CC Resolution 2002-116 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-455
LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for General Plan Amendment 2002-087 and Tentative Tract
30521 (collectively "the Project")i located on the northeast corner of Washington
Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as:
APN's: 604-032-009, -018, and -021
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on June
28, 2002 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public entities
entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the public
hearing before the City Council on July 16, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on July
5, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on June 25, 2002, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 16,
2002, on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, during which public
hearing testimony and other evidence was received.
Resolution No. 2002-116
Environmental Assessment 2002-455
Adopted: July 16, 2002
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Council.
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project 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 2002-455.
SECTION 4: The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The Project will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
Resolution No. 2002-116
Environmental Assessment 2002-455
Adopted: July 16, 2002
Page 3
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 9: The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Council.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby certified and
adopted.
SECTION 16: The Community Development Director shall cause to be
filed with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 16th day of July, 2002, by the vote to wit:
Resolution No. 2u02-116
Environmental Asaessment 2002-455
Adopted: July 16, 2002
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOHN ~. PEI~A,~ Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
'.. GREEK, CMC, City CleYk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City of La Quinta, California
City Council Resolution 2002-116
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2002-455, General Plan
Amendment 2002-087, Tentative Tract Map 30521
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawn, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lido Equity Partners.
111 West Ocean Boulevard, //1550
Long Beach, CA 91790
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Low
Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Medium Density
Residential
Proposed: Medium 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.)
The General Plan Amendment is required to allow single family residential lots
in the Low Density Residential land use category. The Tentative Tract Map is
proposed to subdivide 43.81 acres into 147 residential lots and lettered lots for
streets and retention basins.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Single Family Residential units
South: Vacant, designated for Tourist Commercial
West: Vacant land
East: Single Family Residential units
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. 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 Hazards and Hazanlous Public Services
MateriaJs
AgficuJturc Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planmng 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 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 impect" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
~ ~;L~. ~ June 7. 200.2
Signature Date
P:\STAN\UdoEACklst. 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 analysis 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 analysis are discussed in Section
XVlII 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
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. WPD
3
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Then
Significent Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
(General Plan EIR p. II1-1 59 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state X
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. 111-159 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
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? X
(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?
(General Plan EIR p. 111-21 ff.) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or X
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural 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 X
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) X
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 X
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst.WPD
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description) 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 X
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, X
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.}
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in X
combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or X
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 X
plan?(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofa
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California X
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst.WPD
5
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 X
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)? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? X
(Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries? (Letter Archaeological
Associates, May 2002)
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 p. III- X
61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. 111-61 X
ff.)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
(General Plan EIR p. 111-61 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
(General Plan MEA p. 96 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 X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan MEA p. 96
ff)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X
to life or property? (General Plan MEA p. 96 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? X
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. WPD
6
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X
materials? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002)
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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) X
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or X
proposed school? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002)
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? X
(Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002)
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 X
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
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff) X
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) X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
I
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality '
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR X
p. 111-87 ff.)
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- X
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87
ff.)
s:\city Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEAC klst.WPD
7
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 X
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR p. 111-87 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 X
Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would X
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project X
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, X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental X
Assessment p. 73 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.) X
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 X
Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. WPD
8
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June
2002)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Revised
Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar
& Associates, June 2002)
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 X
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 X
area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X
Materials)
XlII, PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEAC klst.WPD
9
XlV. 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 X
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? 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 X
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan p. 22 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion X
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan p. 22 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, p. 111-29 ff.) X
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application X
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application X
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the I
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (GeneralI X
Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
s:\city Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. WPD
10
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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 X
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
p. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XVll. 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 X
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? X
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 X
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?
XVlII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEACklst. WPD
11
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.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002
Geocheck Report, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., April 23, 2002
Archaeological Associates, Letter dated May 1, 2002
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoEAC klst. WPD
12
City Council Resolution 2002-116
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-455
I. d) The area in which the project will be built is generally developed in single
family homes, and generates limited amounts of light. The Indian Wells
Tennis Garden, located west and north of the project site, can generate
considerable light when evening events occur there. There is sufficient
distance, however, between the project site and this land use to lower the
potential impacts to a less than significant level. The project itself will
generate light, but as a single family subdivision, this impact will be less than
significant.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The
proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map
will result in 147 single family homes at build out. These homes are likely to
generate a total of 1,407 trips per day at build out~. Based on this trip
generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PMIO PMIO PMIO
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50mph 36.3 1.4 7.45 -- 0.16 0.16
4
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,407 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for
assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a severe non-attainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has
the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM 1 0 concentrations
in the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on Single Family Detached
(210) category.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoAddendum.WPD
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. Further, the SCAQMD has drafted a revision to the state
Implementation Plan for PM 10 which includes a number of potential mitigation
measures. The adoption of this document is expected in June 2002. The
potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures
below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on-site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street
and Miles Avenue, as well as the perimeter wall for this project, shall be
installed with the first phase of development.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction-related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
10. Should construction begin after the adoption of the revised
Implementation Plan for PM10, the measures included in that plan shall
be implemented for this project.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to airquality
from buildout will not be significant
IV. a) The proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the fee area for the
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoAddendum.WPD
Coachella Valley Fringe-toed lizard. The project proponent will be required to pay
the required fee prior to issuance of building permits. This payment will serve
to mitigate the potential impacts to this species.
V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. Both a
records search and field survey were conducted. No cultural resources were
found. The study recommends, however, that the following mitigation measure
be required:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the
Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written
report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building
on the site.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV 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. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform
Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Encjineer will require the
preparation of site-specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. All homes built on the project area will be required to implement the
City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on-site retention,
which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed
tract will also meet the requirements of the City's water-conserving landscaping
ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. d)
The proposed project will result in homes, roads and driveways on a parcel
which is currently vacant. The City Engineer will require that all phases of the
tract retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on-site. This will control the amount of
runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage plan will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading
permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with
surface water to a less than significant level.
XI. a)
Letter dated May 1, 2002, Archaeological Associates.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoAddendum.WPD
The proposed project occurs in an area of the City subject to high noise levels
due to traffic. A noise analysis was completed for the proposed project3. The
study found that without mitigation, 50% of the lots on the proposed site
would be significantly impacted by noise. In order to mitigate the potential
impacts, the study recommends the following mitigation measures, which will
be implemented:
1. A 6 foot wall shall be built on all sides of the proposed project. In
addition, the wall along the northern property line of lots 140 and 141
shall be constructed on top of a 4 foot high berm.
2. For all homes which face or have direct exposure to Washington Street
or Miles Avenue an acoustical analysis shall be submitted with building
permits which demonstrates that the interior noise levels in the homes
will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The acoustical analysis shall be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits for these
lots.
Xl. c) The construction of the proposed project will generate noise from construction
equipment and activities. Existing homes occur adjacent to the project site on
the north and east sides. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and
the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce
these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located in the southeast corner of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XIII. a)
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax
which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The project proponent will be required to pay the state-mandated school fees
to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
3 "Revised Acoustical Analysis Report," prepared by Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoAddendum .WPD
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\LidoAddendum.WPD