CC Resolution 2002-011RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415
APPLICANT: DR. AND MRS. BRUCE BAUMANN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th
day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Environmental
Assessment 2001-415 for Tentative Tract Map 29963, located at the northernmost
terminus of Kirk Court which is approximately 659' north of Avenue 58, more
particularly described as follows:
Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 8843, including portions of Kirk Court;
APN: 762-240-007 and -008
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 13th day of November, 2001, 1 1 th day of December, 2001, and 8th day of
January, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-
415 for Tentative Tract Map 29963, and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2002-
001, recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental
Assessment; and
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 2001-415)
and has determined that although the proposed residential development 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 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 certify 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 unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-415.
Resolution No. 2002-11
Environmental Assessment 2001415 for TTM 29963
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 2
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment 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 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 by the
revised Environmental Assessment.
5. 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 project.
6. 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.
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 2001-415 and
the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment 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 DepartmentJocated at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
Resolution No. 2002-11
Environmental Assessment 2001415 for TTM 29963
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 3
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 constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2001-415 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.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-415 reflects the independent judgment
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 51h day of February, 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins, Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
J ..GREEK, CMC, I y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-11
Environmental Assessment 2001416 for TTM 29963
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Environmental Checklist Form
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-415
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 29963
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: North side of Avenue 58, west of Madison Street
(APN 762-240-007 and -008)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. & Mrs. Baumann
55625 Riviera
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: 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.)
Subdivision of 9.1 acres into four residential lots and one lettered lot for a
cul-de-sac.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant, PGA West
South: Avenue 58, vacant low density residential lands
East: Vacant and scattered residential
West: Vacant and scattered residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963Cklist.WPD
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 & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
0 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.
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.
cl,�� 6 %
Signature
Christine di lorio
Printed Name
2 0
Dat
CITY OF LA QUINTA
0
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
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 analyzes 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 analyzes 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
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
Issues land Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
1. 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 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)
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 Impac
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
r.1
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Application materials)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Application materials)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
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? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 9/7/2001)
X
P.
X
11l
Ll
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkUst.WPD
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)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 9/7/2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM
Tech, 9/7/2001)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 9/7/2001)
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? (Preliminary
Geotechnical Report, Southland Geotechnical, dated February,
2000)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff. and Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Southland
Geotechnical, dated February, 2000)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Preliminary Geotechnical
Report, Southland Geotechnical, dated February, 2000)
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. And Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Southland
Geotechnical, dated February, 2000)
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. and
Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Southland Geotechnical,
dated February, 2000)
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)
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.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 6-1 1)
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-
59 ff.)
X
El
X
Fl
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.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 4-59 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 4-59 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? (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?
(General Plan Land Use Element)
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. and Preliminary Noise Study,
RK Engineering Group, August 2001)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General
Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Preliminary Noise Study, RK
Engineering Group, August 2001)
X
X
X
P.
X
Ki
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.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. and
Preliminary Noise Study, RK Engineering Group, August
2001)
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? (Application Materials)
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)
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:
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
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, p. 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, p. 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? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
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)
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)
MEMO
E
No
MMME
MMME
MEMO
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
19
XV11. 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 ANALYSIS.
X
X
KI
X
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
None
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
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkUst.WPD
11
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech,
September 2001
"Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, September,
2001
"Preliminary Geotechnical Report," Southland Geotechnical, February, 2000
"Preliminary Noise Study," RK Engineering Group, August 2001
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\TTM29963CkList.WPD
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-415
for Tentative Tract Map 29963
III. a) & c)
Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular
emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 40 average
daily trips'. These trips will generate considerably fewer emissions than
originally considered in the City's General Plan EIR, insofar as the property was
analyzed assuming up to four units per acre, which could have generated up to
36 dwelling units, and up to 360 daily trips. The impacts associated with the
proposed subdivision are expected to be less than significant.
V. a) & b)
A cultural resource study was completed for the subject property2. The survey
found that no significant resources occur on the site, and therefore that no
significant impact is likely on the subject property.
V. c) A paleontologic survey was conducted on the subject property3. The area was
within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and the investigation
resulted in a conclusion that the likelihood of vertebrate fossils is moderate, and
invertebrate fossils high. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological and paleontologic monitor shall be on -site
during all earth moving activities. Should any archaeological or
paleontological resources be observed during grading or excavation of the
proposed site, all work activity shall cease in the area of the observation,
until such time as a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can observe the
find, determine appropriate actions to be taken, and develop a mitigation
plan for such find. A report on the findings made at the site shall be filed
with the Community Development Department.
VI. a) i) & ii)
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site'.
The survey found that the soils at the site are appropriate for single family
development, and that no significant impacts associated with geological hazards
are expected at the site.
' "Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume 1 " prepared by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers. Single Family detached housing (210) used.
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey,
y, prepared by CRM Tech, September 2001.
3 Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, September 2001.
4 "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation," prepared by Southland Geotechnical, February
2000.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ttm29963addend
XI. a) A noise study was completed for the proposed project and lots immediately
south'. The study found that because of the distance of the proposed lots from
Avenue 58, impacts associated with noise will be less than significant at the
project site, and no mitigation is necessary.
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have an impact on public services. Site
development will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added
services. Impacts to public services are not expected to be significant.
XV. a)
The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as
development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the
impacts to schools.
The proposed project is expected to generate up to 40 trips per day on City
roadways, considerably fewer than had been analyzed in the City's General plan
EIR. Development of the proposed project as currently planned, therefore, will
have less than significant impacts on traffic and circulation.
XVI. a)-f)
The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall
impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these
suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements
to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at
construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
"Coral Mountain Estates Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by RK Engineering Group, August 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ttm29963addend 2
F.
co
S
h
C
-o
cz
4-�
O
W
3
00
a�
a�
d
b rA
• En a�
U
t a
O
z
F
G
Zm
<
aU
O=
UU
U
O
O
d
o
L
0
cc
�s o
U v�
V L
Ob
c
V
°
Z
s
F
L
z
0
cc
L
.0
o�
V a.
0
z
°
F
wo
E
d
V
0A
U =
o �
G