Loading...
CC Resolution 2001-064RESOLUTION NO. 2001-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-073, SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, AMENDMENT #4, AMENDING TRACT 29457 (PHASES 1 AND 2) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29457, AMENDMENT #1, AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 20469 AND TRACT MAPS 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, AND 29283 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-421 APPLICANT: WATSON & WATSON ENGINEERING WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 5th of June, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-421 for General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 located between Washington and Jefferson Streets, north of Avenue 50, in the City of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 8th of May, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-421 for General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27640, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 located between Washington and Jefferson Streets, north of Avenue 50, and on a vote of 5-0 adopted Resolution 2001-065, recommending certification to the City Council; 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 2001-421) and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #4), Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, Resolution No. 2001-64 EA 2001-421 - T. D. Desert Development June 5, 2001 Page 2 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 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 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 recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #4), Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 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 2001-421. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #4), Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 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. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #4), Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457( Amendment #1), Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 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. Resolution No. 2001-64 - - EA 2001421 - T. D. Desert Development June 5, 2001 Page 3 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004 - Amendment #4, Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457 (Amendment #1), Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-073, Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, Amending Tract 29457 (Phases 1 and 2) and Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, and 29283 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-421 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 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 2001-421 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. Resolution No. 2001-64 EA 2001-421 - T. D. Desert Development June 5, 2001 Page 4 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-421 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Perkins ABSTAIN: None ( IL, - JO PE� , Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S K, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4L AKATH RINE JENS N, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-073, Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract Map 29457, Amendment #1, Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map 20469 and Tract Maps 27840, 28343, 28640, 28912, 27952, 27835, 29306, 25154, 29457 and 29283 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: South side of Avenue 48, between Washington and Jefferson Streets, and north of Avenue 50. General Plan Amendment is Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Watson & Watson Engineering 77-682 Country Club Drive, Suite F-2 Palm Desert, CA 92211 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential, Golf Course and Tourist Commercial 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential, Golf Course and Tourist Commercial 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.) General Plan Amendment to allow an exception to the current General Plan standard requiring the undergrounding of utility lines. The Amendment would allow lines on joint -use with 92kV lines to remain above ground. Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract 29457 to add 5 acres to the existing project site. Amendment to the Conditions of Approval on all other maps listed about to allow for overhead utility lines to remain. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Project is surrounded on all sides by streets. Beyond the streets: North: Low Density Residential and Regional Commercial South: Low Density Residential. West: Low Density Residential and Golf Course East: Riverside County lands, generally low density residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) PAEA chmklis[RLQ EA 01-421.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 Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing 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 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 fmd 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 fmd 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 aeon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Print Name �/-/&-0/ Date CITY OF LA OUINTA For 107 no 0 01 PAEA checklislRLQ EA 01-421.wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 11 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 used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. P:\EA checklistRLQ EA 01-421.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving 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 ElR, 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) 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 non-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) Ill. 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) S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Lees Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X K4 K4 3 X 0 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) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) 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? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, March 2001) S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd X X X 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)? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, March 2001) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, March 2001) 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 EIR, page 4-30 ff.) 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? 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) 11 KI X X X X X X X X S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd 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 p. 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? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 57 ff.) X X X X X X X X Pt SACity Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd 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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) 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 coastal 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 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? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) X X 3 X X X X X X X S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) 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? (MEA, p. 6-15 ff.) 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? (MEA, p. 6-15 ff.) 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) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) 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: X X X F4 X E1 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) n S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLO.wpd 9 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? X (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)? (Application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Application materials) 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? (Application materials) 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)? (Application materials) 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) X X X X X X X X FN X X S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd 10 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) 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. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to or more effects have been adequately analyzed i X R_ 09 X X 9 n a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Environmental Impact Report #90 was used the preparation of this report. 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. S:\City Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd 11 Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Five Acre Addition to Rancho La Quinta, CRM Tech, March 2001 SACity Clerk\EAChecklist RanchoLQ.wpd 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-421 a) & c) The General Plan Amendment proposes to allow utility lines which currently occur on poles which carry 92 kV lines to remain on those poles, as the 92 kV lines are not required to be under -grounded. The other utility lines could include other lower -voltage electrical lines, telephone, cable television and similar providers. The poles are generally located in or adjacent to the public right of way of major roadways in the City. Many of these roadways are also designated Image Corridors in the General Plan. The electrical poles which carry 92 kV lines would remain under current General Plan regulations, since they are too costly to underground, and are not required to be under grounded by City policy. The only change to the aesthetic environment which would occur with the proposed amendment is that the additional wires, which occur at a lesser height than the 92 kV lines, would remain. The amendment also proposes the use of landscaping to help to lessen the impact of these lines on the visual environment. Finally, since the greatest visual impact of these lines is the poles on which they occur, not the utility lines themselves, and since the poles would remain to carry the 92 kV lines regardless of the General Plan Amendment, and since the addition of landscaping would be included in the General Plan Amendment, the impact to the aesthetics along Image Corridors is not expected to be significant. III. c) & d) The proposed Tract Map Amendment will create seven residential lots and one retention basin lot on a five -acre parcel. The primary impacts to air quality from these lots will be from mobile emitters. The trips generated by seven residential lots will not be significant, nor will the trips generated for the maintenance of the well site. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Dust will be created by the proposed project during construction. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. These 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. S:\City Clerk\EA 421 Adden Rancho.WPD 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 ongoing 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. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 11. All residences on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 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 the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the proposed project fall within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. IV. a) The proposed project occurs within the fee payment area of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (CVFTL HCP). The proposed project also occurs in a blowsand hazard area. The project site may S:\City Clerk\EA 421 Adden Rancho.WPD be habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed lizard. The California Department of Fish and Game has declared that since it was not a signatory to the CVFTL HCP, it is currently requiring mitigation for this species as required by CESA. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits on the 5-acre addition to Specific Plan 84-004, the project proponent shall complete, or cause to be completed, a biological resource analysis on the subject property. Such a study shall be undertaken by a qualified biologist, utilizing protocols established for the Fringed -toed Lizard. The biological analysis shall include a final report, to be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The report shall include mitigation measures, if required should the species be present on site. V. b) A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject property'. The survey found no resources on the site. The project archaeologist does recommend, however, that given the high occurrence of significant sites in the City, it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the Historic Preservation Commission recommends the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits for the first production residence in Tract 29457. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. In order to protect the City from this hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical 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. VI. b) & c) The proposed project site is composed primarily of sandy soils, and is located - in a blowsand hazard area. Sandy soils must be properly compacted prior to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, March 2001. S:\City Clerk\EA 421 Adden Rancho.WPD construction to assure long-term stability. The City Engineer will be required to review excavation and compaction plans for the proposed project site prior to the issuance of grading permits. The following mitigation measure will be required in order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being constructed. Vill. d) & f) The proposed project, through the construction of residential units, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. The project site is located in Flood Zone A. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100-year storm on -site, and to address on - site flooding potential during a 100-year storm. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. XI. a) & c) The proposed Tract Map Amendment is located in an area which currently meets the City's noise standards. The addition of seven housing units and a well site are not expected to generate excessive noise levels, and the impacts to surrounding existing sensitive receptors is not expected to be significant in the long term. The construction of the well site and seven residences will create short term noise impacts to the surrounding existing sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that these impacts are mitigated, the following shall be implemented: 1 . All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from existing residential development as possible. 3. Prior to the initiation of well drilling activities, the Coachella Valley Water District shall complete the construction of a wall around the drilling site, to reduce noise levels emanating from the drilling activity. S:\City Clerk\EA 421 Adden Rancho.WPD \ \ \ k ( 2 a c E / } ® a� - 2b " ww j2) / Q a � � u k'�\j\//r 00 -�£eC)'I ! k421Or— ¥ =7 §;-erg 4} 4 } } \r. zr, 1 ° ka2-= Clcq \ 0k"r eq - k 2222°w«/ \ § \ �or g } 2 emm R w ) \ z \ ■ \ \ \ )§ ki EE � )\ § �§ Ew / E ` . / 4 2z t \ §k d m kcl u± to ( _ 2 )) \ _ j) ( r k § k k§ / ( \} § 0 \� �b ES k ) t } ) \ § §ƒ\)\ ( \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ® § _rz 0 : @ / 3 .§ ) \\/ (u /7 k q2 )§ t §( °/ k \ ƒ ] O a G J C G g u a \ \z § ) ) E _@ � © '■ Q l k \ \ ) / } \ j � \° \Cd § \ u / u 14. / E ) j\ )o t �2 ! / [/ 2 � »a § « (/ u= § ) \ \z ) ) \ }\ § (§ \ l 2 ) . \% \ \ E ) \j \ \� \� �2� § § #2a /]§ 6%e � § E - \. k z / )7 2 t- ) (\ ua ( �l /b § u § ®+ ¥ 2 \) \ \� a� \� § -to - \) � � k(u )j/ * !) \\ ® }] e '019 : Wz a / $ ) * &k & 6± u ( ) i 2 }. �e = § ® � E 94 \ \ / \ \ k � \� \� § 2 u \� \ \ k� * )} ® ± & }} �2 k/ /k 2 .) ) / & 6 / E ■ \ >c, / � )§ \� � - Eu 2 - \ - E k � � } 3 / \ �E I / I § ] ■\ \ [ 2 ■ d 3 k ;