CC Resolution 2004-160RESOLUTION NO. 2004-160
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 32397
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-522
APPLICANT: CANYON RIDGE L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 21 st day
of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
Canyon Ridge L.L.C. for certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-522 for
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32397, referred to as the "Project" for the subdivision of
28.43 acres into 74 residential lots, generally, located at 47-555 Washington Street
and more particularly described as:
A.P.N: 643-090-024, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
23rd day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of Canyon Ridge L.L.C. for certification of Environmental Assessment 2004-522 for
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 32397, referred to as the "Project" for the subdivision of
28.43 acres into 74 residential lots, generally, located at 47-555 Washington Street
and recommended approval by adoption of Resolutions 2004-094 and-2004-095 ;
and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the
15th day of November, 2004 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on November 12th, 2004, such notice was also mailed to all landowners
within 500 feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such notice; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, to all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings recommending to the City Council certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-160
Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: December 21, 2004
Page 2
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation
procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of
the Project, and based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon,
and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there could be a significant
environmental effect resulting from this project; however, the mitigation
measures will reduce the impacts to less than significant. The mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the Project and are made part of the approval of the project
and will mitigate any potential significant effect.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2004-522.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
5. The 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 by the Environmental
Assessment.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
Resohition No. 2004-160
r--- Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: December 21, 2004
Page 3
7. The Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have
been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent -judgment and
analysis of the City Council.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City Council decision is based upon is in the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253.
11. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during
Project implementation.
12. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code § 711.2.
13. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. - That it -does -hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2004-522 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, on file in
the Community Development Department and attached hereto.
Resolution No. 2004-160
Environmental Assessment 2004-522
Canyon Ridge L.L.C.
Adopted: December 21, 2004
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 21 St day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
(Lo "
DON AD PH, yor
City of La Quinta California
ATTEST:
JUN . G EEK, CMC, City CfeW
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. ATHfERIPE JENSON, CI ttorney
City of La Quinta, Californi
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 32397
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: Northwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48 (extended) APN:
643-090-024
5. Project sponsors name and address: Canyon Ridge LLC
76061 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide 28.43 acres into 74 single family residential
lots of at least 9,800 square feet, as well as lettered lots for streets, landscaping and retention.
The site will be accessed from Washington Street, with a primary drive in the southern third
of the site, and a secondary street at the northern boundary of the site.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant desert lands, parking lot and St. Francis of Assisi Church (Low Density
Residential, )
South: Existing single family residential in Laguna de la Paz (Low Density Residential)
West: Vacant desert lands, hillside (Open Space)
East: Washington Street, Vacant partially improved lands (Community Commercial)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
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.
November 19, 2004
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
-4-
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) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. As such,
special landscaping and setback requirements will be applied to the project site. The
proposed single family residential development will generate single and two story single
family homes, some of which will be located on a knoll in the northern portion of the site.
The scale of single family homes in this area will not impact views of the adjacent
hillsides, and will have a minimal impact on viewsheds in the area. There are no rock
outcroppings or other natural features in the vicinity of the project site, other than the
Santa Rosa mountains. Impacts associated with buildout of the project site will be less
than significant.
The primary source of light and glare upon buildout of the site will be from automobile
headlights and landscaping lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow
lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not be significant.
-5-
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
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
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
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The project site is located in an urbanized section of the City, and is not located near
agricultural land uses. The closest agricultural lands are several miles to the south and
east of the site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site, and the zoning of the
property is Low Density Residential. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources
associated with the proposed project.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
,d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
M. a), b) & c) The proposed project will result in 74 single family homes, which have the potential to
generate up to 708 trips per day'. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip
length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the
project site.
"Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 210, Single Family Detached.
IVA
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(hounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
708 x 15 = 10.620
PM10 PM10 . PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 955.80 24,850.80 5,097.60 - 106.20 106.20
Pounds at 50 mph 2.11 54.86 11.25 - 0.23 0.23
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 708 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 for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 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. The site has been partially
developed, including a decomposed granite parking area, and turfed display areas. The
removal of these facilities will generate particulate matter as well. Under mass grading
conditions, the 28.43 acres could generate up to 750.6 pounds of dust per day. The
existing parking areas are considerably below the grade of the finished pads for the
proposed project. Fill will therefore be required to bring these areas to ultimate grade.
This has the potential to generate fugitive dust. The contractor will be required to submit
a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
-8-
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
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. Once unloaded, fill shall be watered regularly to assure that blowing dust is kept
to a minimum.
6. No stockpiling shall be permitted. Imported fill shall be immediately distributed
on the site.
7. No imported fill shall be brought to the site during wind events exceeding 25
miles per hour.
8. 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.
9. 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.
6. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 3 0 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseed
on the affected portion of the site.
7. Landscaping on Washington Street shall be installed immediately following
project precise grading, as will the project's perimeter wall.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean-up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
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 residential units and will not result in objectionable odors, nor
will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
-9-
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, either
X
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 Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
("Biological Assessment..." James Cornett, 2000)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? ("Biological Assessment..."
James Cornett, 2000)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (`Biological
Assessment..." James Cornett, 2000)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ("Biological Assessment..." James
Cornett, 2000)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
-10-
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
IV. a)-f) Biological resource analysis was conducted for the previously approved La Quinta Arts
Foundation project2. This analysis, combined with consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, resulted in a series
of mitigation measures in association with the project's adjacency to the Santa Rosa
mountains, which are considered part of the critical habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep, for which a Recovery Plan has been adopted.
The proposed project does not propose the construction of homes on the hillsides. The
construction of facilities for drainage and rockfall hazards along the western property line
may require excavation and/or blasting above the toe of slope, which has a potential to
impact bighorn sheep. In order to assure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant
level, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. No blasting, ripping or excavation shall be permitted above the toe of slope, as
defined in the La Quinta Municipal Code, between January 1 and June 15 of any
year.
2. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) for the proposed project shall monitor the
project site any signs that bighorn sheep are entering the site. The HOA shall
request a list of indicators used to identify sheep presence from DFG prior to
grading of the site. The HOA shall take steps to ensure that any observations of
bighorn sheep on or near the project site are reported to DFG and the City
immediately. If information suggests that bighorn sheep are entering the project
site, the HOA shall construct, at its expense, an 8-foot fence between the
development and the hillside. The fence shall not contain gaps of greater than 1 I
centimeters (4.3 inches). The Foundation shall notify DFG immediately upon
receipt of the information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the
project site, and seek any further guidance DFG has to offer regarding the
construction of the fence. The fence shall be constructed within three months of
the receipt of information suggesting that bighorn sheep are entering onto the
project site. If requested to do so by DFG, the HOA shall, at its expense,
construct temporary fencing to the specifications of DFG to prevent bighorn sheep
from entering the project site pending construction of the fence. ' Any and all
fencing constructed will be subject to the City's Hillside Conservation Overlay
District.
3. The project developer shall submit a plan, approved by a biologist, which
demonstrates that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers used on the
site will not be harmful wildlife.
4. All exterior lighting shall be aimed away from the hillside.
5. The project landscaping plan will not expose wildlife to toxic materials. All
exotic or toxic plans, such as Oleander and Prunis, and plants which are known to
2 "Biological assessment and Impact analysis of the proposed La Quinta arts Foundation Center," prepared by James
W. Cornett, April 1999 and 2000.
-11-
invade or degrade bighorn sheep habitat, such as tamarisk, fountain grass, shall be
strictly prohibited. The landscape plan shall be approved by a certified biologist,
which approval shall state that the proposed landscape materials are not known to
be harmful to wildlife. Prohibited plant materials shall be included in the CC&Rs
and provided to each homeowner adjacent to the hillside.
6. The project proponent and HOA shall design its project so as not to facilitate
persons to enter onto the hillsides from the project site. To the extent that any
portion of the project site begins to be used by persons to enter into the hillsides,
the HOA shall post notices discouraging such use.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to biological
resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
-12-
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? ("Archaeological
Investigations..." ASM Affiliates, 2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
("Archaeological Investigations..." ASM
Affiliates, 2000)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan MEA,
Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) Two cultural resource investigations were conducted for the project site3. The first
consisted of a site investigation and report, which recorded a potentially significant site,
and recommended further analysis. The second consisted of an on -site excavation of the
recorded site. The project site includes three previously recorded sites, and one site
recorded during the first site survey in 1998. Testing and data recovery had previously
been completed on the three previously recorded sites in 1991. The occurrence of
multiple mesquite hummocks makes it likely that additional resources are located on
site, and careful grading and on -site monitoring were recommended in the first study.
The second study, completed to report on the testing and data recovery at CA-RIV-6214.
This process concluded that the site is not significant beyond the recovery performed for
the study.
V. c) The project site is outside the traditional lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No
paleontologic resources are expected on the site.
3 "A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the La Quinta Arts Center Project,"; and "Archaeological
Investigations of CA-RN-6214...," prepared by ASM Affiliates, December 1998 and April 2000, respectively.
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated, on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (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 project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of
the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
earthquake. The homes to be built 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. The site has been previously developed in its eastern portion, and will
require filling. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical
-14-
analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure
that the_ filling of the site will be completed in a manner which results in proper
compaction of the site.
The proposed project is not located adjacent to an area subject to landslides and rockfall.
No development is planned, however, on the slopes of the hillsides. The project
proponent has included a rockfall barrier along the western property line to protect those
homes located immediately east of the site. Impacts from these hazards are expected to be
insignificant. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be
required to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be
installed.
The site is located in an area of severe blow sand potential. The mitigation measures
included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
BF11
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? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
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? ("Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems
Southwest, October 2004)
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? ("Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems
Southwest, October 2004)
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)
-16-
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of the proposed homes will not have an impact on hazards and
hazardous materials. The City implements Household Hazardous Waste programs
through its trash hauler, which are designed to provide for safe disposal of hazardous
substances generated in the home. Impacts are expected to be negligible.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
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?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff)
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? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
-18-
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
187 ff.)
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 development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use for residential use and for landscaping irrigation. 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 be required to implement the City's water efficient
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures and appliances, 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 proposed project will have to convey waters coming from adjacent hillsides, as well
as on site drainage. The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site.
The proposed tract map includes retention basins in on the eastern property line, adjacent
to Washington Street. The City Engineer will approve the site hydrology study, to assure
that these basins are sized to accommodate the storm flows on the site.
The project proponent is also proposing the construction of a swale along the western
property line, to convey water from the hillsides to a drainage easement between lots 45
and 46, and into the project streets. This system will be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer, to assure that flows are conveyed in - conformance with the City's
standards.
Impacts associated with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with this designation.
The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and fees in place at the time that building
permits are secured will be collected.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-20-
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 consists primarily of coarse
sands. The site is located in a fully urbanized area of the City, on a major roadway, and is
not considered suitable for mineral resources.
-21-
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? ("Acoustical Analysis,"
Eilar Associates, 2004)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ("Acoustical
Analysis," Eilar Associates, 2004
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ("Acoustical Analysis," Eilar
Associates, 2004)
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) A noise impact study was completed for the proposed project4. The study found that the
noise levels currently on Washington Street exceed the City's standards for sensitive
4 "Acoustical Analysis Report Canyon Ridge," prepared by Eilar Associates, November 2004.
-22-
receptors. Since the project is proposing residential structures, the noise levels must be
mitigated to an exterior level of 65 dBA CNEL, and the interior noise levels must not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study further analysed the site plan for the proposed project,
and found that with construction of the two walls, one twenty feet from the eastern
property line, and one along the eastern property line of the. eastern -most lots, would
reduce the exterior noise levels for the homes in this area to the range of 58.0 to 48.8 dBA
CNEL, depending on the location. These levels are well below the City's standard, and
will assure that the residents are not significantly impacted by noise.
Noise will be generated during project construction. The proposed project is located
immediately north of the existing Laguna de la Paz. It is likely that the grading of the site
will result in noise levels which exceed the City's standards. However, since these noise
levels are temporary and short term, they can be mitigated as follows.
1. Construction activities shall be limited to those hours prescribed in the Municipal
Code.
2. All storage and staging areas, as well as equipment servicing areas, shall be
located along the northern property line of the proposed project. No storage or
staging shall be permitted adjacent to Laguna de la Paz.
3. All construction equipment shall be mufrlered and adequately maintained
throughout the construction of the project.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with noise at the
site are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
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 construction of 74 single family homes will not induce substantial population
growth. The site is currently partially developed but vacant, and no one will be displaced.
Impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be negligible.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
M. 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.)
X M. 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 sales and 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 and park in lieu fees in place at
the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services.
-25-
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 project proponent will be subject to park in lieu fees for the provision of recreation
facilities throughout the City.
-26-
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 EM 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 EK 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)? (TTM 32397)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 32397)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 32397)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan land use
map. The site could accommodate up to 114 dwelling units. 74 dwelling units are
proposed. The site will generate approximately 708 average daily trips, which are well
within the trip generation analysed in the General Plan EIR. That document found that
-27-
traffic on Washington Street at buildout of the General Plan would operate at an
acceptable level of service. Since the proposed project will generate fewer units than
originally envisioned, the impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be
slightly lower than previously analysed.
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-28-
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.)
-29-
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.
-30-
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 the potential to impact biological resources. These impacts have been
mitigated above to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will add to the housing types offered to the City's residents, a goal
of the General Plan.
"—" XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction
of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-31-
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
the site will generate PM 10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have also been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
-32-
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.
The Initial Study prepared for the La Quinta Arts Foundation (EA 2000-394) was used in the
preparation of 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.
-33-
UN
z�
aazH�
00
a�
0
Cd
4-4
0
U
3
CA
z
aV
o
o
••
a
O
'•pA
UD
a
o�
M
N
M
`t
o
cd
U
�
U
Cd
�
b4
a�
>'
>
0
Z
H
o
N
U
Ozcn
A
U
W
E-�
A
U
p�q
�A
a�
a
�W
0V
4
o
a
o
d
o
d
r_i
0
a
-� -cod
'�
•�
•�
,o
U
,o
U
o
U
�,
�
Cd
b
cri
C7
°
o
4-4o
0
►•a
U
UEA
U
bA
bA
bA
0-4
0
cd
�
.
-0
Cd
03
cl
a
c
a
a
Cd
A
A
Q
aaaaa�n
A
Q
Q
a
a
�o
Cd
a �
°
' bn
� 0
Q
Q
O
U
U
GCa
O 0
U A
W
pQ
...
pq
pq
.�
CM
N
O
A
4) N
° °
>
bCdA
...,
Cd
b -b
cd
>�
a
b~
>
o
o
a.
$:I. CO
. �
3
En
bo
rn r
fir, N -0
F
A
U
p�q
�A
a�
�V
O�
o
bo A
•a
ao
•a
ao
.CA
�
�
o
a
C
o
Ob
•o o
U
.2 cd
,o O
t
O
o
w�
�
•0
CA
0 �
a
N
V
• A
Al 4)
NO
0aai
x
UQMO
oVO
UAx
a�
O
V
° °
.W
>
Lu
�•,
• a A,
Cdd
b
. v
o
a
ao o
0
bo
0 •�
b
2Cd
p
Q
•0
•
>
0 0
o
.;4
z
F
A
U p�q
�A
a�x
�V
O�V
W
o
o
.0
a
G7
F
�
A
a
w c�
O
E.,
O�
a
A
p4
-v
a�
a
r�
bo
010
Uri,
N �
�
V
y
H
A
V pq
�A
a�
u
OW
w
H
•°
•°
•°
�a
U
o
0
0
cn
O
O
O
U
U
U
A
A
A
a
z0
ap
A
A
A
b
�
b
O
�
o
v��1
'rs
an
o
bA
OCd�
W
O
^C
O
to
""
Cd
U