordon
Bricken & Associates, October, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, October, 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)
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 infiasnucttre)? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XM. 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. )
F7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Patios 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 packs 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)
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
FIR, 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 EK 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.)
XVL 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? (CV WD
comment letter, October 26, 2000)
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? (CV WD comment letter, October 26, 2000)
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?
(CV WD cofnment letter, October 26, 2000)
X
iN
:1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Oil
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) Ll::Tx
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 phmt 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? (1VuroWatively considerable" means dust
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?
XVM EARLIER ANALYSES.
r
F1
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 Quints, 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quints, Municipal Code
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-407
I. a) & c) Fred Waring and Jefferson are both designated as primary image
corridors in the General Plan. Miles Avenue is designated a secondary
image corridor. The intersection of Fred Waring and Jefferson is
designated a secondary gateway in the General Plan. The proposed
project, therefore, occurs at a significant location in the City, from an
aesthetic perspective. The proposed tract map, however, does not
include landscaping plans. The map does, however, identify lettered lots
along each of the roadways which provide a width of 20 feet for the
construction of parkways. The project proponent will be required to
submit landscaping plans for the parkways, which will be reviewed and
approved by the City, in order to ensure that City standards are
implemented. This will reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas 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.
Ill. c) & d) Based on the residential land uses proposed, the project can be expected
to generate approximately 2,198 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown
in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
1 � eT=f ,ESO .UPG. Alm e.MOk w EMMb dalee *M"+
P:\AddendUMEAOO-407.wpd
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 79.4 3.1 16.3 0.0 0.34 0.34
8
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 2198 trips/day and average trip length of 7.0 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.
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:
No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval
of a PM10 Management Plan by the City Engineer.
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.
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.
P:WddendumEA00.407.wpd
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.
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), d), e) & f)
The project occurs within the potential habitat area of the Coachella Valley
Giant Sand Treader Cricket (General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.4-1)• The Cricket is a
species of concern and being considered for inclusion in the Coachella Valley
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, its potential presence on the
project site should be determined prior to the issuance of grading permits. The
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to any site disturbance, the project proponent shall submit, for review and
approval by the Community Development Department, a focussed biological
resource analysis for the Coachella Valley Giant Sand Treader Cricket. Should
the Cricket be located on the site, the biological resource analysis shall impose
mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
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.
These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of
insignificance.
PAAddendumEA00-407.wpd
V. a), b) & d)
Phase I and Phase II cultural resource analyses were conducted for the proposed
project2. Four sites have been previously recorded on the project site. Previous
studies also recommended that backhoe trenching be undertaken, since deeply
buried resources could occur, particularly under mesquite hummocks on the
subject property. The Phase II analysis, including 31 trenches, was completed
for the proposed project. No significant cultural deposits were identified in the
trenching.
1 . An archaeological monitor shall be present during all rough grading and major
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.
VI. a) i)
The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. The potential
impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) ii►
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV 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. b) & c)
The site is located immediately south of a blowsand hazard area. As discussed
above, the project proponent will be required to submit a PM10 management
plan, which will reduce blowsand impacts to a less than significant level.
Unstable soil conditions can occur from improper grading or excavation of sandy
soils such as those found on the project site. 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 retention basins which shall be designed to
_ "M,wlrq� a Mhemk&W Air fttlpmp.r Mw.i ft*—^rnvw+bA.dsekry AlNrr6w.N..�e.. 1000.
P: W ddendUMEA00-407.wpd
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.
VIII. 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. c1, 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 retention basins located within the project.
XI. a1, b) & c)
A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The study identified
traffic noise as the primary impact to the proposed project. Noise levels along
Fred Waring, Jefferson and Miles will exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL standard,
and will require mitigation. The noise analysis results in the following mitigation
measures in order to mitigate the impacts of noise to a less than significant
level:
1. A combination of walls and berms shall be designed to achieve the following
wall heights (top of wall):
Lots 1 through 3:
11'
Lots 89, 97 through 99:
7'
Lots 90, 91, 100 and 101:
8'
Lots 92 through 94:
5'
Lots 95 and 96:
6'
Lots 102 through 113, 187 and 188:
10'
Lots 127 and 206:
9'
In no case shall the wall height exceed 6 feet.
•�l NYyyT aSt19'1,"pquN by/Inda ftk�tNaiys
P: \Add en dum EA 00-407. wpd
2. Construction enhancements required to satisfy the City's 45 dBA interior noise
levels shall be implemented in conformance with Table 7 of the Acoustical Analysis.
In addition, in order to lower the potential impacts associated with construction
on the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
3. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
4. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is directed
away from the western property line.
5. Construction staging areas shall be located along the eastern property line.
6. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quints Municipal
Code.
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 206 homes, which will generate an added need for
parks. The project proponent will dedicate a 4 acre site for use as a City park
consistent with the General Plan Park and Recreation Element. The dedication
of land and creation of a park at this location will provide mitigation to the
impacts on parks and recreation.
XV. a►
The proposed project was analysed as a Low Density Residential development
in the General Plan. The traffic impacts associated with the proposed project
will not exceed those analysed in the General Plan, and are not expected to be
significant.
XV. d)
The project proposes access on Jefferson Street, approximately 1,200 feet
south of Fred Waring. The access point will be unsignalized, and will be off -set
from an access point on the east side of Jefferson at Heritage Palms. These off-
set access points could be hazardous, particularly for left turns from the
P:\AddendumEAOO.407.wpd
proposed project onto north -bound Jefferson Street. In order to mitigate the
potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Access onto Jefferson Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out, and left -in
turn movements only. The left turn lane into the project shall be subject to
approval by the City of Indio. The access point shall be clearly marked "No Left
Turn." Additional physical obstacles to prevent left turns from the project to
north -bound Jefferson Street shall be at the discretion of the La Quinta City
Engineer.
XVI. b1, c), d) & 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.
P:%AddendumEA00-407. wpd