Loading...
CC Resolution 2003-066RESOLUTION 2003-066 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30138 APPLICANT: DAN JEWITT CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-465 WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a 47-lot single-family development on 14.69 acres, located on the north side of Avenue 52, approximately 0.5 miles east of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: APN: 772-270-009 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) § 21092 on June 10, 2003 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 Planning Commission on July 8, 2003; 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 June 16, 2003, and July 14, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk on June 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 WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on the 8th day of July, 2003, did consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project by adoption of Resolution 2003-048 on a 5-0 vote; and Resolution No. 2003-066 Environmental Assessment 2002-465, Dan Jewitt Adopted: August 5, 2003 Page 2 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 2002-465. 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. 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. Resolution No. 2003-066 Environmental Assessment 2002-465, Dan Jewitt Adopted: August 5, 2003 Page 3 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). 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. Resolution No. 2003-066 Environmental Assessment 2002-465, Dan Jewitt Adopted: August 5, 2003 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5" day of August, 2003, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 6v kit..4, DON ADO PH, Wyor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE EEK, CMC, LERK City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. IkATHEOINE JENSO ,City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form (Exhibit "A") 1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30138 (Revised) 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 52, approximately 2,000 feet west of Madison Street; APN: 772-270-009 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dan Jewett, 49810 Little Big Horn, Palm Desert, CA 92260 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.) Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of a 14.69 acre parcel into 47 residential lots, interior streets and lettered lots for parkway and retention purposes. Lot sizes will range from 9,000 square feet to just over 20,000 square feet. The site is currently a commercial plant nursery. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA 2003-089, ZC 2003-110) were approved by the City Council for this property on May 6, 2003. At that time, the land use and zoning designations were changed from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: All American Canal, Golf Course South: Golf Course West: Commercial plant nursery, All American Canal East: Vacant desert lands approved for a 60 lot subdivision 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Local public agencies (e.g., Coachella Valley Water District, etc.) 5.79 P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Checklst465.wpd 9 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 and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Lj Mandatory Findings 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. v A s/ Oscar Orci & reg Trousdell June 26, 2003 Signature Date 0 07 SO P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 10 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 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\TM 30138JEW1T2003\Check1st465.wpd 11 541 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) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refgr 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.) 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 nonagricultural use? (Project description aerial photo) 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) PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Checklst465.wpd 12 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X 0 0 n X X X 1.. 542 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) 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: PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 13 X X X KI Q X X 13 543 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, McKenna, January 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, McKenna, January 2003) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, McKenna, January 2003) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, McKenna, January 2003) Vl. 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? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 2003) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 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 Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 2003) PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 14 R. 1:1 R. Fl x x x x x x 544 1-1 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 Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 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 Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 2003) 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) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 15 X X X X X X 91 U Ll 15 545 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? (Hydrology Report, Essi Shahandeh, P.E., May 2003) 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? (Hydrology Report, Essi Shahandeh, P.E., May 2003) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Hydrology Report, Essi Shahandeh, P.E., May 2003) 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: PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 16 X X X X X X X In X X 1.. 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? (Acoustic Analysis, Impact Sciences, May 2003) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Acoustic Analysis, Impact Sciences, May 2003) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Acoustic Analysis, Impact Sciences, May 2003) 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 PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 17 X R. X X X X X X F5 X 17 547 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) 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. 111-29 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) P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 18 F5 X X X X X X X 1 .. 548 XVI. XVII. 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) 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.) 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? PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 19 X x X X *1 X X F4 X X 19 549 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. 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. Environmental Assessment 2003-468, prepared for GPA 2003-089, Zone Change 2003-110 and TTM 31123, was used in preparation of this document. 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 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract Map 30138..." prepared by PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 20 50 McKenna et al., January, 2003. "Avenue 52 Acoustic Analysis," prepared by Impact Sciences, May, 2003. "Tentative Tract 30138 Hydrology Report," prepared by Essi Shahandeh, Civil Engineer, May, 2003. "Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 30138," prepared by Sladden Engineering, March, 2003. P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Check1st465.wpd 21 21 551 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-465 Exhibit "A" I. a)-d) The proposed Tentative Tract map will result in the construction of 47 single family homes on lots ranging in size from 9,000 to 20,000 square feet. Typical home design has not been submitted, so homes may be single or two story. The property is located in an area of developing single family residential lands, immediately east of the All American Canal. The parcel is currently a commercial plant nursery, and there are not significant natural features on or near the property. The proposed project, once submitted, will be required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance, and is not expected to generate any significant light or glare. II. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently a commercial plant nursery. As such, 14.6 acres of agricultural land will be removed from production once the site is constructed upon. The land is not designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance or Prime Farmland in the Riverside County Draft Integrated Plan'. The land is surrounded by urban or urbanizing development on three sides, and is in an area of La Quinta which is developing in planned residential communities. The loss of 14.6 acres of plant nursery is expected to have a less than significant impact on agricultural resources in the region. III. a) & b) The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not generate emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria pollutants (see below) and therefore will not obstruct implementation of applicable air quality management plans. Ill.c) & d) The single largest contributor to air quality impacts in the City is the automobile. It is expected that the proposed project's primary air quality impact will be associated with vehicle trips and construction dust. The proposed project will result in the construction of 47 single family residences, which will generate 450 trips at buildout2. Based on this trip generation, the SCAQMD has established formulas to calculate emissions, ' Hearing Draft Riverside County General Plan, April, 2003. 2 Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single Family Detached. 552 P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 22 which are shown in the Table below. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 23.2 5 Daily Threshold 550 0.89 4.77 -- 75 100 0.10 0.10 150 Based on 450 trips/day and average trip length of 10 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 from the proposed project are not expected to be significant at this time. The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. 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 14.6 acres of land. This has the potential to generate fugitive dust during the grading of the site. Since the site is likely to be mass graded and the houses built in small batches, potential also exists for ongoing fugitive dust for unbuilt areas. The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and as an ongoing issue. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD 13CM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation 553 PAGreg T1TM 30138JEWIT2003Wddendum465.wpd 23 BCM-4 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 ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 52 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. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan. Ill. e) The construction of 47 residential units will not generate any objectionable odors. IV) a)-f) 554 PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 24 The project site is currently developed as a plant nursery, and contains no native vegetation. Further, the site is isolated, with development to the north and west, as well as the northeast. 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. V. a)-d) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the proposed project site'. The survey found no surficial evidence that cultural resources occur on the site. However, since the possibility does occur that there are buried deposits on the property, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. An archaeological monitor, meeting the City's qualifications, shall be present during all on and off -site trenching, rough grading, clearing and grubbing on the site. Proof of the retention of monitors shall be provided the City prior to the issuance of the first earth moving activity permit on 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 soils on the project site are primarily silty sands, inter- bedded with sandy silts and clayey silts. The site occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. Although located in an area of high probability for liquefaction, borings done for the study indicate that groundwater was not encountered for a depth of 50 feet, and that liquefaction potential is therefore considered low. 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 severe 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 3 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract Map 30138..." prepared by McKenna et. Al., January 2003. 4 "Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 30138," prepared by Sladden Engineering, March 2003, 555 PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 25 the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level. VI. c)-e) The geotechnical study found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the project proponent'. A number of recommendations were made regarding the footings and foundations at the site. The implementation of these recommendations will lower the potential impacts associated with potentially unstable soils to a less than significant level. VII. a)-h The construction of single family homes will not generate significant amounts of 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. VIII. a) & b) The construction of 47 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and has been designed to include retention areas along Avenue 52. The City Engineer requires that these retention areas retain the 100-year storm on - site, which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The construction of 47 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. The project represents an extension of the development boundary in the City, which is moving easterly. The recently approved General Plan amendment for this property ensures that 5 r0a 556 P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 26 the proposed development will be consistent with the General Plan, and with the surrounding development pattern for the area. 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 47 homes will have no significant effect on the noise environment. The project will not generate either excessive noise levels or ground borne vibration. To mitigate roadway noise, a masonry wall will be constructed on Avenue 52 to comply with the standards of the General Plan. XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities.. Existing homes occur to the north of the site. In order to assure that the residents of these homes are not impacted by construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Construction staging areas, and stationary equipment such as generators and service areas, shall be located as far from existing residential units as possible. 2. The construction hours stipulated in the City's noise ordinance shall be strictly adhered to. 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 47 housing units, which are likely to generate about 110 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with projected growth in the City. 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 lots are planned to be large, and the residents will be able to provide their own amenities. XIV. a) & b) 55 PAGreg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 27 Recreational facilities in the City will not be impacted by the addition of about 110 residents. The existing parks and public and private recreational facilities in the City will be available to the residents for recreational activities. XV. a) & b) The proposed project will generate approximately 450 trips on a daily basis. At buildout of the General Plan, Avenue 52 is expected to operate at acceptable levels, and the trips generated by the proposed project will not significantly impact these operational levels. - XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create any hazardous design features. 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 in the area. XVI. a)-f) Utilities are available at the project site. No significant impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project. XVII. a) The project site has been a plant nursery for some time, and is not habitat for sensitive species in the area. The proposed project will not, therefore, degrade existing habitat for fish and wildlife. XVll.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan for a variety of housing within the City. XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise 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. Noise mitigation measures are also included, to protect existing residential land uses to the north. 55� P:\Greg T\TM 30138JEWIT2003\Addendum465.wpd 28 v, O O 0 N N 00 M 0 M cl a� .Cd W) 'No O 0 N ti o z HEn a QI rn � N E=� A Q G7 Vop �A d au V V x cd Faso U cd � ° ° ° u Q A .� z a '° 0. a a. A o CV U V U _ w aaH v) Na O b c ►Z O 0 ~ U U :3 U U) O H o c Cil 4) ., 41. O a' U V o N o on " bo ° ° u ° ° ° Cd a• a as a O O x o � c O 0.0 O 0 0 z z �, �, �a aO u A v o 0 04 04 � C , cd 0 v 3 U U U U GQ U Aui pQ pq pq a 3 V , N cz ' N ,•0 0 OZ z o cd U 0 o O a O CIS c� c LU 03 v a� o� a co �� Faso = a a H A V>4 �A �W ox VV cis O 0 a� W H o Q U s � A •U bA W O cd H bo A Wz � ao z~ z A �O a o o~ VA bo z .o o U 0 � O o 0 W �� d4 O O ,_.., N cd 4 Cd bo �+ � � -o i H A V� �A �U W ox VV d rA CA o 0 •U U V � rn O O MZ U U U U C O A A a 00 �a o z z �, �, �� A A W to bo � GQ 0 o w co C�0% o CA .c o CA �+ a o boEn bo co O O O W 5�0