CC Resolution 2004-033RESOLUTION NO. 2004-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-094, ZONE CHANGE 2003-03-
115 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31348.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-479
APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 181'' day of November, 16h day of December, 2003, and on the 16t'' day of
March, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental
Assessment 2003-479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change
land use and zoning designations from Community Commercial and Medium
Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide t 37.72 acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots and one open
space lot), generally located on the west side of Washington Street at 46-201
Washington Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 604-050-009 & 010; 643-170-001 & 002
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23'd day of September, 28" day of October, 2003, and on
the 24t' day of February, 2004, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-479 for a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change to change land use and zoning designations from Community Commercial
and Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and for a Tentative
Tract Map to subdivide t 37.72 acres into 73 lots (72 single-family residential lots
and one open space lot); and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2003-479, and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact is recommended for certification; and,
Resolution No. 2004-033
Environmental Assessment 03-479
Madison Development, LLC
March 16, 2004
Pa9e2
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the project site has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
3. 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 in that, the Environmental Assessment imposes mitigation
measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than
significant levels as identified in the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed 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 proposed project in that the site will be developed
with less intensity than the current land use designations under the General
Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which
would affect human health, risk potential, or public services.
Resolution No. 2004-033
Environmental Assessment 03-479
Madison Development, LLC
March 16, 2004
Page3
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-479 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. 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).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-479 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist 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 16h day of March, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2004-033
Environmental Assessment 03-479
Madison Development, LLC
March 16, 2004
Page4
DONALD ADO PH, M yor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN . REEK, CMC, City
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSO ty Attorney
City of La Quinta, Califo la
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003-094, Zone Change 2003-115, Tentative Tract
Map 31348
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: West side of Washington Street, immediately south of the Plaza La Quinta
Shopping Center, and north of Crestview Drive
APN: 604-050-009, -010, 643-170-001, -002
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Madison Development, LLC
71361 San Gorgonio Rd.
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning:
Current: Low Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, Community Commercial and
Open Space
Proposed: Low Density Residential and Open
Space
Current: Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential,
Community Commercial and Open
Space
Proposed: Low Density
Residential and 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designations on 37.72
acres from Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential
and Open Space to Low Density Residential and Open Space. The Open Space designation
occurs on the western half of the property. The Community Commercial designation occurs
on the northeasterly portion of the property, and represents approximately one eighth of the
acreage. The Medium Density Residential designation occurs on the northcentral portion of
the property, and represents approximately one quarter of the property. The balance of the
site, along the eastern section of the property, is designated Low Density Residential. The
proposed change would result in Low Density Residential designations on all lands currently
designated Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density
Residential. The Open Space designation, which occurs immediately west of the toe of slope,
will remain as currently designated.
EA.03.4791 -1-
Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of 37.72 acres into 72 single family lots and one
open space lot. Access to the project will be provided from both Washington Street and
Highland Palms Drive. An area of approximately 0.4 acres will be dedicated to on -site
retention. The residential lots would range in size from 8,133 to 16,409 square feet.
After the project's initial review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the latter
directed the consideration and review of several options for circulation into and out of the
site. The concerns of the City Council included traffic safety issues such as accelerating and
decelerating vehicles at the project entrances, as well as turning movements associated with
the project entrance. Four options were developed, and are described below.
Option 1 — This option includes the original proposal, which was an access driveway into the
tract centered along the tract frontage on Washington Street with a 100-foot long southbound
deceleration lane. The entrance on Highland Palms Drive would full access for residents and
emergency vehicles.
Option 2 — This option proposes an access driveway into the tract from a newly reconfigured
intersection at Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street with a 200-foot long southbound
deceleration lane into the project and a traffic signal. This option would require the
acquisition of two private residences on Singing Palms Drive, the installation of a roadway
west of the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive, and installation of a traffic
signal at the same intersection. The intersection would be configured to accommodate full
turning movements. The new roadway would provide direct access to a proposed
development (TTM 31348) and to the existing neighborhood south of the site.
Option 3 — This option would allow a right -in only access driveway into the tract from the
reconfigured frontage road alignment near the southerly portion of the tract on Washington
Street with a 200-foot long southbound deceleration lane. This option would require no
acquisition of private property, a deceleration lane for the proposed project, the installation of
an entry driveway on the west side of Washington Street with restricted turning movements
(right-in/right-out), and no traffic signal. Also, a dedicated one-way lane for the residents to
the south would remain as is currently provided. This would also provide a way for the
residents exiting the proposed development to access the signalized intersection at
Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive via the frontage road.
Option 4 — This option would allow an access driveway into the tract from a
reconfigured/combined access that would also serve the Plaza La Quinta shopping center,
with a 150-foot long southbound deceleration lane. Under this option' the existing access to
the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center on Washington Street would be removed.
Upon further consideration, Option 2C was selected as technically responding to both the
applicant's needs and the City's requirements. A General Plan Amendment (No. 2004-099) to
address the changes required in City Policy has been prepared and reviewed under CEQA
through the preparation of Environmental Assessment 2004-501. The approval of the General
Plan Amendment is required to allow the proposed project to proceed under Option 2C. This
Environmental Checklist has been prepared to review the potential environmental impacts
Associated with Option 2C on the proposed Tentative Tract Map (please see the discussion
. t.
EA.03.4791 -2-
under Noise, Section XI, and Traffic and Circulation, Section XV.) All other components of
the original analysis remain as originally prepared, and have not been changed because the
impacts associated with the proposal have not changed.
A draft and final EIR were previously prepared for a commercial project on the site. This
document, although not certified by the City, provides important technical background data
on the project site, and has been used in preparation of this environmental document.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Existing commercial retail shopping center (Plaza La Quinta)
South: Existing single family residential development
West: Vacant, Open Space lands
East: Washington Street, existing commercial retail shopping center (La Quinta Court)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
EA.03.4791 -3-
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
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 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.
Signature
EA.03.479
-4-
2113/ore
Date
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 XVH, "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.
EA.03.4791 -5-
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
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
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 site has previously been a residential and agricultural site. An
orchard is still present on the project site, as are some small structures. The proposed
project will consist of single family residential dwelling units, one story in height. The
proposed change in land use designation will result in a lowering of potential impacts
associated with scenic resources, since the structures can be expected to be smaller than
those which would be constructed for a commercial project or a medium density
residential project, both in bulk and height. The property is immediately adjacent to the
toe of slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the construction of single family
homes will not represent a significant obstruction to the slopes of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. Overall impacts to aesthetic resources are expected to be less than significant.
I. d) The project site will generate light from residential outdoor lighting, on a property which
currently does not generate light. All lighting on the site will be regulated by the City's
Dark Sky Ordinance, which ensures that lighting levels do not spill over onto other
properties. This standard, combined with the low lighting levels generated by residential
land uses, will ensure that impacts from light and glare are less than significant.
EA.03.4791 -6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the ro'ect:
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.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
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?
(Project description, site photos.)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site is still planted with date palms and fruit trees, and is at least
partially in production. The site is not, however, considered to be prime agricultural land
either in the City's General Plan, or in regional and state documents. The site is an
isolated parcel now surrounded by urban development, and has limited potential for
continued agricultural use. The significance of the site as an agricultural concern is
primarily associated with potential historic issues, which are discussed further in Section
V., Cultural Resources, below. The site will be converted to residential land uses which
have the potential to maintain the character of an orchard, however, through the planting
or relocating of date palms. This issue is discussed further in Section V.
As an isolated and low -production date farm, the site has limited value for agricultural
production, and is surrounded by urban land uses, and impacts associated with the loss of
this parcel to agriculture are expected to be less than significant.
EA.03.4791 -7-
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 which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 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
consist of the development of 72 single family residential units and associated
improvements. The residential units will generate approximately 708 vehicular trips per
day at buildout. These trips will generate the following emissions of criteria pollutants.
EA.03.4791 _8_
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Ave. Trip
Length (miles)
Total
miles/day
708 x 7 = 4,956
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 446.04 11,597.04 2,378.88 - 49.56 49.56
Pounds at 50 mph 0.98 25.60 5.25 - 0.11 0.11
SCAQMD Threshold
(1bsJday) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 72 market rate homes, ITE categories 210. 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. Impacts associated with these
pollutants are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (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 995.3 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In order to
mitigate the potential impacts associated with PM10 dust generation at the site, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
EA.03.4791 -9-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Crestview Terrace
shall be installed with the first phase of development.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
10. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM10 Management Plan.
EA.03.4791 -10-
Potentially
Less Than
IA= Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would theproject:
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.,
Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch,
September, 2001)
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.,
Draft EIR, The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch,
September, 2001)
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., Draft EIR,
The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September,
2001)
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., Draft EIR,
The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch, September,
2001)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
EA.03.4791 -11-
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff., Draft EIR, The Pointe at
Point Happy Ranch, September, 2001)
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? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently an underutilized date farm, and has been for almost
90 years. The probability of species of concern occurring on the project site are therefore
extremely low. The site is designated within the critical habitat boundary for the
Peninsular bighorn sheep, but those areas on the Valley floor are not appropriate for
sheep habitat, and those areas above the toe of slope will be preserved as open space.
Finally, the site's proximity to Highway 111, and the lack of sheep activity recorded in
the hillsides north of Avenue 48 (extended), make it unlikely that sheep frequent this
area.
A biological field survey was conducted for the previously proposed commercial project
for this sites. Although some natural communities were identified in this analysis, they
were clearly highly disturbed, and have little value. The only portion of the site which is
still relatively undisturbed, and which will continue to be so, is the hillside proposed for
preservation as open space. As such, impacts to biological resources on this portion of the
site are expected to be minimal.
The study did find, however, that potential habitat for loggerhead shrike occurs on the
property, particularly nesting and foraging habitat. The EIR further identified indirect
impacts to bighorn sheep as being possible for this site. The development of single family
residential dwellings will provide a different type of development on the project site, but
will ultimately have the same potential impacts to biological resources, insofar as the site
will be substantially altered from its current state.
One design change proposed by the applicant is a favorable improvement to the previous
proposal, and has eliminated the need for one mitigation measure. Specifically, the
applicant proposes the installation of a six foot high perimeter wall on all sides of the
property, including the adjacent lots to lot 73. With this design feature, the potential need
for a perimeter wall to protect sheep from the project site has been eliminated, and it has
not been included in the mitigation measures below.
Impacts to biological resources could be significant, without the implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
"Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pointe at Point Happy Ranch," prepared by Impact Sciences, Septemberr
2001.
EA.03.4791 -12-
1.
Should demolition, grubbing, earth moving or construction be planned for
initiation between February 15 and September 30, a field survey shall be
conducted to determine whether birds under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird
Act are nesting on the property. Should such nests be identified, buffer areas in
conformance with the Act, but no less than 50 feet in all directions, shall be
established where no construction activity is allowed, until such time as the
biologist determines that the nesting birds have discontinued use of the nest. The
required field survey shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for
demolition, grubbing, grading or building on the site.
2.
The project applicant shall provide an easement to the City, to be approved by the
City prior to recordation of the final map, ensuring the preservation of lot 73 as
open space in perpetuity.
3.
Blasting and pile -driving, or other excessively loud construction activity, shall be
prohibited from January 1 through June 30 of each year.
4.
All lighting on the project site shall be directed away from the hillsides. The
project CC&Rs shall include this prohibition for individual homeowners.
5.
Plants toxic to bighorn sheep shall be prohibited on the site. The project
proponent shall secure a clearance letter from a qualified biologist, certifying the
suitability of the plant palette for the project site. The project CC&Rs shall
include this prohibition for individual homeowners.
6.
The CC&Rs for the project shall prohibit dogs from running loose in the project
site.
7. The CC&Rs for the project shall include a provision prohibiting access by either
persons or animals to the adjacent hillsides.
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
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.
EA.03.4791 -13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the roject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5? ("A Phase I
Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point
Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. Al., March,
2001.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? "A
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the
Point Happy Ranch...," McKenna et. al., March,
2001.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("A Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...,"
McKenna et. al., March, 2001.)
V. a), b) & d) A cultural resource study was completed for the previous project proposed for this site2,
and revised at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee.
The study found that the site is a potentially important historical resource, insofar as it has
been in operation since the early 1920s. Potential resources on the site include residential
and farm structures, orchards and roads. All these were studied for the report, and
recommendations made as to their significance and disposition. The study found that the
site is subject to important potential oral history for the City and region. The study further
found that the structures on the site had limited or no historic value, primarily due to
significant alterations. The study did not, however, provide criteria for qualification as a
National Register structure. Finally, the study found that buried cultural deposits could
occur, and that site monitoring is warranted during earth moving activities. The
development of the residential project will have fewer impacts than that previously
proposed, however, the impacts to cultural resources will be similar, and must therefore
be mitigated, as described below:
2 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Ranch...," prepared by McKenna et. al., March,
2001, updated October 2003.
EA.03.4791 -14-
1. Prior to issuance of any grubbing or grading permit for the site, the project
proponent shall submit an Oral History to the Community Development
Department and La Quinta Historical Society. The oral history shall be prepared in
accordance with the City's and the Society's standards for such documents.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised Phase I Cultural Resources Report regarding
the regional significance of the site in terms of its historical context, including but
not limited to, its relationship to the Bradshaw Trail, the stage coach line, water
wells, and prehistoric Indian villages and trails. The Phase I Cultural Resources
Report shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and be
considered independently by the Historic Preservation Committee at a future date.
3. The applicant shall prepare a technical report on the eligibility criteria for National
Register.
4. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by
qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given
to City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. A final
mitigation monitoring report shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation
Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first production home
for the project.
5. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term
curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all
within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and
delivered to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the property.
Materials will be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field- notes and records,
primary research data, and the original graphics.
V. c) The proposed site occurs outside the boundaries of ancient lake Cahuilla, and is therefore
not expected to contain any paleontologic resources.
EA.03.4791 -15-
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), iii), iv),
b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to liquefaction. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic
hazards.
VI. a) ii) The project site is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City and project site
will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of significant seismic activity.
EA.03.4791 -16-
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. In addition, no critical facilities will be built at the site, rather single
family residences are the only structures planned. These structures will be required to
implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of construction. Impacts
associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than significant.
VI. a) ii) The site has the potential to be susceptible to rockfall due to its proximity to the slopes of
the Santa Rosa mountains. The City Engineer requires the preparation of on -site
geotechnical studies prior to the issuance of grading permits. However, this analysis
generally does not include rockfall susceptibility. In order to assure that the homes
proposed for the site are not subject to these potential impacts, 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/her report, including slope modifications required to
assure that roackfall will not impact project residences. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
EA.03.4791 -17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the roject:
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
emergency response plan or emergency
EA.03.4791 _ 18_
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 72 single family 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.
EA.03.4791 -19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIU. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p.111-187 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? ("The Estates at
Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report,"
MDS Consulting, July 2003)
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?
("The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and
Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2003)
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? ("The Estates at
Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report,"
MDS Consulting, July 2003)
EA.03.4791 -20-
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 construction of 72 homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor will it
violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's Water Efficient Landscaping and construction provisions, which
will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. 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) A hydrology study was prepared for the proposed project3. The proposed project will be
responsible for the drainage of on- and off -site flows. Because of the site's adjacency to
the Santa Rosa Mountains, flows from the slopes must be accommodated within the
project. The hydrology design includes a combination of surface drains and underground
pipes, leading either to an on -site retention basin, or to a City drainage pipe which, occurs
under Washington Street. These improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer to ensure that the City's standards for on -site retention of 100 year storm events
are adhered to. Conformance with these standards will ensure potential impacts are
lowered to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of 72 homes will not have an impact on the City's storm drainage
system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area.
3 "The Estates at Point Happy Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2003.
EA.03.4791 -21-
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 project site occurs adjacent to existing single family development on its southern
boundary. The proposed project will continue this type of development by constructing
single family homes. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
extend an area of Low Density Residential further to the north. The site is located
adjacent to neighborhood commercial development, thereby facilitating easy access to the
services required by residents. The change in General Plan and Zoning designations will
lower overall impacts on the site, and provide an added opportunity for the provision of a
variety of housing types in the City. Impacts of the change in land use designations is
expected to be insignificant.
EA.03.4791 _22_
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 U RZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
EA.03.4791 -23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
M. 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. I I I ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome 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) & d) The proposed project is in an area of the City where ambient noise levels are high, and are
currently estimated at 76.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Washington
Street, north of Highland Palms Drive. Further analysis performed for the previous
project on this site indicated that 2020 noise levels will reach 77.3 dBA CNEL4. Noise
4 Analysis performed by Impact Sciences for "Draft EIR for the Point Happy Ranch, September 2001.
EA.03.4791 -24-
levels on lots closest to Washington Street are not expected to exceed City standards, due
to their distance from the roadway, and intervening structures.
There are two potential noise impacts associated with project development — noise
generated by the project and impacting surrounding development; and noise generated by
other sources and impacting the project site. These are discussed individually below.
The proposed project will result in the construction- of 72 single family dwellings on
37.72 acres. Residential land uses are not significant noise generators, and are not
expected to significantly impact the noise environment in this area. Noise generated
during the construction process, however, has the potential to impact the residential land
uses to the south of the proposed project site, both along Washington Street and along
Crestview Terrace. Although noise impacts associated with construction will be periodic
and of short duration, it can be an annoyance and irritant to adjacent residents. In order to
reduce potential impacts associated with construction activities as they relate to these
residences, mitigation measures have been included below.
Noise at New Residences
The proposed residential development is considered a sensitive receptor, and noise levels
in the outdoor areas of the homes, including back yards, may not exceed 65 dBA CNEL,
in order to meet General Plan standards.
The half -width of Washington Street at buildout is expected to be 66 feet (Augmented
Major Arterial Roadway Classification in the General Plan). The project proposes a
landscaped setback of 20 feet. This will result in backyards at a distance of 86 feet from
the centerline. Without mitigation, noise levels in the back yards of lots 8 through 12 will
be over 77 dBA CNEL at buildout, and over 76 dBA at construction. The project
proponent has included a proposed perimeter wall in the project plan. Noise levels can be
attenuated from 10 to 20 dBA by the construction of a 6 foot wall. Added attenuation can
also be achieved through the construction of walls on berms, because the berms absorb
noise impacts. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of the noise barrier
is directly related to its structure. A wall with any type of break, including decorative
fencing, entry gate, etc., has almost no effect.
It can be inferred that the noise barrier proposed will attenuate noise to 57 to 67 dBA at a
height of 6 feet. In order to assure that the attenuation meets the City's noise standard, a
mitigation measure has been added which also requires the addition of a 1 to 2 foot berm.
Because of the entry gates adjacent to lots 7 and 8, additional mitigation measures are
required to ensure that noise levels remain at City standards in their side yard areas, since
the gates will represent a break in the sound wall. This has also been provided below.
Noise Relating to Access Option 2C
The access point proposed under Option 2C would be off -site of the proposed project, in
an area currently constructed for access only to the existing residences south of the ,
project site. The proposed access modification would eliminate the southbound access to
Singing Palms Drive as it currently exists, and would replace it with a fully signalized
intersection. The western extension of Simon Drive would extend northwesterly into the
EA.03.4791 -25-
project site of the proposed Tract Map. The relocation of this access point will cause a
break in the perimeter wall, which is currently mitigating the noise levels for residents
west of the wall. The break in the wall will result in a potential for noise levels in excess
of City standard, particularly for the two homes on the south side of Singing Palms Drive,
east of Cameo Palms, and the two lots on the frontage drive, south of Singing Palms .
Drive, if not mitigated. At the least, the wall which currently occurs south of the proposed
project site must be extended northwesterly along the north side of the extension of
Simon Drive, and westerly along Singing Palms Drive. The location and height of this
wall extension should be analysed specifically for application to this Option 2C, should it
be implemented. In order to assure that this Option does not result in any significant
impact for existing residents, mitigation measures are provided below to require the
preparation of site -specific noise analysis and recommendations for the relocated access
drive.
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. A six foot wall shall be constructed on all sides of the property, except the
frontage on Washington Street.
5. If Access Option 1 is implemented, a six foot wall, constructed on top of a
varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall be constructed on the frontage on
Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of solid construction, with no breaks
or "daylight" openings. The wall and berm shall be continued to the front yard
setback line on the north boundary of lot 11 and the south boundary of lot 12.
There shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front setback line to the connection
with the wall on Washington Street.
6. If Access Option 2C is implemented, a six foot wall, constructed on top of a
varying berm of 1 to 2 feet in height, shall be constructed on the frontage on
Washington Street. The wall shall be entirely of solid construction, with no breaks
or "daylight" openings. The wall and berm shall be continued to the front yard
setback line of lot 8 (amended map layout), surrounding the retention basin. There
shall be no breaks in the wall, from the front setback line to the connection with
the wall on Washington Street.
7. If Access Option 2C is implemented, prior to the issuance of building permits for
any portion of the site, a noise analysis shall be conducted to specifically
recommend wall location and height for the homes on Singing Palms Drive, east
of Cameo Palms. The project proponent shall receive approval for construction of
any wall from the affected property owner, and shall submit all required building
plans on behalf of said property owner. The project proponent shall cause the
recommended walls to be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy on the proposed project.
8. Only single story homes shall be permitted on all lots.
4
EA.03.4791 -26-
9. The pad elevations on lots 8 through 12 shall be as close to 72 feet or less, so as to
limit exposure on Washington Street.
These mitigations measures will reduce noise levels at the street -side lots to City
standards.
M. 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.
EA.03.4791 -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 proposed project will result in 72 housing units, which are likely to generate about
±173 residents. This increase in population is not significant, and is consistent with
projected growth in the City. No impacts are expected to population and housing.
EA.03.4791 _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
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, 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. Impacts to parks will be
limited, given the buildout population of ±173 for the site.
EA.03.4791 -29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
SigniCcant
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) Some private open space will be provided within the project site, in the form of retention
areas and public open space. The proposed residential lots will be of sufficient size to
allow on -site recreational facilities. The proposed project will also be included in the
City's planning for new parks once constructed.
EA.03.4791 -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) Traffic analyses have been completed for the project site for both the previously proposed
commercial project, and the analysis contained in the General Plan EIRS. In addition, a
"The Pointe at Point Happy Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, March, 2001; General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta, March, 2002.
EA.03.4791 -31-
review of the traffic analysis was conducted for the currently proposed project6. The first
two analyses focused on the land uses currently allowed on the property, including
Community Commercial, Medium and Low Density residential. The last analysis,
performed for the proposed project, focused on analysis of the proposed project. The
previously completed analysis, for the commercial proposal, resulted in a daily trip
generation of 5,715 ADT. The currently proposed project results in daily trips totaling
795 ADT, or a reduction in overall trips of 4,920 ADT. The intersection of Highway 11
and Washington Street is expected to operate at Level of Service D at General Plan
buildout. Although this level of service is acceptable, the proposed project will relieve
traffic pressures at this critical intersection, and must therefore be considered a beneficial
impact on the region's traffic and circulation.
Access Option 1
The access to the site on Washington Street will be restricted to right turn only. Access on
Crestview Terrace will also be restricted. U-turns will be available for those wishing to
change direction at both Highland Palms Drive and Highway 111, which are both
signalized intersections with left turn phasing. This Option would also result in an
increase in daily trips on Highland Palms Drive, which would be used by residents
wishing to exit the site and proceed northerly. The increase in trips would not, however,
be significant, insofar as it would total 160 ADT'.
The internal design of the site calls for entry gates at both entry points. The entry gates on
Washington Street will provide a stacking distance of over 90 feet, which exceeds the
City's standards for stacking distances.
Access Option 2
Access Option 2 reconfigures the intersection of Simon Drive and Washington Street to a
full intersection, and allows the proposed project to access from Simon Drive (extended),
into the southeastern corner of the project. This option also allows existing residents to
enter and leave their subdivision at a signalized intersection. Analysis completed for this
Option8 found that it would eliminate the need for U-turns on Washington Street, and
provide signalized access to the commercial land uses east of Washington Street. In
addition, this alternative eliminates the need for vehicular access on Highland Palms
(except for emergency access), thereby eliminating the potential impacts on a local street.
This alternative provides a less impacting access in relation to Washington Street, which
is already impacted by right turns into and out of the commercial center to the north of the
proposed project. Implementation of this option will have less than significant impacts on
the traffic and circulation system.
Parking will be provided on -site, as required in the Municipal Code. Bus stops are
provided immediately north and south of the project site, and will be available to project
residents.
6 Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, signed Weston Pringle, P.E., March 18, 2003.
7 Letter Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates, dated December 9, 2003.
8 Ibid.
EA.03.4791 -32-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. LrfT[X IES 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 projects
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.)
EA.03.4791 -33-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity will be considerably
decreased by implementation of the proposed project, and impacts will therefore be less
than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. All utilities charge a fee for connection and
service, which will be paid by the developer or homeowner when the project is
constructed. These fees are designed to recoup costs for the provision of services by the
individual providers. No significant impacts associated with utilities are expected as a
result of the proposed project.
EA.03.4791 -34-
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 project site is adjacent to critical habitat for the bighorn sheep, and may provide
nesting habitat for birds subject to the protections of the Migratory Bird Act. Mitigation
measures have been included in this document which will reduce these potential impacts
to less than significant levels. The site has potential significance from a historic
perspective, and may harbor prehistoric materials. Mitigation measures have been
included in this document which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
XV1l.b) The proposed project and associated land use amendments will improve traffic conditions
at a critical intersection, and will reduce land use impacts to neighboring residents by
EA.03.4791 -35-
limiting development to single family residences. The project is compatible with the
General Plan and increases the City's housing stock.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those
impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10,
which can cause negative health effects, Section III above, includes a number of
mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than
significant level. Noise impacts have been mitigated through the installation of walls and
the restriction of building heights in sensitive or potentially sensitive areas. Impacts have
been reduced to a less than significant level.
EA.03.4791 -36_
w
0
•� w
� o
y
g
� U
a
o
�3a
8
0 Q
N
C
,d
i
N a y
u
zz
a
W
�
•.
�U
a
p
A
�a
a
bbo
4
° U
M
a�i
>
�
w ' vi "t
a,
CV O ~ '
M
wC7$g�g
M M
M
It
o
o
zz.04
z
aU
AU
Wd
F
A
z
U�
N
T�J
°
U
cis
o
U
a
cc
CYU
aA
v�
V)
C%N>cn
0o
q
b
v
v
y 4 t
�1
F
y
°
Cd
y
V1
°
C�
N
.wya
1'r
N
8. °
'�
U
.2
U
..
.r
U
QU
00
O to bA
dp
00
a
b
b
b
b
b
U
V
U
UC�
m
GA
GQ
o
a
o
:
w
d
a
y
Nen
4v
c
o�
e�
4 a
N
d�
0
3
°
a ai
�
rx
3 'b
U
c
PUA
Mil
V
�+
N
a+
UVUrj
y
�
i
�
N
v�
�
3
•� ..a
3 3
b
'."
^'
N
>
'S aG
w
6N.8
: C
N >
W
F
d
A
U�
z A'
a
U
UU
o
o
a
F
a
a
�
o w
ao 'ti
b
�
U
a
" ° O�
CG
o°��
a y
w
rive
a�
v�
v,
4Ur4Uw
cuu
bA
c
h
w
W
w
M
o
0
0 0
0
G9
0
~
Cdbo
'
H
y
bo
•b
F
V
ate+ V�
C^��
•yyr
0 w
y0 U
U
bb
bD
V
O
O
O
O Q
yO y0
O "O O
p
p
a s
c a
A
A
a —c°�
=0
a
o
c
y
o
0
a a
°
a�oi
a�oi
00
��
A
A
E
E
yq
�+
O �
�
•O � �
�
O
a
�
Q
O
b
L'
b
� Q
�
�
UA
U
CAA
uC U
U
A
v�
o
Ua
`0
°
b
a
O
y
cz
O
N
3
>
o
4
to
�'
V
>1
to
Cd
A
cd
O
p
a
bo
°
a
C
.
a.
O
o
>
ti
ea
:nO
E
0 �
a
0
O en
��r-
O
p M
bq
S
p O
.�
O
LLL
0-4
z o
a
z 4
4
En
W
Q
A
a V
UV
W
E,
b,o�•b�yo�
y
o�
U y
r.
,off
Li y C)
R
v�aaoo.a
aaCL
a
o
0
..
a)
41
ba
0
0
o a
0
a
w�
WZ
o
0
0
0
z
U,�
U0 9
d9
dK
z
00
S
U
o
c
o
z
Its
t
�
.(A
W
E■
A
z
a
U
'
UU
b ,o
.� h •Vi
F
�
0
0
a
w c�
a�
as
zQ�
.0
U
o
,02
O
v�
wo
vI
W
•
E•
Q
A
a
ox
VU
F
a
a
a
a
�
�
�► �
rr
a
a
E
^�
�' co
z
H
A
O
❑
O
C
0
U
U
to
to
0
0
0
0
0
C
a
�
00
A
A
A
A
y�
a,
A
bb
GQ
GO
as
w
w
U A
N
,�
N
•y
:iT
b
00
40.
" ra
'cv,
Q
� 0
U
N N
O cv
O
0 F
es" N
U
U
y
O
ai
Ci. a w
v�
Z
4)
� �
� �
ou
o
M�1
to Q,CIS
0 0
U .c
0
v
O '0
U
r"
v"�
c's
a
0 i. 'A
w ° a