CC Resolution 2004-003RESOLUTION NO. 2004-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-096, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-117, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-069 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31798
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-486
ROBERT SELAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6' day of January, 2004, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-486, prepared for General Plan
Amendment 2003-096, Zone Change 2003-117, Specific Plan 2003-069 and
Tentative Tract Map 31798 (hereinafter "Project"), a request by Robert Selan to
develop a gated 250-unit common undivided interest subdivision, with
clubhouse/restaurant and ancillary uses on a t 21 acre site, located at the
northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as
follows:
LOT 47 of TR 24889, BOOK 210
PAGES 38 THROUGH 52, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23' day of December, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment
2003-486, prepared for the proposed Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23' day of December, 2003, adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-110, recommending that the La Quinta City Council certify
Environmental Assessment 2003-486, prepared for the proposed Project; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development
Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2000-486) and
determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce
any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and,
Resolution No. 2004-003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 6, 2004
Page 2
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City
Council did make the following findings to certify said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Project applications will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in
any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City
standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed.
The Project will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause 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.
2. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed Project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
3. The proposed Project applications will not have the potential to achieve short
term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects or environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment which can not be mitigated.
4. The proposed Project applications will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned
or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development
activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project
approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and
mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects,
and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the
proposed Project.
5. The proposed Project applications will not have environmental effects that
will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already
assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
Resolution No. 20044003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 6. 2004
Page 3
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the Project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-486 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption
of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
9. The location and custodian of the City's records related to this Project is the
Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case;
2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-486 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the
Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 6th day of January 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
DON A LPH, ayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2004-003
Environmental Assessment 2003-486 - Robert Selan
Adopted: January 6, 2004
Page 4
ATTEST:
JUN . GREEK, CMC, ,Ity Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. KATHIECRINE JENSOISf, City At rney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Assessment 2003-486
Environmental Checklist Form
l . Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-096, Zone Change 2003-117, Specific Plan 2003-069,
Tentative Tract Map 31798, Watermark Villas
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. APN: 772-220-007
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Robert Selan
23-679 Calabasas Road, #386
Calabasas, CA 91302
6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning:
Current - Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed - Medium High Density Residential
Current - Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed - Medium High Density
Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of
the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
The proposed project site consists of 21 acres located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52. The site is in agricultural use, but commercially dormant. The proposed project would
result in the construction of up to 250 condominium units, 9 swimming pools, 2 lighted tennis courts, a
clubhouse/restaurant, an office with sundry store, and ancillary facilities. The project proposes 31 two
story, eight unit buildings and one single story two unit building, all with underground parking.
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to change the land use designation from
its current Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential, to allow the residential
land use.
The Specific Plan has been prepared to establish design standards and guidelines for the project. The
Specific Plan does not, however, include floor plans or elevations, and no Site Development Permit
application has been submitted.
The Tentative Tract Map is required to allow conveyance of the condominiums.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
North: Single family residential, golf course - Citrus Course Country Club
South: Avenue 52, Vacant, Golf Course (Silver Rock Ranch)
West: Single family residential, golf course - Mountain View Country Club
East: Vacant Neighborhood Commercial
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation 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,
X there will 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.
Name / Signature / Title Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the 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(cx3)(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 that 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.
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 projects environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
-3-
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
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 proposed project occurs on both Primary (Jefferson Street) and Secondary (Avenue
52) Image Corridors. As such, landscaped parkways will be required to conform to the
requirements for Image Corridors in the General Plan. The project proposes to maintain a
number of the date palm trees as part of the project landscaping. This landscaping feature
will improve the aesthetic of the site both for residents and for those traveling on both
Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Impacts associated with scenic vistas and aesthetics are
expected to be less than significant.
I. d) ' The proposed project site is currently vacant. The project will generate light from
landscaping lighting as well as from lighting of the proposed tennis courts on the eastern
boundary of the project. All lighting is required to be contained on -site, including the
lighting for the tennis courts, which will have to be shielded to ensure that they illuminate
only the courts themselves. No stadium type lighting will be allowed. The standards
imposed by the City for project lighting will therefore lower impacts to less than
significant levels.
-4-
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?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a-c) The proposed project site is, and has been, a date palm grove. The proposed project
design proposes to maintain a number of the date palm trees within the landscaping,
which will preserve ' this traditional agricultural feature on site. The date palm trees can
successfully continue production in the urban environment, and should be maintained as
producing trees once integrated into the site. The site's size, 21 acres, limits its potential
for long term agricultural potential, especially since the location is entirely urban in
nature. The site's value as agricultural land, therefore, is considerably limited by both its
size and location. Its loss in agricultural production will be a less than significant impact
on agricultural resources in the area.
-5-
Potentially
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 that
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, b & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will result
in up to 250 residential dwelling units, which could generate up to 1,465 trips per day'.
Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following
emissions are expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6 h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Residential Condominium category.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
' Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,465 x 15 = 21,975
PMI0 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 19,977.75 51,421.50 10,548.00 - 219.75 219.75
Pounds at 50 mph 4.37 113.51 23.28 - 0.49 0.49
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,465 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 750F, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality are therefore
expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. 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 554.4 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. 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.
l . Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-7-
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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower hydroseed mix
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street shall be
installed immediately following mass grading of the site.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. 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.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
-8-
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?
("Watermark Villas Biological Resources
Survey," AMEC, October 2003)
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?
("Watermark Villas Biological Resources
Survey," AMEC, October 2003)
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? ("Watermark
Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC,
October 2003 )
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? ("Watermark
Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC,
October 2003)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
-9-
policy or ordinance? ("Watermark Villas
Biological Resources Survey," AMEC, October
2003)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? ("Watermark
Villas Biological Resources Survey," AMEC,
October 2003)
IV. a-f)A biological resource survey was prepared for the project site 2. The survey found that the
agricultural activity had significantly impacted the site's potential for indigenous species,
and that the likelihood that sensitive species, including the Burrowing Owl, occurred on
the site was extremely low. The survey included both site inspections and record
searches. In the site inspections, no Burrowing Owl was observed on the site. Although
the species can often be found in agricultural lands, date palm groves, which do not
provide clear views of the species predators, are not suitable for their use. The survey
further did not identify species under consideration in the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan on the site. Given its use as agricultural land, and its
relatively isolated location, with development on two sides and roadways on two sides,
the site's value for indigenous species is limited. Impacts of development of the project
site on biological resources are expected to be less than significant.
2 "Watermark Villas Biological Resources Survey," prepared by MEC Earth and Environmental, October 2003.
U11!
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in ' 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..,"
CRM Tech, October 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
Assessment," CRM Tech, October 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey," CRM Tech, October 2003)
V. a, b & d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the project site 3. The records search
identified several sites in the area of the proposed project, but none immediately adjacent;
while the historic record shows structures on the property dating back 60+ years which
are no longer in existence. The field survey identified neither historic nor archaeological
resources on the site. Since cultural resources can remain buried, including on
agriculturally active sites, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to
assure that any buried artifact is adequately mitigated.
1. Should any historic or archaeological artifact be uncovered during any earth
moving activity on the site, all work shall cease, and an archaeological monitor
shall be retained to evaluate the material. 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.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to
cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2003.
-11-
V. c) A paleontologic survey was conducted for the project site 4. The study included both
records searches and field surveys. The field surveys found remains of freshwater snails
and mollusks, which are considered evidence of Halocene Lake Cahuilla lakebed. The
study further found that excavation at the site could result in the identification of
additional materials, and that impacts could be significant without mitigation. The
following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented:
l . A paleontologic monitor shall be on site during earth moving activities on any
portion of the site where undisturbed Lake Cahuilla lakebeds occur. The monitor
shall quickly salvage any uncovered fossils and avoid construction delays. The
monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth -moving activities. All
specimens shall be professionally collected, cleaned and curated. The monitor
shall file a report with the Community Development Department immediately
following completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site.
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to paleontologic resources
will be reduced to less than significant levels.
4 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 2003.
-12-
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? ("Geotechnical Engineering
Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October
2003)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Earth
Systems Southwest, October 2003)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report," Earth Systems Southwest,
October 2003)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Engineering
X
Report," Earth Systems Southwest, October
2003)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical
Engineering Report," Earth Systems Southwest,
October 2003)
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
("Geotechnical Engineering Report," Earth
Systems Southwest, October 2003)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
-13-
disposal of wastewater? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a-e) A geotechnical study was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found that the
site is located in a seismic Zone 4, and that like other parts of the City, a significant
earthquake in the region will result in significant groundshaking at the project site. The
study also found that the soils at the site are suitable for both the above -ground and
underground facilities planned for the site. The City Engineer will require site specific
analysis of the soil conditions on the site with the submittal of grading and building
permits. These analyses will provide the City with the data to ensure that the structures
are constructed to a sufficient standard to withstand significant ground shaking.
The study also determined that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction, landslides or
expansive soils. Although the site is subject to high winds, the applicant will be required
to submit a PM 10 Management Plan (see Air Quality, above), which will ensure that
impacts associated with wind erosion are reduced to less than significant levels.
5 "Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 21 Acre Development..." prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
October, 2003.
-14-
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)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted,
-15-
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 construction of residential uses on the proposed project site will not result in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of the Household Hazardous Waste programs through its waste provider. These
regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project
itself, are less than significant.
-16-
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? (Specific Plan)
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 that would
result in flooding on- or off -site? (Specific
Plan)
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? (Specific Plan)
f) Place housing - within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
-17-
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 that would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The proposed project will generate a need for water for residential units and
landscaping. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan, which indicates that it
has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area.
The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and
replenishment measures, which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The
project proponent will also 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. The Coachella Valley Water District will impose conditions
of approval for the treatment of wastewater from the facilities constructed on the project
site. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards,
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters.
These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be 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 project. The City Engineer requires
that these retention areas retain the 100-year storm on site, and this will be accomplished
in the landscaped areas of the project. These City requirements are expected to lower
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e-g) The construction of the proposed project 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.
-1 s-
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 Specific Plan and Tract Map will result in the construction of residential
units consistent with surrounding development in the area. The General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change will increase the amount of Medium High Density Residential land
available in the City. The site is located at an intersection where three of the four corners
are now designated for neighborhood commercial development, and the use of this site as
neighborhood commercial is therefore less likely. The proposed project will not conflict
with General Plan designations or policies, and is expected to represent an extension of
the existing development in the area.
-19-
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-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE 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? (("Preliminary Noise
Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October
2003)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ("Preliminary
Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads,
October 2003)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Preliminary Noise Study," prepared
by Urban Crossroads, October 2003)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Preliminary Noise
Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October
2003)
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)
-21-
XI. a-f)A noise impact study was conducted for the proposed project 6. The study found that unmitigated
noise levels at the subject property can be expected to exceed the City's standards for
both exterior and interior noise levels, due to the high volume of traffic expected on both
Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. These noise levels, however, can be mitigated through
physical improvements to the site, as follows:
1. A minimum 5-foot high wall shall be constructed along the entire frontage of the
property on Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The wall shall be of solid
construction, with no openings or cutouts.
2. All buildings along Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 shall be provided with a
"windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation.
3. Homes on Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 shall be provided with weather-stripped
solid core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assemblies which are free of cut
outs and openings.
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise
generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. Sensitive
receptors occur immediately west and north of the project site. They could be subjected to
higher noise levels during construction operations. In order to assure that impacts to the
occupied dwelling units is less than significant, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented.
1. All construction activities shall occur during the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
2. All stationary equipment shall be placed as far away from existing residential
development as possible once construction begins on the project site.
3. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with well maintained and operative
mufflers.
6 "APN 772-220-007 Preliminary Noise Study," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 2003.
Ritz
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 project site is currently in agriculture, and there will be no displacement or need for
additional housing as a result of the proposed project. The project will provide additional
Medium High Density Residential Development in the City, and broaden the variety of
housing available for current and future residents. Impacts associated with population and
housing are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
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 County
Sheriff and Fire Departments will serve the proposed project, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax, which will assist in offsetting
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.
-24-
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 includes on site recreational amenities, including swimming pools,
tennis courts and landscaped open space areas, which will provide recreational
opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities.
-25-
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 that 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 nLlmber of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
("Traffic Impact Report...," Paul Singer, PE,
September, 2003)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? ("Traffic Impact Report...," Paul
Singer, PE, September, 2003)
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)? ("Traffic
Impact Report...," Paul Singer, PE, September,
2003)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? .(Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
("Traffic Impact Report...," Paul Singer, PE,
September, 2003)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
-26-
XV. a-g) A traffic impact report was prepared for the proposed project'. The traffic impact report
found that the daily trips associated with the proposed project will not significantly
impact the circulation at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Further, the
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, from a commercial to a residential land
use, will provide an overall reduction in trips at this intersection, since a commercial
project at this location would result in considerably higher traffic volumes, particularly
during the peak hour. The traffic study also found that access from the project site on
Avenue 52 should be right in-right-out/left-in only, and that on Jefferson should be right -
in -right -out only. No other mitigation measures are necessary.
"Traffic Impact Report for Watermark Villas at SilverRock Ranch," prepared by Paul Singer, P.E., September 2003.
-27-
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.)
-28-
XVI. a-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. No significant
impacts are expected as a result of the construction of the proposed project.
-29-
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 that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having a potential for paleontologic resources. However,
mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents. The proposed project varies from the
standard subdivision often proposed in the City, and will broaden the City's housing
stock.
-30-
F.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will reduce cumulative
traffic impacts by changing the land use from commercial to residential.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and
the site will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause negative health
effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the
potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been mitigated above to less than
significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
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 that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-31-
N
U
d
0
a�
ti
O
O
U
3
0
0
o
z
o
N
a
Z
O
d
H
A
"
p
wU�
a
daa
d
� o
N �
M
� O
� O
O N
o a
N U 00
�M
'C3 �
O
CIS
U �
ch Cfj
64
a N >
0000
�
4�
A
. N
C7 U H
N
o
A�
o
z�
H
�
a
A
V
W
d
F
A
z
dWWA
a
�w
OV
a
U
o
o
,ce
o
c
c
bA
C
�
=
.
o
. O
04
0
O
O
iZr
U
=
U
O
U
O .�• Oto C
C
CCIO
C
C
a
a
o.a,
a
ma do
A
A
A
A
a
a�
W z
G
0
0
O
>
c
Acd
cc
0
W
W
.�+
•L7
�
TJ
C
"C
'Ly
U
V
V
m
U A
GA
GQ
pq
pQ
>,
O
cd
o..,
Q
p O
bA
°"
�'
• --
c�
..+
c E
M
o
cts
i••i
U
O O
O
bA s., cd
bb
cd
N
�,
c
>
r Co
a�
0
a
cis
0
d
O
�.
.c
•�
�
a�
c
3
a ._
E
N
c
~' •3
2
c* tn
� N
C
.N
co
o f
o
w°
a.
GA
�;
A4
►� c
-0
.� vNi Z
W
o Cc
) " 0
E�
A
ZA
A
a�
UV
a
� �
y
V1 Vf
py
40.
o
v) am U� as
a c
A � A
a
z�
UA VA
zbo
W
�0
uo
o o
wo
O
y
O .0 W y
�
cis
b0 C
O
V O O
C E
cc
d0 aa�
A
z
a
�w
av
Ox
UU
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
U
c
c
c
•c
•c
,c
G�
c
cd
..
O
O
OV
--
b4
-o'er
cd M
Cco
A U
A U
A U
a
oz
t:
t:
z z
c.
o,
as
a
a
cz
.
a
A
A
A
Q
Q
Q
w
c
c
c
c
c
c
kn
O
c
:°
00
a
o
U
-od
0,�
b oti
�c
c
.�
c
U
C
N
�
�,
C
c
3 o
c cEM
aci
r-i
O
�'
° E., �
N
a •° C.
'C
3
0.. co
'E c
, C
�
cr
..
.c a
`"
y° `� cv
o
�D 3
co
c
o c
�
v,
3 E
3 -0
° c am
�cz
o .�
•� �
A
�
N
� O
0
0 0.0 >Cd
s.. b4
`n • iC
�
o>
o �,
o o �,-v
> >...
0 0
0