CC Resolution 2004-036RESOLUTION NO. 2004-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490, FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31816
CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-490
APPLICANT: MATTCO CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 16th day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Mattco Construction, for certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-
490, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 31816 located on the southwest corner of
Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane, more particularly described as:
PORTION OF THE NE Y4 OF SECTION 29, T5S,
R7E - S.B.M., AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT
#2001-104102
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 24th day of February, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-490, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31816; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 24th day of February, 2004, adopt Resolution 2004-006, recommending
that the La Quinta City Council certify Environmental Assessment 2003-490, prepared
for Tentative Tract Map 31816; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community
Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment
2003-490) and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 could
not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that mitigation
measures are required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact should be filed; and
Resolution No. 2004-036
Environmental Assessment 2003-490 - Mattco Construction
Adopted: March 16, 2004
Page 2
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
City Council did make the following findings to justify their decision to certify said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 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.
2. 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.
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.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 will not have the potential to achieve
short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 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.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 31816 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. 2004-036
Environmental Assessment 2003-490 - Mettco Construction
Adopted: March 16, 2004
Pays 3
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-490 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgement 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.
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 constitute the findings of City Council in
this case; and
2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-490, 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 16th 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
(L 4L
DON ADOtPH, Mhlyor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2004-036
Environmental Assessment 2003-490 - Mattco Construction
Adopted: March 16, 2004
Page 4
ATTEST:
JUN GREEK, C, CI y erk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERI E JENSON, Cffy Attorn
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
EA 2003-490 for Tentative Tract 31816
1, Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31816
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Roadrunner Lane, (between
Dune Palms Road and Jefferson St.) APN: 649-040-007
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Mattco Construction, Inc.
P. O. Box 2502
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6. General plan designation: Medium Density 7. Zoning: Medium Density
Residential 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 Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide 7.75 acres into 26 residential lots, lettered lots
for retention and streets, and associated improvements. ,The north -south trending street
through the subdivision will be an extension of the existing Roudel Lane which currently ends
south of the site. The lots will range from 10,087 to 14,560 square feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Indian Springs Country Club (City of Indio)
South: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant lands, Medium Density Residential
East: Single Family Residential
.10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
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 Land Use / Planning
Quality
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERNIINATION: (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
X 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 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(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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -3-
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)-d) The proposed project is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The ultimate
construction of homes on the site, which is flat and without significant physical features,
will have only limited impacts on viewsheds in the area, since the City limits heights for
residential structures to one and two stories. The ultimate construction of single family
homes on the site will result in a slight increase in light generation, primarily from car
headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels, and impacts will not
be significant. Impacts to aesthetics overall are expected to be less than significant.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chkist.doc -4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the roject:
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 is not currently in agriculture, nor are there agricultural lands within
several miles. The property is within an older part of the City which has been urbanized
for some time. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property.
Development of the site will not impact agricultural resources.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -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 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)
M. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed tract map could
result in 26 single family homes, which could generate up to 248 trips per day'. Based on
this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 7 miles, the following emissions can
be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6t° Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
ounds per day)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/day
248
x
7
=
1,736
PM10
PM10
PM10
Pollutant ROC
CO
NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Grams at 45 mph 173.60
3,871.28
694.40 -
17.36
17.36
Pounds at 45 mph 0.38
8.55
1.53 -
0.04
0.04
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbsJday) 75
550
100
150
Assumes 248 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC70 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. 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 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 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
BCM4 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 204.6 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 addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc . -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. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, tarped during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project 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 mix
hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion.
-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
H. 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.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wJ
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?
(Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental,
January 2004)
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?.
(Biological Letter Report, Cadre Environmental,
January 2004)
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? (Biological
Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January
2004)
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? (Biological
Letter Report, Cadre Environmental, January
2004)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -9-
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Biological Letter
Report, Cadre Environmental, January 2004)
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? (Biological
Utter Report, Cadre Environmental, January
2004)
IV. a)-f) A biological resource study was completed for the proposed project site 2. The study found
that the majority of the project site has been significantly disturbed by off -road activity
and illegal dumping. An area of disturbed desert saltbush scrub totaling approximately
one half acre occurs at the south boundary of the project site. Although this area could be
appropriate habitat for Palm Springs pocket mouse and Palm Springs ground squirrel,
neither species was identified on the site. The habitat disturbance, combined with the
isolated nature of the site, makes it unlikely that good quality habitat occurs on the site.
Impacts to species of concern is therefore expected to be less than significant.
The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The
site is within the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time that
building permits are secured.
2 "General Biological Assessment Results..." letter report, prepared by Cadre Environmental, January 13, 2004.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -10-
Potentially
Less Than
Leas 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? ('Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment," Archaeological
Advisory Group, November 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment," Archaeological
Advisory Group, November 2003)
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? (`Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment," Archaeological Advisory Group,
November 2003)
V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resource study was completed for the project site 3. The study found
that although the site had not previously been studied, 15 cultural resource sites have been
identified within one half mile of the site. The site was surveyed for cultural resources,
and none were identified. The study recommends, however, that mitigation measures be
implemented, because of the potential for buried resources, and the imported fill which
has been placed on the project site which could obscure resources. Therefore, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, trenching
and grading activities associated with the project site. The monitor shall be
empowered to stop or redirect activities, should resources be uncovered. A report
of any findings, as well as appropriate curation of materials, shall be completed
and submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of
completion of earthmoving activities.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to
cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level.
"Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for TTM 31816...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group,
November 2003.
P:1Wally\Casedocs%Current1TT31816%EA490 Chklst.doc -11-
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
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December
2003)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden
Engineering, December 2003)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? ("Geotechnical
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, December
2003)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investiga-
X
tion..." Sladden Engineering, December 2003)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? ("Geotechnical Investiga-
tion..." Sladden Engineering, December 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 Investigation..." Sladden
Engineering, December 2003)
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)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -12-
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the proposed project site". The study found
-- that soils on the site are a combination of imported fill and native sands which are
considered to have a low potential for expansion. Soils are considered appropriate for
single family home construction, with the implementation of standard building and
grading practices, which will be required by the City Engineer.
Seismic activity on the site, and in the City in general, will cause significant ground
acceleration. The City implements Uniform Building Code standards for the construction
of any structure. These standards ensure that the construction of homes on the project site
will occur in a safe and earthquake resistant manner.
The project site is located in an area of very severe blow sand potential. The mitigation
measures included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts
associated with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
The site is not subject to either liquefaction or landslides.
4 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Approximately 7.7-Acre Residential Development...," prepared by Sladden
Engineering, December 10, 2003.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -13-
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)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -14-
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The 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. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires. .
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31818\EA490 Chklst.doc -15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VM. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY --Would the proiect:
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? (Preliminary
Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering,
November 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?
(Preliminary Drainage Report" Hacker
Engineering, November 2003)
P:\wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -16-
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? (Preliminary
Drainage Report" Hacker Engineering,
November 2003)
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? (Preliminary Drainage
Report" Hacker Engineering, November 2003)
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) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service 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 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 hydrology analysis prepared for the proposed projects demonstrates how the
proposed project can retain its 100 year flood flows on site, through the use of a retention
basin (shown as Lot A on the Tract Map). The City Engineer will review and approve the
drainage analysis for the site, prior to the issuance of any permits. These City
requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
5 `Preliminary Drainage Report," prepared by Hacker Engineering, November, 3, 2003.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -17-
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 Tract Map conforms to the General Plan land use and Zoning designations
of Medium Density Residential, as assigned to the site. The development of housing on
this property represents a continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of
the City. The site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Plan fee area, and the project proponent will be required to pay the
fees in place at the time of building permits.
-18-
Potentially
Leas Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. N D4ERAL 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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
M. 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? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
EIR p. III-144 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
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)
M. a)-f) The proposed project site is located on Westward Ho, which is not a major street in the
City, and therefore does not generate significant traffic. Since traffic is the primary source
of noise in the City, existing and future noise levels in this area are not expected to
exceed City standards of 65 dBA CNEL exterior.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -20-
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise
generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. In order to
minimize the potential impacts to adjacent residential units during construction, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. Construction activities shall occur only during those hours allowed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
2. All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained muffler systems.
3. All stationary equipment storage shall occur along the western property line, and
as far away from existing dwelling units as possible.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst,doc -21-
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 is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the
property, and is in an area designated for low and medium density residential land uses.
The project will not induce growth or displace an existing community.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -22-
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.)
XIH. 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, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -23-
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 construction of 26 residential units will not significantly impact the need for parks in
the City. The City's parkland dedication ordinance requires that an in -lieu fee be paid for
the 0.22 acres required for this site. The site is also located within one mile of an existing
City park
-24-
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.111-29 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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 31816)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31816)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31816)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project is less intense than the densities analysed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are
expected to be at acceptable levels at buildout of the General Plan. The project proponent
will be required to provide on -site parking in the form of garages for each unit. The site
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT31816\EA490 Chklst.doc -25-
transit routes. Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be
less than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan WA, 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 f)
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 WA, p. 58 f)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan WA, p. 58 ff.)
-26-
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. The construction
of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility
�. providers.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
IRIS 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 site has been identified as having the potential for cultural 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.
XVII. c) The construction of 26 residential units is less than could potentially occur on this site, and
will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan
designation on the property.
-28-
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, and
the site will generate PM 10, which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above,
includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
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(cx3)(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 which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-29-
C
� R1
sAWW
�x
v
w
UU
o
o
a
o_
o
a
W
U
.�
g
O
d
p
a> o
aU
V
a o
V� H 'ter
LL.
fn
u N
v7
�n
ao
c
�
w
�y
O to
oyy
O
.0
abo
O
o
0
^
U
•°
U
U
U
r.
F
Ira
c y
V =
c
N
=
a.
M
L
�o
U
o A
oj
o 0o
ao
o
�..
p
0
p
p
a. a on
A
A
A
A
a
a
a
a�
rA
zz
�,
�,
A
a
ap
o
w
w
Qo
c
c
U U
V
GO
U A
G�0
pq
pq
pq
z
C
o
M
y O
N
o
E
t
v
O
C
ed
u
i
V
a W
Q�
�
b
h
N
�
H
•�
Q
cd
a
.=
.?
cA
_
v
F+
En
40
d
A
4
V
W
UU
o
0
U
h
a
�
o0
e
a
�o
o�
a
w
A
z
o
ao
a
o 00
A
U �
V
W
UV
o
0
0
G9
0
0fj
0
0
0
toi
coi
eo
00
oqn
C
Q
C
A
G
a
°o
0
oa
as
as
0
CL