CC Resolution 2004-045RESOLUTION NO. 2004-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-496, FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31910
CASE NO. EA 2003-496
APPLICANT: JOHN MEGAY & ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6th day of April, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request
of John Megay & Associates, for certification of Environmental Assessment 2003-
496, prepared for Tentative Tract 31910, located on the west side of Monroe Street,
'/4 mile north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as:
PORTION OF THE NE A OF THE S/E A OF
SECTION 22, T6S, R6E - S.B.B.M
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23rd day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2003-496, prepared for
Tentative Tract 31910; 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
2003-496) and has determined that, while the proposed Tentative Tract 31910 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, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, the La
Quinta City Council did make the following findings to justify their decision to certify
said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-045
Environmental Assessment 2003-406
John Megay & Associates
Adopted: April 6, 2004
Page 2
1. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in
any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards
when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project
will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat of a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
2. There is no evidence before the city that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends. The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor
is it a wildlife corridor. The site is outside the boundaries of the fee area of the
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The site's agricultural land uses
lend themselves to potential habitat for the burrowing owl; however, no
burrowing owls were identified.
3. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 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.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in
the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process.
Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures
proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development
patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract 31910 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.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution No. 2004-045
Environmental Assessment 2003-406
John Megay & Associates
Adopted: April 6, 2004
Page 3
7. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-496 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgment of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
9. The location and custodian of the City's records 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
2.1 That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-496, for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment
Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community
Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 6th day of April, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
0ON CADOLPH, Ma
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2004-045
Environmental Assessment 2003-406
John Megay & Associates
Adopted: April 6, 2004
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU E REEK, CMC, City CI rk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHER E JENSO , City Att-oFney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2003496
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31910
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location:
West side of Monroe Street, 1/4 mile north of Avenue 58 - APN: 764-010-008 & 009
5. Project sponsor's name and address: John Megay & Associates
78661 Avenue 42, Suite B
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
6. General plan designation: Low Density Residential 7.. Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The proposed Tentative Tract Map will subdivide 38.85 acres into 132 single family
residential lots, as well as lettered lots for streets and retention basins. A recreation lot and a
CVWD well site are also included in the proposed map: Streets are proposed to be private,
and the subdivision is proposed to be gated.
The site is currently in agriculture. A single family residence in the northeastern quadrant of
the property, with access on Monroe, will remain, and is not part of the proposed Tentative
Tract map.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Golf Course and Agriculture (Golf, Low Density Residential)
South: Vacant, previously cultivated, electric substation (Low Density Residential)
West: Golf Course (Golf, Low Density Residential)
East: Monroe Street, Agriculture beyond (Low Density Residential with
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
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.
• xl. March 11, 2004
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.
-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 site is
bordered on two sides by golf course and residential development. The ultimate
construction of homes on the site will result in single and/or two story residences of
limited height. The City restricts building heights in residential areas. The site is not
adjacent or near any significant physical features or mountain ranges. No impacts to
aesthetics are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. .
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 does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent
property. Impacts will not be significant.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
'
Would the project:
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)
H. a)-c) The proposed property, although currently in agriculture, is not under Williamson Act
contract'. The property is not within the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay of the General
Plan. The property is in an area of the City which is urbanizing, and is surrounded on two
sides by urban development. The loss of 38 acres of agricultural land is not expected to
represent a significant impact on agricultural resources in the Valley.
Personal communication, Matt Petroni, Warner Engineering, March 11, 2004.
-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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The Tentative tract map will
ultimately result in the construction of 132 single family homes, which could generate up
to 1,255 trips per day. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10
miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
2 "Trip Generation, 6`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category 210.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
13,255 x 10 = 12,550
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,129.50 29,367.00 6,024.00 - 125.50 125.50
Pounds at 50 mph 2.49 64.83 13.30 - 0.28 0.28
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,255 ADT. 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. The project's potential impacts to air quality are therefore
expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed project:
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 1,025.6 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 PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-7-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered 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 hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Landscape parkways on Monroe and the retention basins shall be
landscaped with the first phase of development on the site.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM 10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
("Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..."
Kinsinger Environmental Consulting, December
2003.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
("Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..."
Kinsinger Environmental Consulting, December
2003.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? ("Results of
Burrowing Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger
Environmental Consulting, December 2003.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ("Results of
Burrowing Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger
Environmental Consulting, December 2003.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
-9-
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ("Results of Burrowing
Owl Surveys..." Kinsinger Environmental
Consulting, December 2003.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The site has been in agriculture for a considerable period of time. As such, native species
are not expected to occur. However, the site's agricultural land uses lend themselves to
potential habitat for the burrowing owl, which often nests in holes in the banks of
planting rows. In order to determine the potential impacts to burrowing owls, a focused
biological resource study was completed for the project site 3. The consulting biologist
performed an on -site survey on one day in December, 2003. No burrowing owls were
identified on the survey date, although numerous gopher burrows were seen. However,
the CDFG protocol calls for four survey days when surveying for burrowing owls. The
site may also be occupied by the species between the time of study and the time of
construction. In order to assure that the burrowing owl does not occur on the site at the
time of construction, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
1. Prior to any non-agricultural ground disturbing activity on the site, and within 48
hours of the initiation of such activity, the project proponent shall cause the site to
be surveyed by a qualified biologist for burrowing owls. Should the species be
identified on site, passive relocation, in conformance with the biologist's
recommendations and protocol in place at the time, will be completed prior to the
initiation of any activity. The biologist shall submit a written report to the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of any ground disturbing
permit on the project site.
The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The
site is outside the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
With the implementation of the above -listed mitigation measure, the impacts to biological
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level.
"Results of Burrowing Owl Surveys..." prepared by Kinsinger Environmental Consulting and Eilar Associates,
December 2003.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in ' 15064.5? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment...,"Archaeological Associates,
December 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment...,'.'Archaeological
Associates, December 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Pre -Construction
Paleontological Survey...," Archaeological
Associates, December 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment...,"Archaeological Associates,
December 2003)
V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resource study was completed for the project site 4. The study found
that no resources occurred, and that the site's agricultural use reduced the likelihood of
resources further. In its review of the report, however, the Historic Preservation
Committee found that there should be on -site monitoring during earth moving activities,
in order to assure that buried deposits are not disturbed. 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 prior to issuance of
building permits on the site.
4 "Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tract 31910" prepared by Archaeological Associates and Eilar
Associates, December 2003..
-11-
A paleontologic investigation was conducted for the project sites. The study found that it
is likely that grading on the site will uncover resources. The Historic Preservation
Committee also reviewed the potential for paleontologic resources on the site, and found
that the site should be monitored. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shad be
implemented.
1. A qualified paleontologic 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 prior to occupancy of
the first home on the site.
Implementation of these mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to
cultural and paleontologic resources are mitigated to a less than significant level.
5 "Pre -Construction Paleontological Survey of a 38.65 acre Parcel," prepared by Archaeological Associates and Eilar
Associated, December 2003.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
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 (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
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)-e) The site is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone, and will experience significant
ground shaking during an earthquake. However, the City implements the most recent
updates to the Uniform Building Code relating to seismically active areas, and all homes
on the site will be constructed to these standards. Soils are considered appropriate for
single family home construction, and on -site soils analyses will be required by the
Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
-13-
The site is located in an area of high potential for liquefaction. In order to assure that the
potential impacts associated with liquefaction are mitigated to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. In conjunction with the preparation of on -site - soil analysis, as required by the
Building Department and City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant's geologist shall also submit a liquefaction study which demonstrates
the site's depth to groundwater, and includes mitigation measures if needed.
The project site is located in an area of moderate 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 landslides, nor does it have expansive soils.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
'
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
-15-
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.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
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 Study" Warner Engineering, December
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 Study" Warner
Engineering, December 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? ("Preliminary
Drainage Study" Warner Engineering, December
-17-
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
Study" Warner Engineering, December 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 project6 demonstrates how the
proposed project can retain its 100 year flood flows on site, through the use of retention
basins (shown as Lots O and P on the Tract Map). The study found that the site will
generate a need to retain 178,704 cubic feet of water in a 100 year storm, and that the
retention basins are sized to accommodate 209,425 cubic feet. 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.
6 "Preliminary Drainage Study," prepared by Warner Engineering, December, 2003.
-18-
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 designation and Zoning standards
assigned to the property. The development of housing on this property represents a
continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is not
within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Plan fee area.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (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)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project site is located in the southern portion of the City, in an area which is
not now subject to significant noise levels. Further, buildout of the General Plan in this
area is not expected to generate significant noise levels, particularly since the site is
proposed to be walled and gated, which will mitigate potential noise levels. The impacts
Na
associated with noise on the project's residents are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. A single
family residence will remain within the northeastern quadrant of the property, and is
considered a significant receptor for noise. In order to minimize the potential impacts to
this residential unit 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 unit as possible.
4. A 6 foot wall shall be erected around the residence prior to the initiation of any
earth moving activity on the site.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
The implementation of the above -listed mitigation measures will assure that impacts
associated with noise are reduced to less than significant levels.
-22-
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 density residential land uses. The project
site is in agriculture, and will not induce growth or displace an existing community.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The
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. The tract map will include an on -site recreational lot, which will
provide recreational facilities to project residents.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Y". 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 132 residential units within the project will be supported by the
inclusion of an on -site recreational lot. In addition, the City's parkland fee will be
applied, if needed, to mitigate any additional impact to City parks.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic 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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 3 19 10)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31910)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 3 19 10)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at
buildout of the General Plan. The proposed tract map allows a density slightly lower than
the maximum allowable under the Low Density Residential designation, and will
therefore generate slightly less traffic than could have occurred. The project proponent
-26-
will be required to provide on -site parking in the form of garages for each unit. 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 MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of,
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project=s
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
-27-
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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.
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?
-28-
XVU. a) The site has been identified as having the potential for biological cultural and
paleontologic resources. However, mitigation measures proposed above will reduce these
potential impacts to a less thhn significant level.
XVH. 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 132 residential units is less than could potentially occur on this site,
will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the General Plan
designation on the property.
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and
the site will generate PM 10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been
mitigated above to less than significant levels.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects 'that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures 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-
3
a�
,.a
a�
0
o
0
�
�00
goo
�
O
O
o
INO
..
00
a
Onokn
a�
v1�a
� 96
oa
96o
�
O
�
CIS
vOi
o
>
cl
00
cd
O
0
�
O
E-�
N
► o
..00
..
[�
O
z�
Z
aONO
�
�
Ono
W
a
E-•
A
�A
a�
a U
OV
V
c
cc
V
o
E
�
c
o
c
O
c
c
co
R.
co
ri
cz A
cn
a
to
CA
to
c
=
o
G7
.0
U
N
co
.^
U
'~
U
•=
CL
°
v
on
v
•
0 U
O O to
b4
bq
bA
.0
ci, on
A
A
Q
Q
o
O
6.
i
c.
Q
c.
0
c.
a
�
w
w
:t,
� �
�
�•v
=
� v
U
V
V
m
V A
GCl
pq
cd'c
a�
c
0
o
H
=
E
o
G.
..,
v�
.�
Cd
N
co
cd O
•�
C�
co
N rn
00
N
N
p
els
C C
�o
o
A
c
co-o
0
CZv
0
co
3
a
v
v�
co
c
4)
C
coS.
3
o f
.,..,
�'
a
N
a� o
.N
c�
a
S cls
W
Q
A
z °Q
eA
aV
Ox
VV
a
° o
a
c �
u
U
.O
z
H
�
0
0
a
a
�
wz
a
�a
zO
A
a o
•C �
a
E c.
UA
W
� .
H
rA
�
r
�
(7
�+
W
c
O
ONO
f�
rA
0.4
U
O
a
a�
W
c
o
U
Q
z °Q
A
a�
a V
OV
U
d
a
w
C
O
U
U
a
z
ONO
H
a4
c
A
O
az
�o
zw
ao
A
c
a
Z
o
cc
on
ONO
'rn
W
O
aci
.r o
.00 *0 eo
rA
O E bo
w
0 e� 'C
U
OA
F"
c c o$
o
W
Q
z p°
eA
aV
OV
U
d
a
�
O
w
�
U
c�
H
0
0
a
a
wz
�
z�
moo
A
c
O
H
r
C
O
Ir
�
0.
5
E�
A
z
dW
aV
Ox
UV
a
w
F-
0
0
,0
0
En
�7
0
_
0
..
0
..
z
M..I
cn
O
U
O
U
O
U
C
to
b4
O
�.+
a
oz
w�
c
c
c
c
z
cl
cd
co
M
a0
C�
Ca
A
Q
w
a
aA
�
oA
an
0-4
a
a�
e�
►y
C s""
C �
+ + �
"Cy
U.o
U E
3
RESOLUTION NO. RA 2004-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL MASTER
PLAN FOR SILVERROCK RESORT
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2003, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (Agency)
adopted Resolution No. RA 2003-08, approving the Conceptual Master Plan
prepared by GMA International; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2003, the Agency selected Palmer Course Design
Company as golf course architect for the Phase 1 tournament -quality public golf
course; and
WHEREAS, the golf course design has been completed and this design has
altered the approved Conceptual Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the potential for hosting a PGA golf tournament as well as other
community events has accelerated Phase 3 development; and
WHEREAS, the Agency finds the revised Conceptual Master Plan accurately
reflects Agency and Community objectives for the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency of the City of La Quinta, as follows:
1. Approves the revised conceptual master plan for SilverRock Resort.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency held on this 6" day of April, 2004, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES: Members Adolph, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Chair Henderson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. RA 2004-004
SilverRock Resort
Master Plan Modifications
Adopted: April 6, 2004
Page 2
TERRY CfiENDERSON, Chairperson
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
- pr�-�
JUN . GREEK, CMC, Agency Secretary
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
(Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. K THE E JENSON, gency Counsel
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency