CC Resolution 2004-043RESOLUTION NO. 2004-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32117
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-499
APPLICANT: QUARRY RANCH L. L. C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 6" day of April, 2004, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 2004-499 for Tentative Tract 32117 herein referred to as the "Project"
for Quarry Ranch L. L. C. ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 9" day of March, 2004, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-499 for Tentative Tract 32117 herein referred to as
the "Project" for Quarry Ranch L. L. C. ; and,
-- WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2004-499) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact could be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
Resolution No. 2004-043
Environmental Assessment 2004-499
Quarry Ranch L.L.C.
Adopted April 6, 2004
Page 2
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified .
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is attached hereto pursuant
to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance during
Project implementation.
7. 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).
8. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2004-
499 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
9. EA 2004-499. and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
10. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolution No. 2004-043
Environmental Assessment 2004-499
Quarry Ranch L.L.C.
Adopted April 6, 2004
Page 3
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-499 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 6t' 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
QON ADOLPH, Vyor
City of La Quinta California
ATTEST:
--.1 Zia
J N . GREEK, CMC, City erk
City of La Quinta, California
(SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-043
Environmental Assessment 2004-499
Quarry Ranch L.L.C.
Adopted April 6, 2004
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M KATHER NE JENSON, City Att ney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32117
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Fred Baker
760-777-7125
4. Project location: North side of Quarry Ranch Road, west of Jefferson Street APN: 766-060-
001
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Quarry Ranch, LLC
1 Quarry Lane
La Quinta, CA 92253
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 amends a previously reviewed, approved and recorded
map (Tract 30651) which affected a larger area (75 acres) of the Quarry Ranch project. The
area now under consideration totals 6.32 acres, located at the southern boundary of the Quarry
project.
The 6.32 acres currently being re -mapped was originally proposed to contain 8 residential
lots. The proposed Tentative Tract Map would divide this same area into 13 single family
residential lots.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
North: Golf Course under construction
South: Quarry Ranch Road, Low Density Residential lands
West: Golf Course under construction
East: Jefferson Street, Open Space lands
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
90
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
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.
Sig a 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.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
-3-
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 property has
been rough -graded and does not include any natural features. 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.
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)
II. a)-c) The proposed project is not currently in agriculture, nor are there Williamson Act
contracts on the subject property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural
resources.
-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) Air quality in the City is primarily affected by vehicle traffic. The proposed tract map
could result in 13 single family homes, which could generate up to 124 trips per day'.
Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 6 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.
-6-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
124 x 6 = 744
PMio PMio PMio
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 66.96 1,740.96 357.12 - 7.44 7.44
Pounds at 50 mph 0.15 3.84 0.79 - 0.02 0.02
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 124 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 757, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The proposed tract map will contribute only marginally
more air pollution than the levels expected under the previous approval, since the increase
in lots represents only a 62% increase in density.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These
measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These
include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE
TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1
Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2
Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3
Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4
Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 166.85 pounds per day, for a limited
period while precise grading operations are active. The bulk of the grading has already
occurred. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to
initiation of precise grading. 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.
-7-
III. d) & e)
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.
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.
The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-8-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch,"
VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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?
("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch,"
VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
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? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June
2002,)
ST
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
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
IV. a)-f) A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project as part of the review
of Tentative Tract Map 30651 . The assessment found that although the project occurs in
the potential habitat area for several species of concern, the habitat on the project site has
been degraded by off -road vehicle use and illegal dumping, and these species are not
expected to occur on the site. The proposed project site has been graded as part of the
construction on Tract 30651 since the preparation of the biological resource report, and is
not expected to be habitat for any species at this time.
The site does not contain any wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is it a wildlife corridor. The
site is not within the boundaries of the fee area of the Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan.
2 "General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by VHBC, Inc., July 24, 2002.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in ' 15064.5? ("Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 2002)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co.,
June 2002)
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..." Keith Co., June 2002)
V. a)-d) A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project as part of the
review of Tentative Tract Map 3065 13 . The survey found no historic structure on the site,
but did identify a historic trash dump. The survey also identified a prehistoric site, in the
form of sherd scatter. The Phase I study made recommendations for mitigation measures
which were confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all
activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
The Phase I study also identified the need for a Phase II study on the trash dump area,
which was completed as part of the recordation process for the original map. This
previous mitigation measure has therefore been satisfied.
3 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith Companies,
June 12, 2002.
-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
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?
X
("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden
Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden
Engineering, July 2002)
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? ("Geotechnical
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
VI. a)-e) A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site as part of the review of
Tentative Tract Map 3065 14 . The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The
site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
4 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry...," prepared by Sladden Engineering,
July 31, 2002.
-12-
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. These requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are
reduced to a less than significant level.
The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be subject to
significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding erosion, however. The
project proponent will be required to secure approval from the Coachella Valley Water
District for all flood control plans on the site. These plans will be required to include
control of soil erosion. Please also see hydrology discussion below.
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and that they
will support the development proposed by the project proponent.
-13-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
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
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 f )
-14-
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 units 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.
-15-
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? (Hydrology... and
Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc.,
July 2002)
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?
(Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study,
Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
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?
(Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study,
Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-16-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (Hydrology... and Drainage
Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
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) — d)) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows
tributary to the Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris were identified as
issues in this area, due to its proximity to the Coral Reef Mountains. The proposed project
will tie into the proposed improvements for Tentative Tract Map 30651, which include an
earthen ditch with flood wall at the southwest corner of the adjacent tract, another along
the southern boundary of the site, and a trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street
right of way. CVWD required the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage
study for Tentative Tract Map 3 065 1, to address flood control issues throughout the site.
CVWD is still reviewing the re -submitted materials at this writing, but has indicated that
the proposed improvements, with some modifications, will reduce the impacts associated
with drainage and flood control on the site to less than significant levels. In order to
assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control improvements
from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth moving activity at the
site.
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. The
13 homes will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving
plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts
to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -
conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
510
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 assigned to the site.
The construction of the homes will comply with the City's Development Code. 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.
-1 s-
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-2 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-19-
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 project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels.
The location of single family homes on the site will not generate significant noise levels.
The impacts associated with long term noise are not expected to be significant.
The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and
activities. Existing homes occur to the west of the site. Homes are considered sensitive
receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order
-20-
to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Impacts associated with
noise on or near the project site are not expected to be significant.
-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.
-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. The project will be located within an existing country club, which will
offset the need for other recreational facilities in the City.
-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 13 residential units will not significantly impact the need for parks in
the City. As previously stated, the project's location within an established country club
will also lower the need for additional recreational facilities.
-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. 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 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 will generate up to 124 daily trips. The proposed project is
consistent with the land use densities analysed in the General Plan and its EIR. Traffic
levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at
buildout of the General Plan. The site does not include unsafe curves or other features.
Impacts associated with the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than
significant.
-25-
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
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
-26-
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
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been rough graded. Prior to rough grading, the site was studied for biological
resources, and found to be unsuitable due to high levels of disturbance. No impacts to
biological resources are expected. The site has been reviewed for cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are included in this document to lower 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 13 residential within an existing country club will result in lower
densities on this site, will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent
with the General Plan designation on the property.
IPT11
XVH. 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, 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 associated with the construction activities on the site 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.
Environmental Assessments 2002-452 and 2002-454 were both used in preparing this report.
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-
4.4
3
U
«S
a
4-4
a�
b
0
0
CA
O
z
o
a
z
d
V
E"
A
„
W
�aa►n
N
M
cis
V
o
N
�
CC
�
O
�
••
o
z
F
�
0-4
Mv�l
a
a
A
z
dW
aU
OV
U
a�
c
CIS
a
V
o
a:
�
c
O
c
O
c
c
04
O'
co
•�
a�
o �n
c
c
a
a
a
U
V
� A
.=
0
.
to
c
c
cz
cA
o
G7
•°
o
°
o
o
0
zcn
�
•�
En
.�
V
rA
•=
U
•=
U
bA
j
(A j
to
U
b4
CU
sue.
to
b4
.O•2
.0
•C
to
'i,
C
•C
a
a
a.a
a
'�
as aA
A
A
Q
A
a
110
z ww
(D
a
o.
A
0.
e.
�
a
Oz
'=
w
to
to
A
a
w
:C
E
E coo.
"10
5
v
�v
U
V
V
GA
U A
GA
GA
GA
a�
c
O
c
bA
;
c °
V
E
co
m
..,
_
cz
CD
N
•
O
oO
. N
...,
. c
co
4)
3 'C
C
cd
03
o0
r
a .�
C
E
E
N
..
.cz
�
.�C13
cd
m
w
cn
7
u
U
0
N
0
N
H
A
V p�q
zA
a�
a
UU
w
o
U
N.
z
�
c
H
�
C
C
A
0
az
�
z�
a0
A
C
a
"C3
z
o$
o
w
V
O
�
,r. bo
o�
0-0
C
E�
Q
a
a�
UU
H
a
o ,
w A
►.a U
ao
c
E
z
z
Ong
E�
c
cc
0
O
a
c
a
as
0
27 H
zz
A
a
E �
UA
0
z
w
o
ON4o
a
o
40.
a
a
U
vh
E-�
A
�A
av
ox
UU
e
a
c
0
c
0
c
0
V
U
'U
U
C
C
C
�7
.0
.o
F
0
0
U
0
0
0
C
C
C
A
A
A
a
z
as
z z
a
a
C
C
C
m �
QC1
GQ
42
E,
�
06
�'
0 "
H C
bo
.r
'd
.,
0
°' 0
• O,.r" y
°•i<
"i
V�
OWN
0
• V �p G
v�
p
z
U
ID
c o
0w
�
V. 0
U.a
U o
c�
E
can