CC Resolution 2003-051RESOLUTION NO. 2003-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-114, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a seven -lot
single family development on 2.33 acres, currently designated for commercial
activities, located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within
Lake La Quinta, more particularly described as:
APN: 643-200-009 to -01 1 (Parcel 9-11 of Parcel Map 27892)
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.; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code (PRC)
Section 21092 on May 16, 2003, and June 9, 2003, to landowners within 500
feet of the Project Site and to all public entities entitled to said notice under CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on May 21, 2003, and June 10, 2003, and further caused the notice to
be filed with the Riverside County Clerk on May 16, 2003, in accordance with the
CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment
letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration from local public agencies.
Community Development Department personnel reviewed and considered these
comments, and prepared written responses to these comments which are
contained in the staff report; and
Resolution No. 2003-051
EA 2003-473 / Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 2
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on 10t" day of June,
2003, did consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project by adoption of Resolution
2003-033 on a 5-0 vote; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as
the Findings of the City 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 (MND), 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 2003-473.
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, in that the site has been graded under prior development
approvals.
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.
Resolution No. 2003-051
EA 2003-473 / Jim Heyhoe
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 3
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.
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 (MND) reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City 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 PRC § 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 §71 1.2.
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).
Resolution No. 2003-051
EA 2003-473 / Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 4
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby certified by the
City Council.
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) once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 1" day of July, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
JUNE S. 6REEK, CMC, City Jerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�/Y D
M. KATHERINE JENSON, Ci y At rney
City of La Quinta, California
(. L L'�L ,
DON AD LPH, yor
City of La Quinta, California
2.
3.
4.
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 03-092, Zone Change 03-114,
Tentative Tract Map 31289 and Site Development Permit
03-769
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
Project Location: Northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence
APN: 643-200-009, -010 and -01 1
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Hayhoe
P. 0. Box 4378
Palm Desert, CA 92261
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Community Commercial
Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Current: Regional Commercial
Proposed: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Community Commercial and
Regional Commercial, respectively, to Low Density Residential to allow for the
construction of single family residential dwelling units.
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 2.33 acres into 7 single family residential lots.
Minimum lot size will be 12,938 square feet, with an average lot size of 14,518
square feet.
Site Development Permit to review and approve the design of homes greater
than 3,000 square feet.
PAGreg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
0
10.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Bed and Breakfast Inn
South: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
West: Community Commercial lands, mostly vacant, with several
approved commercial projects
East: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, • financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
2
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 LJ 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 impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Z/,-
nature
May 14, 2003
Date
7
u
19
0
l-1
PAGreg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -
site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in
Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references
to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and
other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
and a► the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question;
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less
than significance
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
4
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 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Aerial photograph)
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)
11. 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. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
c1 Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
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, 2002 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
5
Potentially
Potentiall
Significant Less Than
y
Unless Significant No
Significan
Mitigated Impact Impact
t
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
X
X
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
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? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan Biological Resources
Element, all exhibits)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
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. 73 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? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous
Lake La Quinta investigations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:1Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.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)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous
Lake La Quinta investigations)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural
Resources Exhibit, previous Lake La Quinta investigations)
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
—' ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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? (Geotechnical letter
Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003)
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? (Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems
Southwest, May 2003)
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?
(Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
E4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
7
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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
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)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR,
P. III-187 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-
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. III-87 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? (Project Preliminary Grading
Plan)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
X
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
8
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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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 Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
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
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?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 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.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Parking
lot-- no ground borne vibration)
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. III-144 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
FN
X
P
1�
X
X
X
PAGreg T1HayhoeEACheck1ist.wpd
ti]
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? (General Plan land use map)
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 land use 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, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
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, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 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
PAGreg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
10
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. III-29 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. III-29 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? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
Description)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 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
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
X
e
0
X
X
P
X
X
X
PAGreg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
11
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.
P
X
KI
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses 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 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
P:\Greg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
12
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003
PAGreg T\HayhoeEAChecklist.wpd
13
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-473
a)-d)
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map
and Site Development Permit will result in the construction of 7 single family
homes. The homes will all be single story, and will have a maximum height of
24 feet. The potential impacts associated with single story homes is
considerably less than commercial development. No impact is expected from
buildout of the proposed project.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a),b) & d)
The construction of 7 single family homes will result in fewer impacts than that
which could be caused by commercial development. The impacts to air quality
standards or existing plans is expected to be negligible.
Ill.c) The construction of the 7 . homes will result in the creation of dust during
construction operations. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area
for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 2.33 acres of
land. The site had previously been mass graded as part of the Lake La Quinta
master planning process. Although this mass grading will result in less grading
than might otherwise be expected, the project geologist still recommends that
remedial grading be undertaken. This has the potential to generate 61.5 pounds
per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. The site is also in a high
wind erosion hazard area. These factors will result in a potential impact without
mitigation. Mitigation measures have been included to address this issue.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM 10.
These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE
BCM-1
BCM-2
BCM-3
BCM-4
P:\Greg T\HayhoeAddendum.wpd
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities:
Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation,
track -out control
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, revegetation
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
Paved Road Dust : Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to
initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts
associated with PM 10 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. Landscaping of front yards shall be completed as soon as possible to
reduce the potential for dust generation.
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. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards
included in the 2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley.
III. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors.
IV) a)-f)
The project site has been previously graded, and contains little if any native
vegetation. Further, the site is isolated, and surrounded on all sides by other
developments or by previously graded lands. No significant biological resources
are expected to occur on the site, nor is any significant habitat in existence
there. The impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be
negligible.
P:\Greg T\HayhoeAddendum.wpd
V. a)-d)
As previously stated, the site has been previously mass graded. The occurrence
of any cultural resources is highly unlikely. Since the City has previously been
a rich source of archaeological material, however, a mitigation measure is
proposed, should any significant resource be found during the grading process.
1. Should any archaeological resource be uncovered during the site grading
process, all work in that area shall cease, and an archaeological monitor,
meeting the City's qualifications, shall be called to inspect the site. The
archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect 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 completion of the project.
VI. a) i)-iv)
A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project'. The geotechnical
analysis found that the site occurs 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. The City Engineer 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.
VI. b) The site is located in a high blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject
to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to
implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard
against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the
potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development
proposed by the project proponent2. The project geologist recommends the
implementation of remedial grading techniques to ensure the proper compaction
of the soils at the site. A number of recommendations were also made regarding
the footings and foundations at the site. The implementation of these
recommendations will lower the potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
1 Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May, 2003
2 Ibid.
P:\Greg T\HayhoeAddendum.wpd
VII. a)-h
The construction of 7 homes will not generate hazardous materials, or a risk of
upset associated with those materials. The City's household hazardous waste
requirements will be implemented. No impact associated with hazardous waste
is expected as a result of the proposed project.
Vlll.a)&b)
The construction of 7 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will
it violate water or wastewater requirements. The construction of commercial
space on the site, which could accommodate up to 35,000 square feet of retail,
office or restaurant use under the current land use designation, would likely
have an equal or greater impact on water supply or water standards.
Vill. c) & d)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -
site. The proposed project will be required to conform to this standard, which
is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, the construction of homes is likely to result in less impermeable
surfaces on the site than would be expected with commercial or office
development, so that the potential for on -site percolation is greater with the
proposed project than would be expected with commercial development.
Vill. e)-g)
The construction of 7 homes will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year
storm area.
IX. a)-c)
The project will not divide an existing community. On the contrary, the project
represents an extension of the residential land uses which currently occur east
and south of the site. The General Plan currently designates this property for
Community Commercial development. However, its location off the major
arterial (Washington), makes the site less desirable for commercial development.
The requested change in General Plan and Zoning designations will add to the
inventory of available residential land in the City, and only fractionally reduce
the amount of commercial land available. The impacts to land use and planning
associated with the proposed change in land use designation is expected to be
less than significant.
The site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, the project proponent will be
required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time of issuance of building
permits. The payment of the fee will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
P:\Greg T\HayhoeAddendum.wpd
X.a) & b►
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & b)
The construction of 7 homes will have no significant effect on the noise
environment. The project will not generate either excessive noise levels or
ground borne vibration.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the south and east of the site but are
separated by roadways and a lake. The construction will be a sufficient distance
away that noise levels at the residential property lines should be well below City
maximum permitted standards.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The proposed project will result in 7 housing units, which are likely to generate
about 15 residents. This increase in population is not significant. No impacts are
expected to population and housing.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
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 offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be
required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The impacts on parks will be less than significant, since the
residents will have access to private recreational facilities at Lake La Quinta.
XIV. a) & b)
Recreational facilities in the City will not be impacted by the addition of about
15 residents. These residents will also have access to the private recreational
facilities available at Lake La Quinta.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed project will generate approximately 67 trips on a daily basis. The
generation of trips from residential development is much less than that of
commercial office or retail development. The impacts associated with traffic
generation at the site are therefore expected to be lower than those previously
analysed in the General Plan EIR, which considered commercial development on
this site.
P:\Greg 1 \HayhoeAddendurn.wpd
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create
any hazardous design features. The driveways for each house will access Caleo
Bay, which is a non -General Plan, local street with limited traffic now or at
buildout of the General Plan. The residences will be required to provide on -site
parking to meet the City's parking requirements. The proposed housing will have
access to the public transit available along Washington Street.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The residential units will generate less
need for utilities than commercial development would likely require. No
significant impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project.
XVII. a)
The proposed project has the potential to impact the habitat of sensitive species
without mitigation. The mitigation provided in Section IV), above, reduces these
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d)
The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due
to air quality impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella
_ Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, which can cause negative health
effects, Section III►, above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce
the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level.
P:\Greg T\HayhoeAddendum.wpd
U
C
W
>
O
P
O
Q
LL
C7
M
W
Z
W
'C
C
H
co
Q
a—
o
m
g
'
O
m
W
co
U
f-
0
0
W
O
a
U
M
O
O
O
U
a0
O
ttoo
m
U
W
N
'
L
O
Z
C)
4+
L-
U
Q
co
ZO
?
Z 0
;
Q
dOC
Z
0
J
UJ J
Z
0
U
0
a
0 Q
0
Q
Q
LU
Z
F- 0
a
U
0
¢
0
V a
0
J
;
C
U
'
0
_Z
W
a
p
~
Q
a
aQ
o
a
C
C
0
Cco`
ui
c C,4a
m
to
M CO
++
Z
.m O n
C a)
f"
U W
E c
= U
co
Q -CU
oa
O
~ W
0
O
c U L>
F-
O
y
N>
N
a)+'
a. C a)
�
0
c)
p
Z m
ui a
N
O
0
cp
W W
cp
CN C
-n�
m
O
N
LOU'
C7 0 H
O
oC 0
Z a
z
o
3 0
z
Z
Q
(i
°a
J cc
H
ai
W
a0J
o
v
Q
W
a
Q
WU
C
W
H
Q
U ao
Z G
Q W
aJ V
M W
O=
U U
N
r
Q
N
c
�
Gi
c9 a
co
y
0
0
C
O
fn
c
oc
U
d
'`00
m
`p
a�i
c
0
U a
O
Q
N
C
C
y
a 0 O
cUn
0- 0-
CANN>
w
O
C
C
O
C
d
U
01
C
C7
V
O
U
O
co
O
y
c0
E N
ca
E •N
r C
.0
F-
U
y
a 0
y
a.c
m co
m
co
r
U
o
(M
C U
o
r
o
C t.•
C
°
O
O
D O
m
O O
C
c '►-
a
a`
0 a`
a` .0 a
rn 0
•o
a
°
o
E
W Z
C
CL
C
C
0°o
O
E
y
E
E
Z Z
00
aim
(D
y
>.
C
O 0
aai
W
r0
E
D)
W
W
C
E
t C
C
r
c
_
t
E
a �°
0
U
U
U
m
U m
m
O
z
r
(
C
°
O O
E m
O
H
E
a
vi
m
t
" a
o ulp
N
y
C7 W
y
c N
0
~
CO
0
O
N
C
U
y
a
0
m
+
H
(n
O
cc W
Q
H
J
6-
M"
'0y
c
4+
?
d
r
m
a
C
C
O
o
E
U
co
«)
c a
E
H
r,
O
O
y
OC
c
m
a)
v
a)
m
°
co
a
O
c
O
'C
��
N
N
O
>C
C
C
m
`
a
a
i
+Z0D
a>
CD
0
L
m
a'
T�
N