CC Resolution 2003-089 Legacy Villas EA 2003-478RESOLUTION 2003-089
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-
478 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-065, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 31379 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-778
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-478
APPLICANT: CENTEX DESTINATION PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines")
collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a 280-unit residential
development (Villa La Quinta) on 44.61 acres located on the west side of
Eisenhower Drive at Coachella Drive, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 658-130-003 to -005
Parcel 1 of LLA 2001-361
Portion of Section 36, T5S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the
property owner's Cultural Resources Assessment on June 17, 1999, for EA 98-367
and Specific Plan 99-041, and determined that testing and site monitoring was
required by adoption of Minute Motion 99-017; and
WHEREAS, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the
property owner's Phase II Archaeological Assessment on August 29, 2003, for EA
2003-478 and determined that site monitoring and a conservation easement were
needed based on adoption of Minute Motion 2003-011; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code (PRC) §
21092 on July 15 and 17, 2003, and August 25, 2003, to landowners and
residents within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public entities entitled to
notice under CEQA, which also included a notice of the public hearing before the
Planning Commission on August 12, 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 August 25, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk on July 17, 2003, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines;
and
Resolution No. 2003-089
EA 2003-478, Villa La Quinta (Centex)
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on September 9, 2003,
recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Villa La Quinta by adoption of Resolution 2003-062 on a 3-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment
letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration from local public agencies. The
Community Development Department personnel reviewed and considered these
comments, and has incorporated them into mitigation measures; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the
Findings of the 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 2003-478.
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 site mitigation measures are planned.
Resolution No. 2003-089
EA 2003-478, Villa La Quints (Centex)
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 3
i
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the Project.
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 Planning Commission 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 § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted
the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
Resolution No. 2003-089
EA 2003-478, Villa La Quinta (Centex)
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 4
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended to the
City Council for final certification.
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 161h day of September 2003, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON AD L4H,Ur
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN REEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2003-089
EA 2003-478, Villa La auinta (Centex)
Adopted: September 16, 2003
Page 5
i
P
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KAT ERINE JEN96N, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Exhibit A
1. Project title: Specific Plan 03-065, Tentative Tract Map 31379 and Site Development Permit
2003-778 (Villa La Quinta)
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: To the northwest of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Coachella
Drive
APN: 658-301-003, -004, &-005; Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment 2001-361
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Centex Destination Properties (Mr. Steven Patterson)
1111 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 101
Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760-318-2081)
6. General plan designation: Tourist Commercial and 7. Zoning: Tourist Commercial and
Open Space Open Space
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.)
Specific Plan to establish the development standards and guidelines for the development of
280 resort residential units, a clubhouse and associated pool, and open space areas on a 44.61
acre parcel located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive at Coachella Drive. The project will
include 94 townhomes and 186 resort condominium units, which can be locked off to result in
489 "rooms" or "keys." The lock -off units will be available for rent through the La Quinta
Hotel property, which lies adjacent and south of the proposed project site.
Site Development Permit to allow construction of one and two story resort residential units
and a clubhouse, pool and ancillary facilities on the 44+ acre site. The proposed style of
architecture is Spanish Colonial with structures allowing multiple units per building. The
clubhouse is proposed to be one story, with a central courtyard, and including a lounge and
restaurant, office space, a meeting room and multi -purpose room, and an exercise area.
Tentative Tract Map to divide the property into 18 residential lots and various common
lettered lots for streets, retention basins, etc.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -1-
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
South: Vacant Tourist Commercial site, mountainous area, and La Quinta Hotel property
North and West: Mountainous areas, Open Space
East: Low Density Residential, Tract 29436 project site, currently under construction
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, Verizon, Sunline Transit, Time
Warner, Desert Sands Unified School District, So. Calif. Gas, etc.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -2-
r-- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
t
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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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
X not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. 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" impact 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 or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
August 23, 2003
Oscar Orci, Planning Manager, City of La Quinta
016
PAGreg T\Tract CC 9-16-03 Centex Folder\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -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 referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
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.
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.
PAGreg T\Tract CC 9-16-03 Centex Folder\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc 4- 017
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
f environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The project site is generally flat, and occurs at an elevation of 60 to 75 feet above sea
level. The site abuts the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which surround the
property on the west and north sides. The site is located on Eisenhower Drive, which is
designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan.
The proposed project includes residential and clubhouse land uses in clustered buildings
of one and two stories.
The visual impacts associated with the proposed project will not significantly detract
from the dramatic views of the mountains to the west, which rise steeply from the site,
and are much more elevated than the proposed structures. The proposed open space lands
along the northern, southern and western property boundary, which are, at a minimum, 50
feet in depth, will assure that the structures are removed from the edge of hillsides. The
proposed project will not construct any structures above the toe of slope, nor build two
story units along the west, north and east property lines.
The overall impacts associated with scenic vistas and resources appear to be limited. The
one and two story structures proposed for the site will be dwarfed by the steep hillsides of
the Santa Rosa Mountains which occur on the west and north property lines. Single story
buildings are proposed along the east property line affording a "view corridor" from Tract
29436. Overall impacts to scenic resources are expected to be less than significant.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -6-
I. d) The proposed project will generate light from parking lot lighting, lighting on buildings
�--, and walkways, and similar facilities. The applicant will be required to present a
photometric analysis of the lighting impacts which demonstrates that lighting does not
spill over the project property line. All lighting, as required by the Development Code,
will be directed downward and shielded. The potential impacts associated with light and
glare are expected to be less than significant (also see Biological Resources, below).
'S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
II. a)-c) The project site is vacant desert land and has not been in agriculture. Lands surrounding
the project site are planned, under construction and developed in low density residential
land uses. No impacts to agriculture will result with development of the proposed project.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -8-
Potentially
1
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a)-c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The traffic study prepared for
the proposed project estimated that the project will generate approximately 2,518 daily
trips'. Assuming this number of trips, and an average speed of 45 miles per hour, the
following emissions can be expected on a daily basis.
' "Villa La Quinta Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by VRPA Technologies, February 2000; and follow up
Memorandum, dated June 25, 2003, signed Erik Ruehr.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -9-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Ave. Trip
Length (miles)
Total
miles/day
2,518 x 15 = 37,770
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NO Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 45 mph 3,777.00 84,227.10 15,108.00 - 377.70 377.70
Pounds at 45 mph 8.34 185.93 33.35 - 0.83 0.83
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions
at 75"F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for criteria pollutants.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and as an on -going 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
BCM-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
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 1,174 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. In order to mitigate the potential impacts
associated with PM 10 dust generation at the site, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 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.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Finakdoc -10-
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Open space areas along the perimeter of the site shall be re -
naturalized with the first phase of construction.
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 mph.
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.
III. d) & e) The proposed project will consist of residential and resort land uses, and will neither
expose people to concentrations of pollutant, nor to obj ectionable odors.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -12-
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land. Multiple biological resource
analyses have been prepared for the proposed projece. In addition, the previously
prepared but not certified "Draft Environmental Impact Report Villa La Quinta3" (EIR)
document identified impacts and mitigation measures for biological resources on a site
which included the hillsides as well as the lands included in the current project. Finally,
comments were received, both in response to the Draft EIR and the current proposal,
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game,
respectively. The discussion which follows considers and includes all these documents by
reference. The documents are available in their entirety at the Community Development
Department.
The project site consists primarily of bare alkali sink and saltbush scrub, with creosote
bush scrub at the very west end of the site. A stand of mesquite has also resulted in a
series of mesquite hummocks in the central and eastern end of the property. The
mesquite, however, are not healthy, possibly due to a dropping of the water table. The site
is not listed as appropriate habitat for Coachella Valley milk vetch by either the US Fish
and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, nor is the plant
listed for this area in the California Native Plan Society database. The isolated mesquite
hummock, combined with the highly disturbed nature of the site, is not representative of
the blowsand habitat needed for the milk vetch.
The site has also been significantly disturbed by off -road vehicle use, illegal dumping and
human and pet visitation. No sensitive species were observed on the site during
previously performed biological surveys. A bighorn bedding area and coyote den were
identified in the hillside above the site, as was a bat roost. The current project does not
propose to infringe on any of these areas.
Although the project site is mapped as critical habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep,
the current project, which includes only the valley floor area of the overall previously
studied site, is not habitat for the sheep4. The current project has eliminated development
to the toe of slope by including an Open Space area along the project perimeter, adjacent
to the toe of slope. This open space area will help to reduce potential conflicts between
bighorn sheep and project components. The potential conflicts which could occur as a
result of project buildout include access for bighorn sheep, poisonous plants currently
included in the project landscaping plan, and conflicts with domestic animals. All these
�— 2 "Biological Survey for La Quinta Resort and Club Real," prepared by Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc., July, 1998;
Letter report prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., July, 1998; and Letter report prepared by PCR
Services Corp., January, 2000.
3 PCR Services Corp, May, 2000.
4 Personal communication, Kimberly Nichol, California Department of Fish and Game, July 2003.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -13-
potential impacts can be mitigated, and mitigation measures have been included below
which will reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.
1. A three person committee shall be formed, consisting of a representative of the
Homeowners' Association (HOA), a representative of the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Community Development Director. The
purpose of the committee shall be to assess the need for a fence to keep Peninsular
bighorn sheep from entering the project site. The committee shall monitor sheep
activity through various means, including interviews with residents and visitors,
and any available scientific data available and/or funded by the HOA. If bighorn
sheep are seen on the project site, the committee shall require that the HOA, at its
expense, construct an 8 foot fence along the property line between the project and
the hillside. Gaps in the fence should be 11 centimeters or less. At the request of
CDFG, temporary fencing may be required between the time that sheep are seen
on the site and the time that permanent fencing is required. The committee shall
exist for a period of 10 years, unless bighorn sheep are documented to no longer
inhabit the Santa Rosa Mountains. At the end of ten (10) years, if any one member
of the committee deems it necessary for the committee shall continue, until such
time as it is dissolved by a unanimous vote of all its members.
2. The construction area shall be clearly delineated to keep project impacts off of
adjacent hillsides. The project proponent shall cause the project boundaries to be
staked and roped off or fenced at the edge of the property.
3. Non-native plant species known to be toxic to bighorn sheep (especially
Oleander), shall not be used on the project landscaping. The project landscaping
plan shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist and approved prior to the
installation of any landscaping on the site. The applicant shall furnish the
Community Development Department with written proof of biological approval
prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Domestic pets shall be prohibited on -site during construction.
5. The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project
site. The open space area along the boundary of the project shall be posted as
prohibited to dogs.
6. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either
persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides. A signage plan for the property
boundary, within the open space area, shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review and approval, demonstrating the location and
size of signage prohibiting access to the hillsides.
7. Should the project proponent wish to begin construction between January 1 and
June 30 of any given year, the project proponent shall confer with the California
Department of Fish and Game prior to any ground disturbing activity, to
determine whether an active bighorn sheep bedding area occurs immediately
above the project site. Should a lambing area be identified, the project proponent
shall implement mitigation measures, as required by CDFG. Should the initiation
of construction occur between July 1 and December 31 of any given year, no
contact with CDFG shall be required.
8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan
demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers used on the
SACity Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -14-
site, during both construction and operations, are not harmful to wildlife. The plan
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval.
9. Planning Area IV shall be landscaped entirely with native and endemic
landscaping.
10. The Specific Plan shall be amended to prohibit the construction of any structure or
pool in Planning Area IV.
11. All trails within Planning Area IV shall be clearly delineated, and shall not lead to
the hillsides adjacent to the property.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, August 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, August 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
Assessment Report," CRM Tech, August 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, August
2003)
V. a), b) & d) Both Phase I and Phase II studies were conducted on the project site, for the previously
proposed projects. The Phase I analysis identified a total of 8 potential sites, 4 historic and
4 prehistoric, which qualified as potentially significant under CEQA. The Phase II site
investigation, including shovel survey, determined that the artifacts were superficial, and
that there appeared to be no buried deposits on the site. The artifacts located on the
surface were properly inventoried and curated, and primarily identified as relating to the
construction of the La Quinta Resort in the 1930s. However, the study recommends that
during earth moving activities, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained and present on site during all on and
off site earth moving activities. Proof of retention of a qualified monitor shall be
provided to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first
earth moving permit for the site. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or
redirect earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall file a report with the
Community Development Department immediately following completion of earth
moving activities, on the findings at the site.
"Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the La Quinta Resort and Club Real..." prepared by RMW Paleo
Associates, 1999. Also "Pashe II Archaeological Site Assessment for the Villa La Quinta Project," Statistical
Research, Inc., January, 2000.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -16-
2. A conservation easement, or a condition, shall be placed within the CC&R's for
preservation of the historic milling stations. The conservation easement shall be
in perpetuity; if a condition is placed within the CC&R's, the City shall have the
right to accept or reject any and all amendments to the CC&R's. During grading
activities, the milling stations shall be roped off and preserved. The City Attorney
shall review the conservation easement and/or CC &R's before being recorded
with the County of Riverside.
V. c) The site is in a low probability area for paleontologic resources, and no impacts are
therefore expected from development of the project site6.
Exhibit 6.8, City of la Quinta General Plan.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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,
X
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
X
Exhibit 6.2)
Iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
Iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i), iv), b)-e)
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it subject to
high winds. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would support septic tanks. The proposed
project will have no impact on these geologic hazards.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -18-
VI. a) ii) The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of
seismic activity. The site is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City Building
Department has implemented California Building Codes which are intended to lower the
potential impacts associated with groundshaking to less than significant levels. The City
Engineer requires that site specific geologic investigations be submitted with the
submittal of building plans. This investigation, which will include borings of site soils,
will include recommendations for soil compaction and excavation, and will identify soils
susceptible to settlement, if they occur on site.
VI. a) iii) The site is located adjacent to the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and to an
area designated as highly susceptible to rock fall in the event of a seismic activity.
Although the proposed project does not encroach into the hillside, rock fall could be an
issue due to this adjacency. Therefore, in order to assure that the potential impacts from
rock fall are mitigated to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
1. As part of the site -specific geotechnical analysis required for the project with
submittal of building plans, the project geologist shall include an analysis of the
surrounding steep hillsides, and shall make recommendations about the stability
of these hillsides in his report. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits, and/or during map
processing activities.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled 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
X
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
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -20-
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed project will result in the construction of attached single family residences
and resort residential residences. No concentration of hazardous materials is expected in
these homes. The City implements household hazardous waste programs through its solid
waste franchisee. The site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor is
it subject to wildland fires.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
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 (e.g., 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-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Grading,
Site Hydrology)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
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 Grading, Site Hydrology)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (Project
Grading, Site Hydrology)
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -22-
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area 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 flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The proposed project includes the construction of 94 townhomes for permanent
residency, and 186 resort residential units for temporary occupancy. The Coachella Valley
Water District has developed factors for water usage, which assign factors for various
land uses. The factor for condominiums, which comes closest to the description of the
proposed project, is 6.36 acre feet per year per acre. Using this factor, it can be estimated
that the proposed project will utilize 283.7 acre feet of water per year. This usage level is
consistent with that of residential and resort projects analyzed in the General Plan EIR, as
well as the District's Water Management Plan. The Plan includes provisions for
conservation and recharge which will assure that the Lower Thermal water basin will
cease to be in an overdraft condition in the long term. The project will be required to
implement the City's standards for water conserving fixtures, as well as its drought
tolerant landscaping standards. These standards will help assure that impacts to water
resources are less than significant.
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 within the open spaces proposed for the project.
A hydrology study was completed for the proposed project. The City Engineer requires
that these retention areas retain the 100-year storm on -site, which was identified as being
46.1 acre feet in the study. The retention basins designed for the open space area provide
a storage capacity of 47.6 acre feet, which exceeds the flows expected in a 100-year
storm. The improvements proposed will assure that the impacts associated with flooding
are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The project site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year storm area.
"Tract 31379 Hydrology and Hydraulics," prepared by MDS Consulting, July 2003.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
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
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is located north of the existing La Quinta Resort, and west and
northwest of low density residential areas. The parcel is designated Tourist Commercial
and Open Space on the General Plan Land Use Map. This designation allows resort
residential land uses such as those proposed for the project site. The density of the
proposed project is consistent with both its land use designation and the surrounding
development. The land is outside the fee payment area for the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource 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
X
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.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-3 Zone, and is not known to have resources,
especially as the project is proposed only on the alluvial area of the site, not the hillside.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a) & c) Two types of noise impacts are possible at the site: the impacts of traffic noise on
residents of the project site, and the impacts to surrounding land uses from construction
activities. The former is addressed in the following discussion, while the latter is
discussed under item XI.d).
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -26-
A noise analysis was performed as part of the previously prepared Draft EIR, and updated
E for the proposed project The DEIR analysis showed existing noise levels of 69.7 to 70.2
dBA CNEL at locations immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The updated
analysis showed that without mitigation, traffic noise generated on Eisenhower Drive
would reach 73.7 dBA CNEL at the right of way, and 65.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of
140 feet from the right of way, where the first residential structure is planned. The update
memorandum further states that the project design includes a 6 foot wall and landscaping
intervening between the roadway and the first residential structure, and that this will
reduce. the noise level at this structure to 55.5 dBA CNEL The City's standard for
sensitive receptors such as residential units is 65 dBA CNEL. The traffic noise impacts to
residents of the project will be, therefore, less than significant.
XI. d) Although the property immediately north of the project site is not yet complete, it is likely
that there will be residents in that subdivision at the time that the proposed project is
under construction. These residential land uses will be sensitive receptors, and will be
susceptible to noise impacts associated with grading and construction activities. In order
to assure that the adjacent residences are not significantly impacted by construction
activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating on the site shall be fitted with
properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located in the southwestern quarter of the site, as far away from existing homes
and the surrounding hillsides as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
4. Walls proposed for the south and east property lines shall be constructed with the
first phase of development.
XI. b), e)-f) Residential land use will not generate ground borne vibrations. The project is not located
in the vicinity of either an airport of airstrip.
Memorandum dated July 30, 2003, PCR Services Corp.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
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
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The 94 permanent homes on the property and 186 resort residential units will not generate
substantial growth. The employees generated on the project site will be limited to
clubhouse employees, and some housekeeping employees who will be required to clean
the rented units. The property is an in -fill vacant parcel which will continue the pattern of
development in this area, and will not displace housing of people.
S:\City Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -28-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
X
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)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
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 in its entirety, and
transient occupancy tax for the resort residential component, 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 number of permanent residents will be small, open space and
recreational facilities will be offered on site, and the visitors will be allowed to use the
facilities of the adjacent La Quinta Resort.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
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
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project has the potential to generate an additional 220 permanent residents,
who will have access to the private open space proposed within the project. These
facilities will offset the need for other recreation facilities within the City.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
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
X
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
X
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 due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project site is designated Tourist Commercial and Open Space, and was
analyzed as such in the General Plan EIR, which found that levels of service would
remain at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout. In addition, traffic studies have been
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -31-
prepared for the project site, both for the previous project and for the current proposal9.
The traffic impacts associated with the current project represent a 10% reduction in total
potential traffic generated at the site, resulting in an average number of daily trips totaling
2,518. The traffic analysis found that the traffic generated by the proposed project, plus
surrounding traffic increases, would result in off -site traffic improvement needs as
follows:
Washington Street/Avenue 50:
■ One right turn lane for northbound movement
■ One left turn lane and one through lane for southbound movement
■ One through lane for eastbound movement
■ One through lane for westbound movement
These improvements are included in the City's Development Impact Fee improvement
program.
The update to the Traffic Impact Analysis further concluded that the mitigation measures
previously proposed for the site should be applied to the current project. These mitigation
measures are included below.
The design of the entry way was reviewed for traffic safety by the City Engineer. In this
review, it was found that the entry drive does not provide sufficient stacking to safely
allow automobiles to "stack" at the entry, and that the entry drive width was insufficient
to allow for safe vehicular movements in and out of the project site. Specifically, in the
first instance, the location of Lot F, the drive which provides access to the property
immediately to the north, is located too close to the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and
Coachella Drive. Should multiple vehicles arrive at the site simultaneously, vehicles
could obstruct the public right of way. In order to mitigate this potential hazard, a
distance of at least 75 feet must be provided between the intersection and Lot F to provide
stacking for four vehicles. Such a mitigation measure is provided below, in order to lower
the impacts to a less than significant level. In the second instance, the driveway width
must be wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction, also to
ensure that there is sufficient stacking space to avoid conflicts with the public right of
way. The driveway should be a minimum of 24 feet in width in each direction between
Lot F and the Eisenhower Drive intersection, to allow a left/through lane and a right turn
only lane in each direction. In conjunction with this requirement, the proposed
roundabout shown on the plans must be eliminated, to allow sufficient space to provide
the required safety improvements. Such mitigation measures are included below.
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall contribute the
established Development Impact Fee in effect at the time of building permit
application.
2. The project proponent shall coordinate each phase of development with the
SunLine Transit Agency, to address the need for an additional bus stop for the
9 "Villa La Quinta Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by VRPA Technologies, February, 2000; and Memorandum
dated June 25, 2003, from Erik Ruehr, also VRPA Technologies.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -32-
project. Should a bus stop be required, the project proponent shall be responsible
for its design and construction, after approval by both SunLine and the City.
3. The entry drive shall be 'redesigned to provide the following:
a. A minimum of 75 feet distance from the project boundary at Eisenhower
Drive and Lot F (the access driveway to the adjacent property on the
north), unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
b. The elimination of the roundabout at Lot A and Lot F.
C. Driveway width of 24 feet minimum in each direction for Lot A, from Lot
F to the project boundary at Eisenhower Drive, striped and marked to
allow a left/through lane and a dedicated right turn lane in each direction,
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures,. impacts associated with both
traffic capacity and traffic safety will be reduced to a less than significant level.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -33-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
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
X
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) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project 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) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
SACity Clerk\EA478 Ckist Centex 2003 - Final.doc -34-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The General Plan land use designation for this
property was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and levels of usage and service were
found to be acceptable. The water usage for the project is discussed in detail in section
VHI, above. The proposed project is not expected to generate a need for utilities any
higher than that previously analyzed either in the General Plan, or in the previous
environmental analysis. The City and utility providers continue to implement
conservation measures, particularly for water, wastewater and solid. waste, which will
help in reducing consumption of these resources in the long term.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -35-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
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
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
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
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The proposed project will implement a number of mitigation measures designed to lower
the potential impacts to habitat and specific species to a less than significant level. The
site itself is not anticipated to be home to species of concern, but is adjacent to habitat for
the Peninsular bighorn sheep. The mitigation measures included in this document will
ensure that the potential impacts to this species are eliminated.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan through the
construction of a variety of housing and resort products, which support the General Plan
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -36-
X4 j
goals for diversity in housing and a broad economic base to ensure the long term
economic health of the community.
XVII. c) The proposed project falls well within the potential densities assigned to this parcel in the
General Plan, and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project does not
intensify land uses over those planned for this area or the City as a whole. No increase in
cumulative impacts is expected to result from implementation of the proposed project.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings in the areas of air
quality, noise and traffic and circulation. These items have been addressed individually
above, and mitigation measures, including changes to the project design and construction
techniques mandated by the City and other responsible agencies, have been proposed
under each category which will ensure that the potential impacts to human beings are
reduced to a less than significant level.
SACity Clerk\EA478 Cklst Centex 2003 - Final.doc -37-
cct
c�
U
A
0
�w
0
0
O
U
O
M
.�
OM
O .--�
'� O
4, N
�
y O
� y
•
OZ�
U
o
Z••
O
Q,
W
O ►-�
'�
�O�
U c
A
��a
O
�O>
a
�aA
O
Cd
O
ON
N
g >
, O
t
�.
�+
�a
00
M
A
M
N
t
Q
Tf O
cn F-+ N
w
U
••
•
..z
a�
~a
EW-+w
-e
M
E-+
Q
z
�A
a�
�w
UV
~
vn
•°
O
.r
o
•� -c
a,
°
a.
a
,H/
rry
d !
• V
ED
0
c
y
rod
OU I >,
C ed
u ISO�+
dp
C
b4
C
C
O
O 4"
.. 0
O
..,
.0
°+"
0
v
z
U
E-4
C W
C
rA
c
•°
'C
to
v 0 ^ v
0
CU
CO
QU
CIO a
a. a
a c,
a b)
A
A
A
a
a
C
wz
c
0
V
�O
�H
Z
�
W�
� W
W
•�
��
c
c
c
g
U U
U
m
U A
GA
GA
z
G
p O
a•
o
c
►-�
c
o
y y
C
c 3
"C C
' �
v .0
N
d
v�
a
O
N
4,
O
a
ao
.c
C
~
RS
U
C
v
�ccy
C
�
c
CIS~,
kn
A
a
S a
►�
2 3
A
z °q
�W
ax
�w
uU
o
o
cn
C
d
H
a
oN
�,
��x��o
�
EE
to
C
u V=
U
co
CQ
m
cz
Cd
U-oU-°c'�au
o
o
o
W
tw
❑
o
'�
'c
E
'ct
v
4;
v
w
o
w w
0 0
(7
o
4-4
4.0
o
o
w
w
a
o. a
H
3
C
co
0
3
3
��
co
ai
.� c.
.�
� o
o o
to
.^
o o
c
c
o >
o
>
o�
,off o�
Ux
aE
S.
A�UxUx
aE
aE
as
a,aaa
c
o
•'
u
cu
w z
a
c
a
=
c.
a,
E.
a
a. a
(U
o
o
o
Q
o
0
0 0
Coria>i
00
t
t
c.
a>i
ai
>
>
> >
C
w
E
E
E a E
E
E
E E
a
Ea.
Ea
__
EcoE�
C7
E�
EM
Em
°'oC"n
'�
°
'�
o
0 o 4
Q
o
0)
o(U
0 0 0 0
o a�
UCH
c
W
o a)
VA
GQ
uC)um
V
UQ
um
u Q u m
Z
V
°
•°
a)
> 10
O ONO
thU
"C
>
bA
—+ +C�
cd
En
c
.0
o
rA
En
,�
a�
;•v
o
.5 -v o
a4
c
�c
o
E o
i
�.�
.o E
o
.
—.
ai
O
E
u -o°•
�,
a�
v a
�;rA
°
c°
Q '�
a
co
u
o
rA
Cd
c.�,
0 to
Cl)>
� c
ct
r0
A
�
Z
U
a'
Z
cn a
a E
Z F�
A
dA
a�
a
�w
OV
cc
w
rr� a a
b4
C
�
O
bQ
A �
a
�
z
a
�a
�o
A
w�
8�a sa
UA
V
U
0
�
E
v�
S .=
S. LV
ww
a�
� o
CD
A
dA
av
Ox
UU
a
�
w
a
bA
C
C
E+
Ld
�
.rA
O A
O
a c.
a
w c�
z
�a
�o
ap
c
WW
a
=
w
U
Z
w
�.y
.�
U
0
ad
o
b0
O
o
a
W
°D
Ey
A
z
dA
a X
�w
OV
.
dC�
0
0
0
c
w
DO
COO
O
O
O
.0
H
v
v
v
p 0
CA
z
a
a.
a
o.
z
b0
c
00
C
b0
c
b4
c
�v
a�
E
O c
W
o
o
c
C
(D
V
�
E
N
C N
O
..
•--'
p
,.�
O
a
,
o
o 3
i
C
os
CA
W
C
.
..�
¢._
us
3:
w
d
A
z
dw
aV
Ox
VV
Q
a�
`�
a�
c
co ti
U
E
co
a
U
a
a4
c
�
�
co
Cd
�
�7
w
0
w
0.2 �
o co
U
� U
U
cd
.� rA
Co
rA
co
O
�; O O
O
O
O
.., ed
O
..�
2...
Q
a�
c6 a ten,
a a co
a
=
0
O
�0.4
z z
CIS
a.
Q
A
c
a
x
�v
E
w
o
U Q
U
z
o
•�
�
w
H
co
a
,c
E
v�
E
,>
pro
3
06cm
o
c
a�
yC
a
U -c
04