Loading...
1998 07 14 PCe oe OF ti0 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California July 14, 1998 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 98-047 Beginning Minute Motion 98-006 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for June 23, 1998 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case ........................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-358, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-058 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 98-087 Applicant .................. H. A. Anderson Location ................... South of the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive Request .................... Approval of: 1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 98-358; 2) a General Plar. Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; and 3) a Zone Change of ten acres from Love Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Action ..................... Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- , and Resolution 98- B. Case ..................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361, SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006-AMENDMENT #3, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 28447 Applicant ................ KSL Land Corporation Location and Request.. Approval of: 1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 98-361; 2) Annexation of 3 + acres on the north side of 54`h Avenue, approximately 1500 feel west of Jefferson Street and annexation of 1.7+ acres on the east side of Park Avenue, approximately 1100 feet north of Calle Tampico into the Specific Plan area; and 3; Resubdivision of a portion of Tract 24889 and the 1.7 + acre proposed annexed site into 49 single family residential lots or the west side of Nectareo, north of Nispero and on the soutl side of Mandarina, west of Mango within the Citrus. Action ................... Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- , and Resolution 98- C. Case ..................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 28797 Applicant ............... RJT Homes LLC. Location ................ Toronja and Azahar Streets, west of Mango within the Ranct Specific Plan (the Citrus) Request ................. Approval of: 1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 98-363; and 2) a subdivision o', 11.81 acres into 53 residential lots within Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment #3 Action ................... Resolution 98- and Resolution 98- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None PC/AGENDA VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of July 7, 1998. B. Discussion of future Commission meeting dates. IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 23, 1998 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Commissioner Abels who asked Commissioner Gardner to lead the flag salute. B. Commissioner Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Commissioner Abels. Commissioner Woodard and Chairman Butler arrived late. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Commissioner Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 9, 1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8, Line 10 be amended to read, "City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City was not about to rezone a piece of property...." ; Page 12, Item 34, change the word "streets" to "view"; and Page 16, Item 5, change the word "bas in" to "basin". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Gardner to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - General Plan Amendment 98-056 and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; a request of the City to amend the Zoning Code Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the General Plan Land Use and Environmental Conservation Elements regarding Hillside Development Density Transfers. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Kirk asked if that portion of the staff report that states a "variety of design methods for reducing the visual impact of access roads are given including reducing the width of the travel way", is now identified as one of the possible strategies for addressing the impact of access roads. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was included as part of the proposed Planning Commission changes and was meant to be included in the staff recommended ordinance and would be corrected. Commissioner Kirk asked where staff obtained the information on what the County required that was more restrictive on slopes. Staff stated it was an inaccurate interpretation by staff. Commissioner Kirk questioned Page 64, Item #7, of the staff report whether there were any limitations on the amount of soil that could be placed against the hillside and has staff considered this. Staff stated they had not considered this, it would be considered under the conditional use permit process as to how it fits within the hillside. Commissioner Kirk stated that at the last meeting it was suggested placing a line on the map and restricting any development above that line; has staff considered this. Staff noted it was an item listed on the page of Proposed Planning Commission changes. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if legal counsel had any concerns about establishing this type of restriction. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had concerns because denying even access roads above the 30% grade does create a problem for the City. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City Attorney had looked into how the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County are able to do this. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in her review of their ordinances, she found the City's proposed ordinance was much more restrictive. For someone to challenge their ordinance, a person would have to bring a specific project to the City Council, have them deny it and make the findings in their ordinance that they do not allow it. They do not prohibit development; they just require their City Council to review and approve each development. It would be easier to defend either the City of Indian Wells or Riverside County's ordinances than the Planning Commission proposed change restriction of any development on slopes in excess of 30%. Commissioner Kirk asked if counsel had asked either the County or Indian Wells if they had been challenged. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had not. 4. Chairman Butler asked if Commissioner Kirk would like to make a recommendation that the City adopt that portion of Indian Well's ordinance. Commissioner Kirk stated he would prefer to do this, but would wait until after public comment had been taken. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 5. Commissioner Gardner asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer to explain the boulder fields. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that three properties had been chosen for an analysis and as suggested by the City Attorney they will remain anonymous. He proceeded to explain how the analysis was made at each of the three sites. Commissioner Woodard arrived at 7:15 p.m. 6. Chairman Butler asked if this process could be followed by other engineers. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that before he would go to the site with a developer, he would take a section of rope and mark off the ten foot sections to be more specific in his analysis. The issue is whether or not the Planning Commission wants to stay with the 24-inch size boulder, or go larger, or smaller. Discussion followed as to how the 24-inch number was chosen. 7. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if they were asked today, would they still chose the 24-inch size or would they rewrite any portion of the guidelines. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated his purpose in choosing the 24-inch size boulder was to have a more substantial size rock to make a determination. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the purpose was to retain the uniqueness of the area, is it staff s determination that the 24-inch size would gain what staff is trying to accomplish? Staff stated it would; a larger number may require losing more of the hillside. Discussion followed regarding the boulder field determination process. 10. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they would be taking the Commission's recommendation, but would also be taking staffs recommendation. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was the direction staff was taking. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that based on the advice of legal counsel, yes. Commissioner Kirk asked if it was the legal concern regarding the 30% grade. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there was a legal concern with writing the ordinance that absolutely nothing can be built at any time under any circumstances above the 30% grade. Commissioner Kirk asked if language contained in the Indian Wells Ordinance similar to a waiver, would that make legal counsel and staff more amenable to the direction of the Planning Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Indian Wells Ordinance prohibits hillside development unless the City Council in their discretion, determines whether or not they can build. Her confusion is why the Commission is leaning toward their ordinance when it is much less clear and would require a developer to go through the entire planning process to the City Council CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc6-23-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 before they would know whether or not their project would be allowed. This seems to be very counter to the direction the Commission was trying to go. Staff s recommendation is very clear. There would only allow extremely limited types of uses to be built above the 20 percent slope, with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Kirk stated that the way it was originally proposed, many uses would be allowed above the 20 percent. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell corrected that the only things that would be allowed above the 20 percent would be the access roads to those areas that are less than 20 percent. Commissioner Kirk stated they would be allowed above the 20 percent slope but in the areas that are less than 20 percent. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that was correct, but the Indian Wells ordinance is also only talking about land areas with 20 percent or greater slopes. It would also allow greater development, as long as it is on an area with less than 20 percent, depending upon the underlying zoning. Commissioner Kirk stated this was not exactly true; you would have to get to that point. The way the topography works in Indian Wells, you are not able to develop on land above 30 percent, even if there was a plateau at the top of the slope, because you could not get to it. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is an assumption that the City Council would not allow the developer to build an access road to get to the area below the 30 percent. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was a policy statement or legal opinion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that no one would be able to challenge their ordinance on its face because on its face it does not clearly prohibit all development. It allows a mechanism to allow development of any type if someone wants to take it through the process. They would only know whether or not they would be allowed to develop after they went through the entire planning process. Then the developer would have to argue that the Council unreasonably denied the project. As the Commission proposes the ordinance, with absolutely no development and no mechanism given to the Council for their discretion to allow development, can be challenged on its face without a project. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commission's proposed changes were amended with language similar to that used by Indian Wells, would legal counsel have a problem. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would not have a problem. Commissioner Kirk stated legal counsel has concerns with how attractive his policy objections would be, but that is not a legal issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is a legal issue as it is her responsibility to write ordinances. It is her responsibility to make sure that the ordinances written reflect the policies that are directed from the City Council and the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, it is her responsibility that if she believes the Commission or Council has a concern whether it is making something less CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 discretionary or making it more clear, that it is reflected in writing. That we do not pick something because it sounds easier but actually opens the door to a great deal of discretion on the part of the City Council. Commissioner Kirk asked if the 30% grade requirement were left in the ordinance and a statement was included that allowed for City Council to waive the 30% requirement, perhaps under very circumscribed conditions, would legal counsel have any concerns. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would not have as much a concern from a taking issue. Commissioner Kirk asked if based on this information, would staff be more comfortable taking the Commission's recommended conditions to the City Council and not give a staff recommendation that was independent. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they would rely on the discretion of the City Attorney as it relates to defensibility of the way it is worded. If the City Attorney accepts it, staff would not provide an alternative to that recommendation. Commissioner Kirk went on to question Planning Manager Christine di Iorio on hillside ordinances that were adopted by other cities she had worked for. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated that since the City was now a Charter City, didn't the City Council have the authority to overrule any action of the Planning Commission if they did not concur with their recommendation. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated yes, they did, but they cannot overrule their own ordinance if it is written in a tight way. They can amend their own general zoning criteria, but they would have a difficult time allowing someone to build on a 20 percent slope. Under the Indian Wells ordinance, if the Council could make the findings that no environmental issues were being made to safety, health, etc., they could approve the construction. It just depends on how much discretion was given to the City Council to decide on a specific project. Commissioner Tyler stated that if that portion of the ordinance concerning waiverability were included in our ordinance would it not solve the problem. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would make it more defendable on its face. 12. Commissioner Woodard cited a possible scenario of a boulder field and asked what a developer would do if he did not agree with staff `s interpretation of what is a boulder field; what would be the process he would follow to appeal this decision. Staff stated he could appeal the decision to the Planning Commission without progressing on with his development plans. 13. Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this subject. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, stated they also would prefer a line that defines where development cannot occur above. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 Also, they would like to object to boulder fields in that perhaps the grid should be expanded because you could have a patchwork of development area and boulder fields, on a piece of land, separated from each other and the property owner could lose the ability to build anywhere on the site. 14. Chairman Butler noted that in staff s report it appears to answer Mr. Hosea's concern. Mr. Hosea stated they believe it may do that, but as it is written, they still question whether the whole area is exempt or just that area where the boulder field exists is exempt. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that each grid had to be 80% filled with boulders to qualify as a boulder field. Mr. Hosea stated that if flexibility existed for the developer to find the grid; they could work with this. 15. Mr. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning and Research, speaking for Mr. Meyer and his group, asked the Commission to determine the purpose of the ordinance as this may be the challenge to this ordinance. The criteria for determining the size of the boulder, "view from afar", should be better clarified; boulder fields are typically an edge phenomenon that are typically adjacent to certain geological edges of a slope and seem to be isolated. He questioned what a topographic aberrant meant and stated that unique geology and topographic aberrant were subjective concepts that are difficult to cope with. The definitions need to be more thoroughly thought out and maybe more functionally rationalized to be more defendable. Currently, the basis seems to be a mistake. 16. There being no further comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened it for Commission discussion. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Kirk's suggestions regarding the inclusion of that portion of the Indian Wells ordinance to restrict any development above the 30% grade, but in compliance with the City Attorney's concerns. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had no legal concerns, but she is not sure it is the direction of the City Council. 18. Commissioner Seaton concurred with Commissioner Tyler and thanked staff for their time and work on this project. She would object to changing the size of the boulders to anything larger than 24-inches. 19. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had concerns about a person's property which contains a boulder field, is the entire area building prohibitive, or does the ordinance define where the boulder field leaves off. If it did not, he would not vote for the ordinance. In working with staff, he had the privilege of seeing how the 20% grade was determined and found the process extremely easy. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 20. Commissioner Abels asked Commissioner Woodard what he would recommend. Commissioner Woodard stated that in the areas that are defined as boulder fields, only those areas are to be excluded from development. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this is the way the ordinance is written. 21. Commissioner Gardner stated he believed the boulder fields had a certain aesthetic value that should not be disturbed and he would like to retain them as they are. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 043 recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 98-351. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-044 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 98-056. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-045 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-057, with the direction to add those appropriate sections of the Indian Wells' ordinance pertaining to waivers ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Tentative Tract Map 28938; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval of a subdivision of 133.42 acres into 200 single family and other common or street lots within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #2) and Specific Plan 90-017 in PGA West. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dais. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc6-23-98.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if they were being consistent with the use of "Primary Arterials" and "Agrarian Image Corridors". Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated each one serves a different purpose and staff needs to be more explicit when referring to it. Madison Street in this instance, is shown as a Primary Arterial which defines the width of the street. 3. Commissioner Tyler questioned the undergrounding of utilities. The east and west side along Madison Street currently have overhead utility lines, as well as along Airport Boulevard. Which of the existing utility lines will be undergrounded. Staff clarified that the east side contained the major transmission lines and would not be undergrounded. The power lines on the west side of Madison Street and any on Airport Boulevard, smaller than the large 12KB lines will be undergrounded. 4. Commissioner Seaton asked if the equestrian trail was a developer request or staff. Staff clarified that the General Plan under the Recreation Element identified Madison Street as an equestrian corridor for access to Lake Cahuilla. It is a requirement that was added to the development and it would be placed within their 20-foot landscape easement. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in order to approve the tract, the Commission has to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Therefore, you have to have the equestrian trail or they cannot make the finding of consistency to approve the tract. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if the equestrian trail would be within the landscaped setback, what materials would be used. Staff stated the General Plan only identifies the trail and does not give any other specifics. The applicant has a proposed plan to show what they would look like. There will be a bikeway in the street right of way and within the 32 foot street there will be the 12 foot right of way and 20 feet of landscaping easement, that will consist of a sidewalk and equestrian trail. Commissioner Woodard asked where the equestrian trail started and ended. Staff explained the path. 6. Commissioner Kirk questioned the amount of traffic that would be generated. Staff stated it was the ultimate build out for the two specific plans. Commissioner Kirk asked if all the conditions as proposed, were grounded in existing law/regulations/ordinances. Staff stated they were. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to speak regarding the project. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, asked for consideration on some of the conditions: 1) Condition #37 regarding storm drains, they would like to add that unless the nuisance water is directed to the golf course retention area, a sandfilter and leachfield is required. This is because they have the golf course to disperse the water through a system of dry wells to the golf course and lake system. 2) Condition #40 clarification on the utilities that Imperial Irrigation would accept the undergrounding of the utilities, but it is cost prohibitive. 3) Condition #86 requires the installation of permanent restrooms for golfers and golf course maintenance workers. This is a request for approval of a residential tract and this condition is not appropriate. Halfway houses are on the golf course and they would not like to set a precedent that requires golf course maintenance restroom facilities in the residential tracts. Therefore, they are asking to delete this condition. In regard to the equestrian trail they are concerned that they are being asked to complete one leg of the trail that may or may not ever be completed. Therefore, they are asking to be relieved of the construction of this trail that may never be completed as there is a significant amount of undeveloped land between their tract and the trail's beginning and ending. Another concern was whether or not the State Fish and Game Agency would be able to prevent any humans from entering the area where the trails go through the mountains. He then introduced Forrest Haag who presented the equestrian trail proposal. The first condition they would suggest shows that from the centerline of Madison Street there is a 12 foot median, 110 foot right of way, so from the curb to the median there are two lanes, an emergency stop, and bicycle lane in the street section. Then on the turf area there is a six foot meandering sidewalk within the 12 foot setback to right of way. The meandering sidewalk also moves in and out of the 20 foot landscape area. In the ultimate condition, a ten foot equestrian trail would be developed to meander with the sidewalk with an equestrian fence separating the two. Without knowing the connection points of the trail, they suggest that within the 20-foot setback where the trail would be, they be allowed to have a green belt with an irrigation system. This gives the effect of a fully landscaped area without having a trail that would be a maintenance burden on the City. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked if the trail would be a maintenance burden for the City. Staff stated the trail would be conditioned to be maintained by the homeowners' association. Mr. Hosea stated it would be difficult to get the Department of Real Estate as well as the homeowners' association to maintain a right of way that anyone can ride in. During that time when it is landscaped median, they are proposing it be maintained by the homeowners' association. When the City assumes the right of way the City would acquire the maintenance of the trail. Community Development Director Jerry CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 Herman stated they would recommend that the trail be built as part of the improvements for the entire length of the this tract and it be maintained under the homeowners' agreement. It is the developers and homeowners' responsibility. Staff is still recommending that it be built now and not later as it can become an issue of enforcement to have the trail constructed. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked if KSL would want to bond for the trail. Mr. Hosea stated they understood the reasoning for the trail and they would bond for the additional improvements that it would take to convert their improvements to an equestrian trail. On the premise that if the City is unable to connect the trail, they would ask that the General Plan be amended and their bonds released. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked if it would be more costly to maintain the transitional planting than the equestrian trail. Mr. Hosea stated they were surprised that the City would not maintain an required equestrian trail they require. It is unfair to make the homeowners' association responsible for the removal and disposal of manure that is outside their walls that was deposited by a horse that could be from anywhere. Mr. Haag stated that in the short term, the cost of the irrigation system to accommodate the landscaped area is minimal. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if they wait for the equestrian trail to come after the houses are built, the likelihood -hood of having an equestrian trail along that frontage is slim to none once the property is built and sold. The General Plan policy requires the trail to be constructed from Avenue 50 to Lake Cahuilla. City Attorney DawnHoneywell stated that if they had a desire to have the trail eliminated, they should have applied for a general plan amendment as part of this consideration. Mr. Hosea stated that if the trail is going to be built, they are being required to build the most expensive leg of that trail. They are disclosing to the homeowners that the condition exits and do not understand why they cannot bond for the improvements. Staff suggested they install the split rail fence to delineate the trail and the grass. Mr. Hosea asked how the City was going to handle the requirement for an equestrian trail with property owners who did not want any development adjacent to their property. How will that leg of the trail be completed. Community Development Department Jerry Herman stated that in some instances, the City may have to construct a temporary trail system where a property owner has no intention of developing his land within the 12-foot setback. 11. Commissioner Woodard asked what the difference was between the construction of the fence and a sidewalk being built. Both can dead end until the adjoining property is built. Mr. Hosea stated improvements can be bonded for to be completed during the phasing of a project. When the equestrian trail between 50`h Avenue and this section occurs, they will construct their portion of the trail. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 12. Commissioner Woodard asked if the applicant was requesting the City to maintain the trail. Mr. Hosea stated the homeowners are to maintain the area in the right of way, but in this environment when there are not only additional maintenance costs but additional liability issues it is unfair to ask the homeowners to assume this responsibility unless they are creating an equestrian environment. Mr. Stan Morse, engineer for the project, stated that in projects he is involved with in Chino Hills and Rancho Cucamonga, the regional horse trails are maintained by the city and the homeowners' association maintains all the landscaping outside it. Commisioner Woodard asked why the equestrian trail would not be adjacent to the wall and not meandering to make it simple. Mr. Haag stated the wall is meandering as well. 13. Chairman Butler asked staff if the City has ever considered maintaining the trail. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that in conformance with the State's mandate, Proposition 218, all developers who build are required to maintain the common area between the wall and City right of way including the median if it is not in the current Lighting and Landscaping District. Therefore, it is staff s recommendation that the Commission adopt the requirement that the homeowners' association maintain everything between the block wall. When the issue goes to the City Council they can decide whether to exclude the trail for maintenance by the City. Mr. Hosea stated they have a developer who wants to build his model complex and get it open for the season. Therefore, they are asking to have this forwarded to the City Council for their decision. 14. Commissioner Woodard asked if there were design standards for the equestrian trail. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated guidelines were contained in the Equestrian Overlay. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated that a previous meeting the Commission was reviewing Tentative Tract 28776 and at that time there was a discussion regarding permanent lighting for the street median; is this the tract that would be responsible for that lighting. Mr. Hosea stated no, it is the tract off Winged Foot, adjacent to the Southern Hills project. 16. Commissioner Seaton asked if the applicant was asking for a delay in the construction of the trail or the maintenance. Mr. Hosea stated that during their scoping meeting with staff, it was his understanding the City would be maintaining the trail. 17. Commissioner Tyler noted the elevation for Lot 85 was incorrect; it should be 470 feet. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 18. Mr. Haag stated the 0.39% figure, noted in the report regarding traffic, is the total capacity these two projects would put on these arterials. 19. Commissioner Woodard asked if the reason the applicant was asking for relief from the requirement to provide restroom facilities was because their golf course maintenance men use the restrooms at their maintenance shed. Mr. Hosea stated this is correct. They will be constructing another maintenance facility with the Norman Course that is being designed for the north end of this property. This will serve the east side of Madison Street. 20. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 21. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff had no objection to the requested change to Condition #37 to allow drainage onto the golf course. The applicant will need to denote permanent easements from the residential area to the golf course so there is no question in the future as to whether or not they can drain onto the golf course. On Condition #43, a provision needs to be added requiring fencing to be constructed in accordance with Section 9.140(3) of the General Plan for a split rail fence. In regard to Condition #86, staff s concern was not to provide restroom facilities for the maintenance workers of KSL, but rather the maintenance workers for the homeowners' association who do not have use of restroom facilities. Therefore, the condition should be changed to delete golf course workers and add the words association maintenance workers. Discussion followed as to how this had been handled in prior tracts. 22. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant how they could accommodate for this. Mr. Hosea stated it would be an issue to be worked out with the homeowners. 23. Chairman Butler asked if the homes could be constructed and turn the issue of the restrooms over to the homeowners' association. 24. Commissioner Woodard questioned how the restrooms could be required to be built without any pool facilities. This could be upsetting to the property owners next to them and across the street. Mr. Hosea stated that depending upon the size of the homeowners' association, there are no funds available for this purpose. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc6-23-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 25. Commissioner Tyler asked if this area would have its own maintenance facility. Mr. Hosea stated one is not noted on this map. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is her understanding this is a policy of the City Council and she did not understand why there was a problem in requiring it as it has been a requirement of every other tract. Developers have always been responsible for the construction of the common area items and the responsibility of maintaining them has been the homeowners' association. 26. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if the landscaping associated with this tract is an issue that could be addressed by the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if there are specific setbacks requirements, or specific things in the specific plan that are pertinent, or if there is a basis either in our Zoning Code that requires it to be considered at the tract map stage, or in the specific plan for this particular project, then it could be discussed. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Zoning Code requires a review of the landscaping plan as part of the tentative tract map process. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City gets more specific on what the perimeter landscaping is on the tract maps. Commissioner Kirk asked if the amount of turf on Madison Street could be reconsidered due to the water issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City could adopt a more stringent policy for future tracts. Traditionally, within an existing development, it has not been the policy of the City to do this. Public findings could be made that water is so scarce that developers could be required to be more conservative. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was not within the private community, but the public areas. He asked if guidelines could be required of this tract. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that Condition #56 requires the applicant to meet the City's Landscape Standards. 27. Commissioner Kirk asked staff how they interpret this condition that lawn be minimized when lawn is an essential use along Madison Street to be compatible. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they will have to meet the requirements of Condition #56 and yet be consistent with what is currently existing. 28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 046 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28838, subject to findings and conditions as modified for Conditions #37, modified by changing the wording for allowing the drainage to flow onto the golf course with the easements; 43.C. modified to add the specifications for the equestrian trail; and #86 to change the restroom buildings for homeowners' association maintenance workers. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 1998 29. Commissioner Woodard stated he objects to the motion as stated on the basis that it is inappropriate and inconsistent to deny bonding for future development as it is a process that works and has traditionally been an accepted method of the City for the provision of such amenities. Secondly, an equestrian trail should be maintained by the City and not the homeowners' association. If the developer is going to be required to install the restrooms, it should be defined better as to how and where they will be located. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner returned to the dais. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of June 16, 1998. B. Chairman Butler thanked everyone for their participation while serving on the Commission. C. Commissioner Tyler asked that a discussion of when the Commission will go dark be added to the Commission agenda for the next meeting. D. Commissioner Seaton thanked everyone for the privilege of serving on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on July 7, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:22 P.M. on June 23, 1998. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-23-98.wpd 14 PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 14, 1998 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-358 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-058 ZONE CHANGE 98-087 REQUEST: 1. RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) 3. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) LOCATION: SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE APPLICANT/OWNER: H.A. ANDERSEN, H. A. ANDERSEN, ET. AL. REPRESENTATIVE: NELDA BAYLA ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL, ( COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL, (CITY OF INDIO) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The 10 acre site is located directly south of the existing General Plan designated 10 acre Neighborhood Commercial site at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. The 10 acre site is a portion of a 40 acre parcel of vacant land under one ownership. A APC.staffrepert.GPA98-058.wpd 1. General Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan designation for the 10 acre site from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The request is to expand the current 10 acres designated Neighborhood Commercial at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive to a 20 acre Neighborhood Commercial site to make the future parcel more suitable for development of a typical neighborhood commercial center. The General Plan identifies typical neighborhood center uses as a grocery store, drug store, personal services, administrative and professional offices, and eating and drinking establishments. 2. Change of Zone The applicant is requesting to change the Zoning designation for the 10 acre site from Low Density Residential (RL) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The request is to expand the current 10 acres designated Neighborhood Commercial at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive to a 20 acre Neighborhood Commercial site to make it more suitable for development of a typical neighborhood commercial center. The Zoning Code permits, in the Neighborhood Commercial district, such uses as a grocery store, drug store, personal services, administrative and professional offices, and eating and drinking establishments. Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment 98-358 for the project. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on May 21, 1998 requesting comments returned by June 5,1998. The City of Indio is suggesting a joint planning effort to establish uniform development standards for the Jefferson Street corridor. U.S. Homes is is concerned that the proposal would permit commercial structures and associated activities directly across from their residential units on Jefferson street. PUTBL•IC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on June 23, 1998. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, to expand the currently designated Neighborhood Commercial site to approximately 20 acres by changing the use designation of 10 acres from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, will have minor or no significant impacts to the Land Use, Circulation Element, and other Elements of the General Plan. The proposed change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2-4.2.2 which allows Neighborhood Commercial sites to be a maximum of 20 acres, and requires sites be located on and take direct access from arterial streets. 0000062 AAPC.staffrepart.GPA98-058.wpd 2 The applicant completed a Traffic Study for this request. The trip generation study, assuming a project build -out scenario in lieu of a specific development proposal, identified the incremental difference in traffic with the proposed change in use. The trip generation analysis indicates the proposed change will generate 2,800 additional trips with roadway segments continuing to operate at acceptable levels of service. With site access assumed from Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive to the future Neighborhood Commercial center, the level of service at four intersections was analyzed based on trip assignments which includes the incremental increase in traffic generated from the proposed change to commercial use. These intersections include Jefferson/Fred Waring, Jefferson/Country Club, Jefferson/Miles, and Fred Waring/Dunes Palms. The results indicate that: 1) with the project, the Fred Waring/Jefferson intersection will continue operate at acceptable levels, 2) with the project, the intersection of Fred Waring/Dunes Palms warrants a signal, and 3) without the project, the Jefferson/Country Club and Jefferson/Miles intersections already warrant signalization. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 98-358) according to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of 10 acres of Low Density Residential as shown on Exhibit "A", to Neighborhood Commercial. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending approval of a Zone Change to change the designation of 10 acres of Low Density Residential as shown on Exhibit "A", to Neighborhood Commercial. 1. Exhibit "A" Prepared by: j4f..A� red Baker, Prin&fpal Planner Submitted by: 'l Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager AAPC.staffreport.GPA98-058.wpd 000003 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-358, FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-058 AND CHANGE OF ZONE 98-087 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-356 H. A. ANDERSON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 141h day of July, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation on the Environmental Assessment for General Plan Amendment 98- 058 and Change of Zone 98-087, a request by H. A. Anderson to amend the La Quinta General Plan from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2 - 4 units/acre) on 10 acres and NC (Neighborhood Commercial) on 10 acres, to NC on 20 acres, and to change the corresponding zoning from RL (Low Density Residential) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to CN; and, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial Study (Environmental Assessment 98- 358) and has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment 98-058 and Change of Zone 98-087 could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project may have potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as previous investigation of the site was conducted more than eight years ago. Although it was then concluded that no further investigations were warranted, changed conditions may have Planning Commission Resolution 98 - occurred over that time to justify new analysis. Mitigation to address the analysis of this potential has been incorporated which will reduce any potential impact to less than significant. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals, as the mitigation measures incorporated into approval of this project will ensure that further site specific development applications will be necessary and required to be evaluated at a more detailed level than is currently feasible, given the nature of the proposal. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process and cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects. In addition, the MMP for this proposal requires further analysis of certain impacts which have been determined as potentially significant, and such analyses will be required with any site specific development proposal(s) submitted to implement the land uses approved under this amendment and zone change. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, in terms of adverse environmental impacts to human populations, expansion of the existing NC land use category is considered to be less than significant on a cumulative basis due to the amount of existing and approved residential and commercial development/land use in the surrounding areas of Indio, La Quinta and Riverside County. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 98- 358 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. 000005 Planning Commission Resolution 98 - PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 141' day of July 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Chairman City of La Quinta, California 11O Environmental Checklist Form EA 98-358 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 98-058 and Change of Zone 98-087 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, AICP, Principal Planner - 760-777-7065 4. Project Location: Southwesterly corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: H.A. Anderson, P.O. Box 6712, Portland, OR 97228 Contact: (503) 283-67I2 6. General Plan Designation: 7, Zoning: LDR RL (Low Density Residential, 2 - 4 units/acre) (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.) This proposed amendment and zone change involve approximately 10 acres, and propose to amend the General Plan from 10 acres of Low Density Residential to 10 acres of Neighborhood Commercial, and a zone change from RL to CN. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): The project site is currently vacant and consists of undulating sand dunes with desert vegetation. Residential uses are designated around the entire site; to the north is Riverside County jurisdiction, vacant land designated Category H (Urban) land use, to the east is the Heritage Palms project in Indio, to the south and west are vacant and developed Low Density residential lands (City of La Quinta). 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City of La Quinta C: WrkgrptEAdocMck1st3S8.wpd 00000'7 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. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Svstems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics X Water Hazards X Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise i Recreation riMandatory 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. a I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. E X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. a I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately anaivzed 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 11 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a), have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b), have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 0 June 4. 1998 Signature Date Wallace Nesbit Community Development Printed Name For 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 reference 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). Z) 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. �) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to. the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section I5063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 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. See the sample question below. A source list should be. attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. c: tkgrp AdoakckLit3sa.wpd Example question only: EX. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): L IL Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1, 6) (Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentiaiiv Potentially significant Less Than significant Unless significant Yo Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1, 5) F7 I I I x 1 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1. 3, 13) X7 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, 5, 6, 12) X No pnme ag soils d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1- 4) X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (aerial) X7 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1, 4) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1, 4) MMM 0 000010 C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ckW59.wpd 4 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Sup porting Information Sources): Impact vudeated Impact Impact III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1 - 3) b) Seismic ground shaking'? (1 - 3 ) Zone IV. Win 4 mi. of San Andreas fault zone c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1 - 3) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (2) e) Landslides or mudflows? (2) Myoma soils f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1 - 3) <1/4 mi from active blowsand g) Subsidence of the land? (1 - 3) site not in any identified area h) Expansive soils? (1 - 3) not subject to exp soil cond. i) Unique geologic or physical features? (2, site aerial) IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Site conditions) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (2. flood maps) 000011 cAw*g,EAdo= ss..4pa -5 Potentially Potentially Significant Leas Than ortin� Information Sources): Signnificant L"iesa Significant No Issues land Su PP Impact %fitlgated Impact Impact 0 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (aerial photo) �X] d) Changes in the amount of surface water in anv water body? (Site X conditions) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X (site conditions) n Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (2) X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (site conditions) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (2, 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (2, 11) V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1,2, 5, 13) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, 2, aerial) 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Project) X] C.`.Wrkgrpd Adocs\ck1st358.wpd 000012 Ire Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Create objectionable odors? (Project application) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (14) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unim Significant No M b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (14) 7t Traffic study proposes full access on Fred Waring c1 Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Aerial) T X d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (No data) x e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (No data) x f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 5) x g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Aerial) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1 - 4) X CVFTL, Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1 - 4) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat. etc.)? (1 - 4) CAwrkMr EAdocsWkW58.wpd 000013 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (1 - 4) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? (I - 4. aerial) ENERGY AND NQNERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1 - 3 ) Potentiaav Potentially Significant Legs Than Significant unksa Significant No �M� M b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X (Proposed land use) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (1 - 3) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Site application) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X (Site application) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X (Aerial) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (site aerial) 000014 CAWrkgrpEAdocsbckL 58.wpd -8- Potentially Potentially 5 t Less Phan Issues (and Sup o m Inforation Sources): simam`ant Unless s vo o —� mImpact mm sled Im ct Im act K. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (14, proposed use, site aerial) X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (14, proposed use, site X aerial) ICI, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1, 2, 4) b) Police protection? (1, 2, 7) c) Schools? (1, 2, 3) d) Maintenance of public facilities. Including roads? (1, 2, 3, 9) e) Other governmental services? (1, 2, 3. 10) aL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Proposed use. 1, 2) b) Communications systems? (Proposed use, 1, 2) 000015 CAWrkgtpEAdocsWk1st358.wpd _9_ Potentially Potentially SIVAficant Less Yhaa Issues (and Supporting Signiftant Unim sbndfi ant Vo Information Sources): Impact WBgated Impact Impact c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( L 2. 11) X d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1, 2, 11) X e► Storm water drainage? (1, 2) X 0 Solid waste disposal? (1, 2, proposed use) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2, 11) X U11. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1, 2, proposed use) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Proposed use, X application) c) Create light or glare? (Proposed use, surrounding area)I T X I 1 -1 KIV, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1, 2) X b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1, 2, 16) X CAWrkgp�EAdo=wkW58.wpd -10 000016 Potentially Potentially significant Less Than Supporting Information Sources): significant unkm significant No Issues land Su pp Impact Vtltlgated Impact Impact c) Affect historical resources? (1. 2, site aerial)L- I I 7{ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (L 2) X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1, 2) X V. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1, 2, site aerial) X T71 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1, 2, site aerial) VL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 to 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 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.) X CAW rkgtp�EAdocswklst3 S 8.wpd -11- 000017 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X VII EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIIL 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. REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5 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. REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5 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. REFER TO ADDENDUM SECTION 5 CAWrkgMp EAdoawkW59.wpd -12- INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST RESPONSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-358 Prepared for: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #97-055 CHANGE OF ZONE 98-087 H.A. ANDERSON, APPLICANT Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 June 23, 1998 C:\WrkgrpT-Adocs\ea98358.wpd 000019 Section 1 `a 3 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 2.2 Physical Characteristics 2.3 Operational Characteristics 2.4 Objectives 2.5 Discretionary Actions 2.6 Related Projects ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Land Use and Planning 3.2 Population and Housing 3.3 Geological Problems 3.4 Water 3.5 Air Quality 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 3.7 Biological Resources 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.9 Hazards 3.10 Noise 3.11 Public Services 3.12 Utilities and Service Systems 3.13 Aesthetics 3.14 Cultural Resources 3.15 Recreation MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE EARLIER ANALYSIS Page C 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 8 9 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 2 C AWrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98358.wpd nn SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for this project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision on the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. The project is proposed to allow a 20 acre site as commercial land use, which is currently designated for 10 commercial and 10 residential acres. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment and zone change. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed amendment and zone change applications project are subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of potential project -specific impacts. The Community Development Department has prepared this Environmental Assessment in order to assess the environmental impact of the proposal as a whole. This includes impacts which result not only from any approval action on the proposal but also from its implementation and operational characteristics. CAWrkgT EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000021 0 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant project -specific environmental impacts. As a result, specific mitigation measures have been incorporated. Mitigation measures proposed for each issue area as identified in the preceding hec list, are underlined within this discussion and summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) attached to this Addendum 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quints is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the Citv of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and county lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated on May 1, 1982. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone encompass approximately 10 acres, along the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The amendment will increase the amount of Neighborhood Commercial land use at this comer to 20 acres, as 10 acres of that land use currently exist. The applicants have not submitted any site development information or conceptual site plan, only that the ultimate project is intended to be in the range of 200,000 square feet. The site is vacant and has some undulation occurring due to hummocks created by windblown sand being restricted by vegetation. A traffic study has been submitted with the proposed project. The City of Indio has jurisdiction along the east side of Jefferson Street, which is the west boundary of the Heritage Palms project, an active senior country club project consisting of 1,300 units and an 18-hole championship golf course on 383 acres. The golf course and clubhouse have been completed, along with about 200 homes. North of the site, across Fred Waring, is under the jurisdiction of Riverside County and is currently vacant. Immediately south and west of the project site is vacant, Low Density Residential land under jurisdiction of the City of La Quinta, while further west are established low density subdivisions. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS A general plan amendment and zone change are proposed to allow an additional 10 acres of Neighborhood Commercial; this will increase the commercial area to a total of 20 acres. This 20 acres is part of a larger 38 acre parcel (604-072-008) owned by the applicant; the remaining 18 acres will maintain it's Low Density Residential designation. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS As previously stated, this project is proposed to accommodate commercial land uses in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) land use designation. The La Quinta General Plan allows a maximum F.A.R. (Floor/Area Ratio) of .25 for this category. Under the maximum F.A.R., the site would be permitted up to 217,800 s.f. For CAWrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98358."d 000022 analysis purposes, 217.800 s.f is considered to represent ultimate buildout of the site as Neighborhood Commercial. Approval of this general plan amendment will ultimately require filing of a site development pernut, and may also require specific plan and tentative map applications, depending on development of the overall property owned by the applicant. The Change of Zone application has been submitted to implement the development standards of the NC zoning district. 2.4 OBJECTIVES There is no specifically stated objective for this project. The proposal is to double the amount of Neighborhood Commercial land use over that already existing. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed General Plan Amendment will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the following: • Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project; • Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications for the project; • Approval of future unspecified applications to allow development of the property, the scope of which has not been determined at the present time. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The Valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographic relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2.000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the Valley. CAWrkUpEAd=s\=98358.wpd 000023 0 Local Environmental Setting The subject site is vacant, but has been partially disturbed in small areas by activities associated with open dumping, roadway improvement work and borrow of soils as fill material for other projects/activities. The site is adjacent to the Riverside County and City of Indio/La Quinta boundaries on the north and east, respectively. A through E - No Impact. The intent of the amendment and zoning is to allow for a 20 acre Neighborhood Commercial site, which will accommodate ultimate development of the property as envisioned by the proponent. The proposed changes do not significantly affect the current land use relationship between residential and commercial, as only the westerly border between NC and LDR will be expanded if the proposal is approved. The proposal is not anticipated to conflict with any environmental policies or plans in effect which would apply to the project. There are no existing or potential agricultural operations or uses which could be affected in any way by this project; the site has no historical evidence of agricultural use or resource potential and is not considered to be prime agricultural soil. The proposers Neighborhood Commercial land use will be compatible as it will be adjacent to the existing NC, providing services to the surrounding residential uses. The Heritage Palms project sited east of the site across Jefferson Street, is designated as RLJRPD-5 (Low Density Residential/Residential Planned Development Area 5) by the City of Indio. This area is part of the Westside Planning Area, which is defined as master planned communities offering family -oriented neighborhoods with excellent parks and trail systems. Neighborhood Commercial is also planned to provide area shopping opportunities, and approximately 10 acres are designated as part of the Heritage Palms project at the southeast comer of Jefferson and Fred Waring. The maximum residential density of RPD-5 would be 5 units/acre; however, Indio does allow density transfers within RPD's that would permit increased density in other areas within the RPD, based on a specific number of units that might be displaced by a major amenity such as a golf course or clubhouse. The developer of Heritage Palms (U.S. Homes) has submitted written comments on the proposal, requesting that the additional commercial acreage front on Fred Waring and not Jefferson. The concern is that the current location impacts their residential property across Jefferson Street, by placing additional commercial across from residential area within Heritage Palms. There is also concern that the existing, equally sized commercial areas at the south comers of Fred Waring and Jefferson should be maintained (both the southwest and southeast comers are currently designated for 10 acres of Neighborhood Commercial). Relocating the additional 10 acres to Fred Waring Drive only shifts the commercial to another location (Fred Waring), across from planned residential land Second, in either location there would be a Major Arterial acting as a physical buffer between the residential and commercial areas. Third, such a relocation would create additional impact to adjacent existing residential (Cactus Flower). The proposal will not physically divide or disrupt any established community, as there are no established communities that would be affected by approval of the proposal. The commercial land use area will be surrounded by vacant residential lands, which will develop consistent with existing residential in the area. Development of the commercial land will provide neighborhood services and goods to these established residential areas. CAWrkgrp\EAd=e--a98358.vvpd 000024 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The City's population as of January, 1998 has been estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 20.444 persons. In addition to these permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,400 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City (WDL Economic Overview: 1997 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit. based on the 1990 Census. but the 1998 State Department of Finance estimates a figure of 3.22, a figure which has continued to increase over the years. Local Environmental Setting The 10 acre site proposed for amendment to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. To the east lies the City of Indio. which has approved the Heritage Palms project, a 1,300 home active senior community with golf and other private recreational amenities. Properties to the north (Riverside County), west and south (La Quinta) are currently vacant and designated for housing development at lower densities. Indio has designated 10 acres at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Jefferson as Neighborhood Commercial in their General Plan. Previous Section 3.1 provides further information on surrounding land use. A - No Impact. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the local population beyond any currently recognized projections or planned land use capacities. Projections developed in March 1993 indicated that the City's population by 2000 will be 22,596, the current official estimate for 1998 is 20,444. Approval of this proposal would eliminate 10 acres of low density residential land, resulting in a loss of 60 to 120 people. The proposal itself will not exceed any growth forecasts currently available to or used by the City, nor will it cause any change in anticipated growth patterns or numbers, as these forecasts are based on the build out scenarios in the General Plan. B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project land use proposal may have a slight impact on growth in the area. Additional commercial land equates to further opportunities for residents, and there may be a somewhat heightened interest in the area from residential developers. Additional residential development would lend further market support to establishment of neighborhood commercial uses to serve those new and existing units. However, additional commercial designations will also increase property values of the site and possibly affect the surrounding area by increasing residential land values, which would affect housing development and, ultimately, prices. As alluded to above, the proposal will have the effect of removing 10 acres from the residential land inventory, displacing some degree of housing opportunity. While this is a quantifiable impact, it is not considered to be a significant loss of housing, and the site is not designated or planned for any affordable housing. 3.3 GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on CAWrkUp\EAdocs1ea98358.wpd 000025 P the Valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. Local Environmental Setting The site is approximately 70 feet above sea level, varving considerably due to it's topographical undulations, and consists of Myoma series soils. This soil type has rapid permeability is commonly used for homesites and other urban uses. While it can be used in development of croplands, it is not considered as prime agricultural soil as classified by the State. The site is located within a Ground Shaking Zone 4, referenced as a moderate level of shaking activity, but not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. There are no active faults in the area (La Quints MEA; October. 1992), but the site is within 1/4 mile of the San Andreas Fault Zone. A, B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project will present some additional exposure to geologic hazards associated with fault rupture. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and surface rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely, as stated in the project geotechnical study. The existing physical conditions in the area will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with development of the site in accordance with the General Plan. The project is located in a Ground shaking Zone 4, associated with moderate impacts from seismic activity. As a result the site is potentially subject to strong ground shaking effects associated with earthquake activity on outlying faults. Impacts involving potential seismic activity also relate to possible risk associated with subsidence and potential for upset conditions. The soil characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is minimal, based on its use in urbanized development, and liquefaction potential is negligible, as the evaluation does not identify the site as within an area subject to such potential and the fact that the area groundwater table is quite deep. Site -specific elo�n proposals will be required to adhere to seismic reinforcement and other is called for by the UBC. Application(s) for development shall be accompanied by a Prelimi= Geotechnical Investigation of the site area as Umposed for development. D, E - No Impact. There is no potential for seiche, tsunami or volcanic activity, as no water bodies or geotechnically active conditions of that nature exist within the City. The site is level and not subject to slide or mudflow impacts. (LQMEA, site conditions). F Through I - Less Than Significant Impact. Strong ground motion may result in moderate subsidence. There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such changes will affect stability of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Relief on the site varies, due to the sandy hummocks and dunes created from blowsand encroaching on vegetative stands. Soil erosion potential will increase due to loosening and movement of soil material during development. Standard erosion control and soil management methods as identified in required soil reports, and addressed in grading plans required for the site, will ensure that such impacts will not be significant. All earthwork shall gg=ly with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnimi Investigation of the site to be conduce at the time specific site dmiggment plans are submitted to the City. Submittal of a fugitive dust control plan (FRCP) as required (see Air Quality) will aid in wind erosion impact reduction. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock CAWrkgP\EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000026 01 material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future. Local Environmental Setting The vicinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel flood control facility and other improvements, such as the Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel. The site is undulating and incorporates well drained soils. The site is designated Zone X on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, subject to 500 year flood events, and is generally surrounded by lands susceptible to 100 year events with average depths of less than 1 foot (LQMEA). A - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Current runoff rates will be significantly increased due to pad. building and hardscape area development associated with any future site approvals which may be submitted based on approval of the amendment and zone change. The runoff produced by development of this site will have to be remind on -site. Anv site specific development proposal to be submitted will be reauired to prepare � �• ._�lt: �:. � r•._�_, �l ._e_!!l�iTL•_R•71 • � •,_r._t: ti +F11g7�:F� � • � � • r._��__�-< • T7R•7_ • _� Ye. ! �. =• �-.! B - Less Than Significant Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood control facilities. Development of the project will be required to provide adequate storm water protection on site to mitigate flooding impacts to any surrounding properties and accommodate the additional on -site runoff. C Through I - No Impact No surface waters exist in the area which could be affected by the project's development. Ground water resource quantity, quality and other characteristics will not be significantly impacted, as groundwater in the lower valley underground aquifer is marginal at depths up to 200 feet. The primary threat to groundwater quality is from septic tank installations, and nitrates and other byproducts of pesticide use. Compliance with NPDES requirements attached to the project permitting and installation of sanitary sewerage facilities will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the project's development will not create any measurable impact to water quality, quantity or hazards. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate. characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM CAWrkUpEAdoc6ea98358.wpd 0 0 0 0 2 10 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended in the air primarily due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently designated by the EPA as a serious non -attainment area for PM 10. however SCAQMD anticipates that recent data will show that the Valley has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this. SCAQMD has adopted a PM 10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status. A - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project has the potential for significant air quality impacts. The significance thresholds in the Handbook as established by SCAQMD indicate that, for a commercial shopping center project of this type (small, 10 - 500 KSF), a 22,000 s.£ center would present the potential for significant air quality impacts; an air quality analysis has not been required based on these significance thresholds, thus the air quality impact of this proposal has not been quantified. The maximum F.A.R. would permit 217,800 s.f. Several General Plan policies promote the concept of pedestrian accessibility and alternative travel modes, which assist in both air quality and circulation impact mitigation (Policies 9-2.1.2, 9-2.1.3, 9-4.1.4). Once a site specific application is submitted, it will be required to comply with the applicable policies and zoning requirements to implement them. Using Table 6-3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, construction emissions are only about 22% of the quarterly threshold for shopping centers, when assuming floor areas based on construction at 100% of the allotted F.A.R (217,000 KSF). Short term (construction -related) impacts will result primarily from clearing, grading and other pre -construction activities, which will generate fugitive dust. Prior to = soil disturbance i 91111"- 1:' l•,: • •.mil" •J• fiti}I �!" 1 •_ !� 1 .. • - • • . l".• } •. .• •.,-} .1_ _t L.• • - • -! - � � +_i�._"fill. .1_. 1.•• •• ..• - • t' • • Z. • •••.,• } _LI" B - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will expose sensitive receptors to pollutants to a limited degree, but this exposure is anticipated to be insignificant. The La Quinta High School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, and is located just over 1 mile southwest of the site. Residential receptor areas exist surrounding and within a '/: mile of the site. Construction -related air quality impacts will occur primarily from grading activities and other soil disturbances. The required FDCP will address these short-term construction impacts. C - No Impact. The project has no potential to effect any climatological change. The proposed residential uses will have no known potential for objectionable and/or possibly unhealthful odors. D - Less Than Significant Impact. There may be potential for objectionable odors, depending on the nature of the uses to be located on -site. Such odors could be produced by food/restaurant operations and their waste C:\Wrkgrp+.Adm\ea98358.wpd 0 0 0 0 2 E 11 products, trash receptacles, cleaning and other chemicals, etc. It is not anticipated that such impacts would be sgnficant. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting The City's existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new and resurfaced roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways in the City include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street Fred Waring Drive. Miles Avenue and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience seasonal variation: late winter/early spring months represent the peak tourist season. Local Environmental Setting The project has direct frontage on two major City thoroughfares: Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Both roadways are designated as Major Arterials (120-foot right-of-way, 4 - 6 travel lanes, Class 115 foot wide bike lanes. 18-foot raised median) in the City's General Plan. Jefferson Street is currently a two lane roadway with painted divider and no curb/gutter along the project frontage; intersection widening and signal installations have been done at it's intersection with Fred Waring, which is in a similar state of improvement. The La Quinta General Plan establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during A.M. or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative measures of traffic flow, ranging from A (free flow) to F (unacceptable saturation). A traffic study has been prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, INC. in June, 1998 for the project, and provides additional information where cited for specific project improvements and other criteria. A, B - Less Than Significant Impact The project will unquestionably create increases in trips and congestion: however, the roadway capacities as designed for 48'h Avenue, Jefferson Street and other major thoroughfares in the area are capable of absorbing this additional traffic, based on the volume/capacity ratios presented in the report. Based on that information, it has been estimated that approximately 8.500 average daily trips (ADT), less pass -by traffic, can be assigned to the proposed general plan amendment and zone change, which would allow 217,800 s.f. The study shows that ADT associated with 200,000 s.f., which is implied to be the applicant's proposed ultimate project size, would be 8,000, a reduction of 500 ADT. This represents an increase of 3,300 and 2,800 ADT, respectively, over the existing estimated 5,200 ADT. For purposes of the study, all trips are assumed to be vehicle trips; i.e. no consideration was given to trip reductions due to public transit operations, car pooling, pedestrian or bicycle trips. Four intersections were identified to be addressed by the study; Jefferson/Miles, Jefferson/Fred Waring, Country Club/Jefferson and Fred Waring/Dune Palms. It was determined that for existing conditions with the project, all four study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service, as signalized intersections, during the A.M. and P.M. peak -hours. The study indicates that all intersections currently meet signal warrants without the project; the exception is Fred Waring/Dune Palms (which meets warrants with the project). Jefferson/Fred Waring is already signalized. No analyses could be conducted for the project access points and on -site circulation, as no site plan information has been submitted with the proposed general plan amendment and change of zone. It is recommended in the report that the study be updated once a site specific proposal is submitted. C AWrkgrplEAdocskea98358.wpd 000029 12 While there is a measurable increase in traffic generated by the potential development permissible under the proposed amendment and zone change, it is considered to be less than significant due to the study intersections meeting warrants, whether or not the project is approved, and the minimal impact to existing LOS and volume/capacity ratios displayed in the report. The report states that access points are assumed to be right in/right out/left in along both Fred Waring and Jefferson. The General Plan Circulation Element (Table CIR-2) requires intersections along Major Arterials to maintain 2,600 foot spacing. The project site has 660 feet of frontage along Fred Waring and 1,320 feet along Jefferson Street. However, the City may allow reduced spacing in consideration of existing/approved access points, signal locations, and similar situations. As there is no site plan approval request with this proposal, access will be determined as part of the site development or equivalent application process at such time as an application is submitted. Access should not constitute a traffic safety hazard if determined at the site plan review level. C Through G - No Impact. There is no potential impact to emergency or other access that can be determined at this time. The site does not restrict access to surrounding properties in any manner, and is located along two major paved arterial roadways. There should be no impact to parking capacity due to on -site parking being required to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for the proposed uses. Until a site specific proposal is available and submitted, compliance with City parking standards and the extent to which the proposal is in conformance cannot be determined. There should be no hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists beyond those common to commercial development. Appropriate on -site improvements shall be provided which will have benefits to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The project will also be required to address the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements of the Zoning Code (Chapter 9.180). Sunline Transit has not responded to comment request on this proposal. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by, water, air or rail traffic. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quints lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA. Local Environmental Setting The subject area is vacant, with undulating terrain due to the existence of dune topography. The native vegetation is desert scrub, but portions of the site have previously been disturbed in recent history by dumping, off -road and borrow activities. There are no apparent riparian/wetland habitats or streambeds on the site, and there are mesquite dune sands associated with the parcel due to wind action transporting sandy materials, thereby creating dunes or "hummocks" on the site. The LQMEA identifies the entire site as within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat area, for which a federal l0A permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFI'L Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). No biological study was required for this amendment request. CAWrkgtpEAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000030 13 A - Less Than Significant Impact. As with most vacant undisturbed land, there is potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site. Two animal species of any significance are identified in the LQMEA as having the potential to occur on the site. the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard (CVFTL) and the Coachella Valley Giant Sand Treader Cricket. The cricket is identified as a Candidate 2 listing status as of 1992: its current status is unknown. Mitigation fees will be conditioned on any subs=ent site ski c development application. to be paid for the CVFTL prior to any land disturbance or gig permits being issued for the site. as req » ed under the emsting,10A permit, y subsQQUent development propo al(s) shall also prepare a biological survey of the site in order to determine the extent of any potential floral or faunal species. B through E - No Impact. There are no significant or otherwise predominant tree stands or other vegetation on the site. No wetland area are shown to be on or traverse the site, and the location of the site adjacent to two major roads, a major residential development and golf course facility, and within 1/4 mile of several residential tracts precludes any potential migration or dispersal of any wildlife. 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District and Southern California Gas Company. Local Environmental Setting The site does not lie within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of Myoma fine sand: these soils are well -drained and permeable, and can be used for agricultural uses though they are not considered to be prime agricultural soils in the State soil classification system. There is no immediate history that the site has been utilized for any specific purpose in the recent past, and no physical evidence of such use on the site. A, B, C - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner which could be considered wasteful, or of any future value to the region or State. Construction of any project will be required to meet State energy standards as typically enforced by the Building and Safety Department, and to comply with conservation policies as established in the La Quinta General Plan. 3.9 HAZARDS Regional Environmental Setting Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within the Coachella Valley, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County; transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and has not been used for any type of manufacturing, agriculture or other use in the past. The project is a proposed commercial land use expansion of the existing Neighborhood Commercial General Plan and zoning designations, which will allow uses that may have potential for on -site hazards. CAWrkgT\EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000031 14 A - Less Than Significant Impact. There is limited potential risk of explosion and/or release of hazardous substances due to the project, as it is residential and any such risk is associated with potential natural disaster or accident such as fire. chemical spill, etc. The project does not have any potential to interfere with any emergency response plans/programs, based on it's location and nature of the project land use. It also is not considered capable of creating any health hazards. B through E - No Impact. There is no anticipated potential for interference with any emergency response or evacuation plan: such potential cannot be assessed until site specific development plans are submitted. Potential exposure of area residents to particulate matter during any construction associated with this project (refer to Section 3.5. Air Quality) due to wind events will occur. Mitigation as proposed under the Air Quality impact discussion will be adequate in reducing any potential impacts from construction. Long term impacts of windblown sand and dust will be diminished as the development is completed and vacant land is converted to urbanized use. The site is not in an area susceptible to increased fire hazards relative to brush, grass or trees, as minimal susceptible vegetation exists in the immediate area or on the site that is in a flammable state. primarily due to surrounding sand deposits. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway, 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the Highway and major arterials, but can be impacted by aircraft noise from Bermuda Dunes Airport, usually of a short duration. Local Environmental Setting Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic from Fred Waring and Jefferson Street. The property is vacant and therefore not a current source of noise. The site is currently impacted by roadway noise from the aforementioned streets as well as from aircraft activity associated with the Bermuda Dunes Airport, which is located just over 1 mile from the site. A, B - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal, though not expected to be significant in relation to surrounding existing sources. Roadway noise will increase as traffic volumes increase. The majority of the traffic volume in this area is and will continue to be related to other projects and pass through trips, although the development of the site will attract significant traffic relative to the existing condition. Most of the project's on -site uses will be sources of minimal noise, with the greatest noise generation due to delivery, loading/unloading, and waste services. It is not anticipated that the additional traffic volumes attributable to this site's development will create any significant increases in noise levels from this source alone, however, anticipated noise levels from this and other sources will increase to potentially impact existing or future land uses in the immediate area on a significant level. Exposure of people to significant increases in noise levels may occur with the implementation of this project, unless appropriate mitigation is applied. In compliance with noise mi.' ion r uirements of the La (pinta General Plan- Policies 8-5 2 4 and 8-5 2 5, a noise analysis and noise control12lan shall be required upon submittal of the project -specific development plans. CAWrkgT EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000032 15 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station 470, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting Riverside Countv Fire Station #32 and Station #70 are located approximately 3 `: and 4 `/z miles south of the project site, respectively; Station #31 is located in Bermuda Dunes on 42nd Avenue and Adams Street. approximately 2 to 3 miles northwest of the project site. The Sheriffs office maintains a check -in facility in the City's Emergency Operations Center. Other governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic and Senior Centers. The La Quinta branch library operates out of a 2.800 square foot office on Calle Estado. the City is currentiy considering options for provision of municipal library services in lieu of the present County operated system. The La Quints Chamber of Commerce staffs two offices, one in the Plaza. La Quinta Center on Highway 111 and the other on Avenida Bermudas. in the historic downtown Village at La Quinta. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. A, B - No Impact. The project will have varying degrees of impact to public services, based upon the comments received. All necessary public services can be provided to the project without compromising any existing levels of public service. Police and fire responses to comments on the proposal indicate that there are no impacts to their respective operations. C through E - Less Than Significant Impact. The Desert Sands Unified School District maintains that all new development valley -wide places additional demand for school facilities and services which they are currently unable to provide. At present, the only feasible mitigation available is through school fees and land dedication requirements. The proponents will be required to pay school fees as established by Desert Sands Unified School District for commercial projects. While commercial projects are considered to generate a much lower number in student age population. there can be the effect of attracting or accelerating residential development based on the types of goods and services offered, thereby having a greater direct impact than initiallv considered. However, based on current growth trends and established residential in the area, it is not anticipated that this proposal will generate a significant impact on schools. Other public facilities, including roads and governmental services such as mail service, street cleaning and repair, etc, will not be significantly affected by development of the proposal. Physical impacts will primarily be localized to the site area and deferred due to site improvements to be required with a site specific development proposal. 3.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (RD) for electrical power supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service. CAWrkgT\EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000033 16 The Coachella Vallev Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the Citv. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The subject site is undeveloped at present. Street and flood control improvements have been partially constructed or are m place, along with sewer and water line extensions, due to development activity associated with the Heritage Palms project in Indio. Some utility trunk extensions and connections will be necessary to develop the property. A Through G - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require some degree of alteration to and/or extension of existing facilities. however, the responses received from the responsible purveyors do not present any significant concerns to indicate that major new systems or retrofitting will be necessary to serve the project as currently proposed. On -site stomtwater facilities will be required to be provided by the developer at the time of site specific development approval. Facilities for water treatment, distribution and supply, waste disposal, natural gas and electrical will not be significantly impacted beyond current capabilities. 3.13 AESTHETICS Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. The Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west of the City, with some limited views to the north of the Indio Hills. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. A, B, C - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project will not have any impact on scenic vistas, as the site is not proximate or in line with any scenic viewsheds as identified in the LQMEA. No information on building height, general mass of the project, or other aesthetics -related characteristics are currently available as there is no site specific development proposal. Assessment of aesthetic impacts from the prqj�ct shall be conducted at the time girgiect specific development application are filed under the Site Development Permit process, There is no information available to determine if the project could produce any demonstrable negative effects, from an aesthetic point of view. The architectural, landscaping and site design components of the project are anticipated to be consistent with the City's adopted policies of development, however, as stated previously, without site specific development plans it is not possible project which could compromise the aesthetic standards maintained by the City. As a commercial project, the proposal will create some additional light and glare, but impact potential from project lighting also cannot be determined at this time. The City has an adopted Outdoor Light Control ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding characteristics. Current land uses in the immediate area are residential and will be impacted to some extent by the lighting for this project. PMject specific development CAWrkgrplEAdocs\ea98358.wpd 0 0 0 0 3 4 17 at the discretion of the Communiv _?L: 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting Prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are found throughout the City. These sites are found along the foot of the local mountains, alongside historic drainage ways, such as the Whitewater River Channel, and in open areas. There are at least two prehistoric time periods represented by the current archaeological evidence. The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits, and in the draft Historic Context Statement prepared by the City. There are over 72 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta Historic Survey adopted by the City Council. Local Environmental Setting The proposal is located at the southwest comer of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. No historic structures exist in the immediate area or on site. The site is generally barren of any significant features and shows no indication of any previous development or other related activity. No archaeological assessment has been prepared in conjunction with this amendment and zone change application. A - No Impact. The project site is not within the limits of the ancient lakebed of Lake Cahuilla, as indicated on the lakebed delineation map on file in the Community Development Department. As such it is anticipated that there will be no impact to paleontological resources. B - Potentially Significant Unless 1ltitigated. An archaeologic investigation was conducted in May 1990 for the TT 24197 site by Brooke Arkush, for J.F. Davidson Associates. The investigation concluded that the three sites identified did not contain "significant cultural deposits", and that any further investigation or recovery activities were unwarranted. No data recovery program was recommended. and any adverse impacts to the sites were deemed to have been mitigated. However, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) has adopted a recommendation that any cultural resource inventory or assessment in excess of five years in age must be re- evaluated and the City has embraced a policy to enforce this recommendation. An updated cultural assessment shall be oreoared and submitted with any site specific development application. C through E - No Impact. The previous cultural resources survey did not identify any historic resources on the site. Development of the project has no potential to affect any known historic or cultural values, and no existing religious uses are associated with the site. 3.15 RECREATION Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quints has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. CAWrkgrp\EAdocs\ea98358.wpd 000035 18 A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not significantly affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation. area. While it is recognized that all development activity increases demand on park facilities and other recreational resources to varying degrees, it is not anticipated that the demand from this project for off -site recreational opportunities, such as City -sponsored recreation -oriented classes and activities, regional and local park space, etc., will be other than negligible, and will be primarily driven by residential development in the . The Initial Study for GPA 98-058 and CZ 98-087 identified impacts which could be potentially significant unless mitigation measures were incorporated into the project. As there is no site specific development proposal involved with the current proposal. the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), along with this Initial Studv and Addendum, are to be used for reference when future proposals are submitted for Lead Agency (City of La Quinta) review. The nature of the current proposal as submitted does not establish any development entitlement: therefore, any subsequent development proposals for the subject site will be reviewed consistent with this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this initial study: a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project may have potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory, as previous investigation of the site was conducted more than eight years ago. Although it was then concluded that no further investigations were warranted, changed conditions may have occurred over that time to justify new analysis. Mitigation to address the analysis of this potential has been incorporated which will reduce any potential impact to less than significant. b) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals, as the mitigation measures incorporated into approval of this project will ensure that further site specific development applications will be necessary and required to be evaluated at a more detailed level than is currently feasible, given the nature of the proposal. c) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process and cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects. In addition, the MMP for this proposal requires further analysis of certain impacts which have been determined as potentially significant, and such analyses CAWrkgrpEAdocsvea98358.wpd 000036 19 will be required with any site specific development proposal(s) submitted to implement the land uses approved under this amendment and zone change. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans. either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan. Specifically, in terms of adverse environmental impacts to human populations, expansion of the existing NC land use category is considered to be less than significant on a cumulative basis due to the amount of existing and approved residential and commercial development/land use in the surrounding areas of Indio. La Quinta and Riverside County. A. Earlier Analyses Used The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of this assessment: l . La Quinta General Plan Update. October 1992 2. La Quints Master Environmental Assessment. October 1992 3. Final EIR, La Quinta General Plan Update. SCH 91122013, October 1992 4. Environmental Assessment 89-113, prepared for TT 24035/24197, certified May 16. 1989 5. City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Zoning Code: adopted July 1996, amended April 1997 6. City of Indio General Plan 2020: October 1993 7. Riverside County Sheriff's Department; response letter dated 5/28/98 8. U.S. Homes; response letter dated 6/12/98 9. CALDOT; response letter dated 5/29/98 10. La Quinta Chamber of Commerce: response letter dated 6/1/98 11. Coachella Valley Water District. response letter dated 6/8/98 12. City of Indio; response letter dated 6/9/98 13. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook; April 1993 14. Traffic Impact Report, Shopping Center, Southwest comer of Jefferson and Fred Waring; WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., June 1998 15. Archaeological Investigations at CA-RIV-1769, CA-RIV-3667 and CA-RIV-3795, Tentative Tract 24197, La Quints, Central Riverside County, CA; Brooke S. Arkush, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. May 1990 16. City of La Quinta, Ancient Lake Bed Delineation Map, La Quinta Community Development Department. These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the preparation of this Initial Study. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Potentially significant impacts as identified in the initial studv checklist have been adequately addressed to the extent feasible, based on mitigation to be incorporated C:\WrkgrpEAdocs\ea98358.w1)d 000037 20 into the project approval. Potentially significant impacts were identified with respect to the following areas: • Water • Air Quality • Noise • Aesthetics • Cultural Resources C. Mitigation Measures. Project -specific mitigation measures have been incorporated. as potentially significant impacts were identified which can be addressed at time of submittal of site specific development proposal(s). These measures are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). Prepared by w4.N"� Wallace H. Nesbit Associate Planner Date: -?-- /a- 18 CAWrkgrpEAdccs\ea98358.wpd 000038 Z CL a :� r n U N M� W O 00 O N U Cd LO O 6 O CL 0 U O a- t (A U O N E O N C 00 Q W CM Q rn = I Z z U Lu a CL a Q a (� W a w LU Q•'� r.•'x.y F: LU CL lu Q _ .'::: {:}� tit{: •+{i uj • { >>}> W j•fi V O ul Z Z .• ; z ~ cc Z AS r Z5 G O Oz Z {: F- -4 jE C9 to Oca CO) w WLU f cc w 1 WZ Huj � U U cc rn W> Z a Q Q Z W X CDW = C7 N Z 0 .L_. OWC Z OC v=j CL m 3 lL W Q N �Z Q^L W N co a = �O O .: W ELL � w < Z U N cc CLE.. O m c '_' W O 001) W M Z O LU Z 039 LU Q. ix LLI >- LU :K* CL. N; LU IX: ul G. U. Z UJ ix... 0 0 uj cm Z Ln 0 C - 0 Z V (D m Lu 4- CL 03 r ca C E z L) C LU -cc :E p 4 tm u :3 'a Lii CU N C.- .. CD U- 2 -1 M > cO E C. LU cr d ca CL w -L W- E wx cu 4� 7 4- E '— NCD CO a (n 0 0 m E LU z J C7 0 J ca 2 z 00 %n )0040 uj LU >- --I LU C L) a co :ii a-C LU CD co 0 > cr cc a. CD cn 0 0 0 0) r L) a 0 Co to Co 0 :3 b- 03 U) cn E (n cn (n 0 r 0 0 0 co cn 0 E a..a C. a. CL .0 r 03 E CL E E CL a: 0 0 C LL. z > LL, — 1XI 0 CD CO a) (n 0 0 G. c: ul E = +j E :3 E w E E Q) cl 0 (1) ooco CL u a u 0- C/) E 0 w 0 cn 0 (n a 0 tm cn cn C C = w CD UJ E CL 0 C: 0 cr a 0 a >- i- o —en +� "a & Y. - (n m E E r 2 -j a c c :3 E E E uj 0 CD m (n 0 ti uj tm UA C ++ X- -a5 cn (n 0 CD %-. in -a cm 0 C C cn CL • "o L) tiia) > 0 CO 0) > Iii cm m c 0 a F- r CL m cc F- :3 -0 CD 0) Co (a in LU -C 41 (D ±! " CL E 0 LU CD U) CL .0 :3 C .0 CD 7EL cn M cn =3 :3 cn to = — 0 o 2 - 6 (n *E5 Ul E (D 00 0 CL > 0 CD U- ca U CD C: 00 tn u 041 Cl LLI >. K: i< K� UJ LJJ tm Cc to w :3 > CL ix: Ul w M :3 U4 CD C CD-0 CD z ca E Er CL > CO cc C E a cn CL C CL Co cc u 0 0 C C 0 cn C: :3 (D cc m to r 0 CD cn CL > cm 0 CD to *. co ui X : (D CL a) co E E 0 CD CD CL cn CM AL to 4) a. o cL 0 N a. cx cL -a :3 a cc: M 03 E (D 0 E E E LL. Xl ...... C3 4-W %- 0 " z Ul — > tou 0 CL to CL cn -Nd LLI a: CL 0 > 0) u C. C. a 0 go 4) c 0) M CD >. (D 4w to to 2! 0 "a to CL a) a) 0 a U) 03 c co a) 4� a C :3 E E cn Lu co 0 cn 0 4z r- r- U) a) to to LL cn C� ca .5 to %- M cco -,c; c 0 0 43 — rr 4C4 0 CL U) CM U) ui -P U) 7EL (D ri a) 1- .5 c '6— cc m cx x L. :3 co co (a .0 LU c > c cc CD LU 0 CD 4Z m U) —6 uj > U) "a 0 13) -0 cn L) cc 0 cr. cc o > > a) (1) CM co CL E Lu CL c r 0 cm CL to 0 Cc 0 cc CD . C-n CD 4� cn cn 0 = cc — n :3 0 a 0 U E w a) w > CL Co a) LM cvi a a. -1 cr z 0 0 F— %- 0) 0 F- o o u u r - (1) " 00 CL I IT 04.9. uj uj >- LU LU *K*K X* u CL SO rF 0 0 00tG m LZ C)i u 4-4 u CL co L CL C13 U U 41 co CL 0 > "X. C C) to :3 CX cn ca a- -0 E Ci a) E 0 CL — z CL CD ui > LL; > co CL CD 2! z Op U) 41 U) u E E a U 0 u (L cn .7 c > CD :3 a CD cr :3 44 LL CL > cc CL co —0 LU 00 0 u c Cj t;7- M cc Cc U_ c a. -E .9— 'E 4' ui cr ccDL E < > 0 C LU rn 4� CL cn CL) -c—n ', ca M 4- C L M CD 0 - a 'M (D 4-1 w c -6 0 CD E 'Ri C m m > c > > w 41 C 0 ". -.;, M: ca m 'a F- CL E () LU 4� r D m 0 %-M cu 'a -6 w 0 L- u w U� a) tm c +1 ;:; m (n a) (D +� LU a 0 C a) CL tn CL) 0 (n 0 CL 4) -j 0 z COL CL .0 4 :3 +, CL U 00043 W on JOB ONE Q W :•':::rya::. W .X Q. .;.•., d Ll m +; A,y:,.,: ssr;:::;<;:< CL a) < .< a µ:. to m >r: m c u) a w C aU; � G m cc E O E E u6 Z 0 W .� ac :.>�;s:s:.::: k: o cc Cc:;:;, : m Y. ZZ o c Qp :::f-s.`:: E a : <., w a CC :• ::{ U O m d O °D N a m 3 Z 6v 6 0 iD 0 m N n O. N IQ E L ��, 0 N .. W Z >� '� CO d Q O C m LL t0 U to m U) Q Z to W m a)U O,.v--. w W rn m fl to Q a s N p m a N Z U co m U pC 1L tNa CL M O = ami (p N U O to O W O C O O tr7 J •� Z O 2 E 2 u) u, I O• R,v 0 Im LU c E E coL E a) E coL E CD > > a 0 u 0 u 0 = to c 0 to N c 0 a) o - F 5i C.) cm 's:SS :3 U O.S U L"L t o -C 0 C13 M CL a) j cn CL 0 cl CL to C a) cm 0 co c 'a co co cm E CL 0 > 0 a. cn E CD tn > > CL cn (D a0 in till C C cc :3 E :3 E E E 0 0 U CL 0 Z CA LU co a-6 CL ci E p cr. :3 ca c U) uj 0 4. C: LU cc 4A U) Co c6 Gi CD a) LU ca: Id (D :t U) 0 U- C: M 0 coV CL 0 ILL c 0 LL, J3 CL -0 0 c 0 c 0 Co " 0 > cc cn E i 0 r_ CD cn co CL L) (D CD > ❑ a) CL c CD — ca a w E Lu -7 " cu m ca E At cn cn 0 m (n 0 a) in LU cr > co cc Cc z 0 CL X r-L u 045 LLI a. cl cl .}h.,�, .'ice ...... : o. fS}; :ti } tY� o Z { 4' ".t+ tr. as o ai W U }" W m ;: N — U o t1 CC U.,W ob m 'r V .- -o eZ U Q 70 i? } W Co � N III W to w C- F-- a) > — N tA Z W LL E U W �- W N Q CD co 0m N C W C th z o n E m z 00 t t C3 R. 00, Lu >. ZO Lu (L C ul O= Lf) cli CD Cl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U) c (n cr) Z z a 0 CL CD CC U) co .............. ..... . . . . . . CD L CD t7 "a Z CL) (D C Q Q (n :3 co ca :3 E .0 (D cn " = u to a 0 c 0 CIO U ® +. m cn U- to 0 CV) U) CD N > (1) 0 cc in (1) S_- C: U > CL -0 CD E N (D m C: a) cn 0 CL CL EC Q CD CD (n 00047 (MV) (n (D o 0 z 01 CL LU C c cn z 5 LLI :•tart;: ❑ W . ' >- Cam ¢'•:' is •,•:k#:> a ad LU cc cn u co c cc U >. c0 O C ., CD CL N U � w• O CL n o CL f$ i% C C t� N N E CL w CD CD Jd '•'' 0 liww �/I'^S• ��•::t\y c E N o U a- cn O N M co C N N N d co O Z m C 0 p C > 0) v Q Q C cm N v' O C C'ca — N C N O� n- F' U N w= G N "Co O �, C >-W UC7 !Am o a);° n C a)ZA Q X Q a)W N N 4• W cE 0 O O C_ O O -ffi p c> vi d Z +' m m U � cco � N m O CD r�� " ' c 4., m o. Q o` ��0l cri +.. U > 0 � .E m m O cfl � � .� W � O aC a I• F� 00 0 b A uj UJ >. Lu L&J cc CD CL CL CL 4N. to 0 co XX!j:j:j! E CD (n 0 a CL to CL cc U. z uj i U) m M CL (1) C) 0 CD U.A a) all On. C cn 0) a) 03 cn —cu -ffi -6 0 U) a) > r0 0 IL) 0 U) z 0) CL w CL to 0 0 a) 0 0 0M CL E U- ca CL +4 CL LU LU m CL C (n C a) cc 05 a a Co 4� E W.0 +� 0 = .0 (n CL uj LU :3 CL 0 w cn FE tM 0.- Iii CL vi CD a) 2 C: T > .9 CD LU 0 c c r-L M Co 0 cts 0 U) CD P 0 :3 r m E E CL E 0 0 w acrn = CD CD cl.h- 0 000 W co < .0 E 7 o (D LU a'cr M M cD E CL cn Z -j LU u) 0 u m )49 u Lu >- ra Lu .-M Lu (n cn cn E cr CL ii:, CD CL < cc CD CL > 0 CD Zn CL CL co cr LL . ... > LU CL 0 0 CL LU m CL U) . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... ... >- CD E E . r(,D 0 +� to cn to >- in "a U) E :2. sto - co 0 U) 61 ci Lu 41 m (D 03 0 U) U) o (a c CL C (n 4� a) C >: 4 tm u E LU cp a -0 co CL 0 :E -0 c E CD cr 0 a. -j m 0 4 > CD LU 0 c 0 S (n — a m E L LU -0 in -a cD cn E CD: < E > CL 000 en 0 cu M 0 ul o " a) M ri —(,)I a U) 0 u (n (o 00 050 W Q Q w H U Z F- w O� U. Z -jEE m0 vn ►-- ZZ n0. O W d � C > N J m c U O -1 O '> c rn 03 o o c 'a O <A O +. om +' C 'y O =4� O U N N C C m m E E 0 0 aD CD a� m 0 ❑ c c o :3 E E E E O O U U to N •O U }' +•' U n O O cm+• 4.E ° EU� >>L� cn am oa)o .3 C mo' tC —QOj O O � :gin C:(D Q. L a•L0 +.aci;3 �0 " U_ " w O L n`. a U �p 3 ~' O +. }' w o U°� � v U C c +`-� a °' .c- U CL o W +' 0.� E CDN rn.NU L ;? c L O _c N N �� O 03 U >• •• J W t0 N F" m to � N O cn co m •- Q M O -� - N 41 O• m +' pi COLc rn 0 F- Q Q coaoC cca 0 Fi 0010051 LLI Q.W _I Y n. U LU O (C Q. ttex is '• ;v: Q) ti;' ui <y tn CD N L) N tc0 O O rn co CL co •FF O U in U n, •4"� jja)� CL VI } N ac MC W E uuca �yF F Q Lu :3 cc E E 0 cn m � N 0 C _ O Z V1 O w _ 'cn Q : ^ N +.a 1 !L O U 0 C = W 0 N G CodIm v I= w Q E co CL v 10 U O ? J U T c W O w m C) N U °• o U c N co E CD c o a c`o ai C. a Q a. ++ m O N E M Z CL F- CLo �3 0052 LU W >.ul ❑ f:: a U � W U U < iix ii 4 ' LU 'e a: Cl LL. LLI Z „s CLY Q { O "# CO LLI a: rn x s' `w a O C% w n. U) F- GC as 4 c: Vi Z O 'V O O r° OC W m <L Q LU W U +CO+ EU U � m td a a� W a: Q G� OW C Co o U E 0 O CD E � .. Q a) 17 o m E 0 uw 0 O ch Z 0 J as Z 000053 U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-058 APPLICANT: H.A. ANDERSON WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of July, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider amending the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram to change a 10 acre site of Low Density Residential land use designation, described as south of the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, to a Neighborhood Commercial Designation. More specifically described as: APN: A PORTION OF 604-072-008 WHEREAS, said the General Plan Amendment request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 98-358), and determined that the General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment affects land uses and circulation which already exist as a part of the Plan. That the General Plan Amendment is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development and provides adequate circulation. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission, or Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent uses are similar due to the serves provided are for residential neighborhoods. 4. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an extension of the existing Neighborhood Commercial designation or uses commonly associated with the residential neighborhoods. 000054 PCRESO.GPA 98-058 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Generai Plan Amendment 98-058 The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the residential growth has created a market for additional Neighborhood Commercial Centers. 6. That the General Plan Amendment is within an area that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; ?. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-358, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PCRESO 98- 000055 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECONMIENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-087 CASE NO.: ZC 98-087 APPLICANT: H.A. ANDERSEN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141h day of July, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of H. A. Andersen for a Zone Change to change a 10 acre site of Low Density Residential land use designation, generally described as south of the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, to a Neighborhood Commercial Designation. More specifically described as: APN: A PORTION OF 604-072-008 WHEREAS, said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (EA 98-358), and determined that the Zone Change will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan being amended, in that the Zone Change affects conversion of Low Density Residential Land use to Neighborhood Commercial Land use which exists adjacent to the proposed zone change site thereby allowing the maximum 20 acres to develop as Neighborhood Commercial. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure adequate conditions of approval. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties in that Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its residential serving nature. 000056 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Zone Change 98-086 July 14. 1998 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing Neighborhood Commercial designation or a use commonly associated with the planned uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that residential growth has created a market for additional Neighborhood Commercial services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case: 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 98-358, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed Zone Change will not result in any significant environmental impacts. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-087; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California COZ.98-086 PC.RES M- 00005i ATTACHMENTS 0000598 EXHIBIT A C7 CN\ JTI 7f- r- .......... . . C4 2 0 cc cc LU LLU L6 L" 7 PROJECT LOCATION MAP PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 14, 1998 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361, SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 AMENDMENT 3, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 28447 REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2. APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF TWO PARCELS, AND 3. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF 11.66 ACRES INTO 49 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 LETTERED LOTS FOR PRIVATE STREET IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION: SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 AMENDMENT #3: 3+ ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 54TH AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET, AND 1.7+ ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARK AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28447: ALONG NECTAREO AND MANDARINA STREETS. APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 AMENDMENT 3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 28447 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The proposed Specific Plan Amendment 3 consists of the annexation of two parcels of land into the boundaries of Specific Plan 85-006. Tentative Tract Map 28447 is a reconfiguration of a previously approved condominium tract map (TT 24889), including the 1.7 acre annexed site. The applicant proposes to convert the property to a single family residential subdivision for detached dwelling units. The project site is located within the Citrus Project portion of The Ranch Specific Plan, formerly known as The Oak Tree West Specific Plan. The Specific Plan, approved in 1985, currently has an existing golf course, club house building, maintenance building, and a mix of 96 custom and production residential units. The majority of the designated residential areas are undeveloped. Project Request Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 proposes to annex two parcels of land into its boundaries. One of the parcels is located at the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area and has been an agricultural reservoir. The parcel is to become part of proposed Tentative Tract 28447. The other parcel is 1.7+ acres located on the north side of 54' Avenue, consisting of the Kennedy Ranch house. Tentative Tract Map 28447 proposes to create 49 single family residential lots and three lettered lots for private roadways, on 11.66 acres (Attachment 1). The proposed lots vary in size from approximately 7,425 square feet to approximately 12,000 square feet. Lot widths are typically 55 feet wide by 135-feet and front onto private streets. The subdivision is an elongated shape along Mandarina (between Mango and Nectareo), that turns south along Nectareo. All of the proposed lots back onto the existing Citrus golf course. The proposed Tentative Tract is within a gated private community. The closest access is off of 52"d Avenue and Park Avenue. Public Notice The amendment and map applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 28, 1998. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plan 85-006, Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance, the following overview of the Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency The City's General Plan designates the parcels proposed for annexation into Specific Plan 85-006 and the proposed subdivision site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing (e.g., attached or detached housing units). Past development approvals by the City within The Ranch Specific Plan reflect a low number of housing units built since 1985 (96 building permits have been issued for the 2,245 units approved). Therefore, converting the 49 condominium lots into 49 single family lots, and annexing the two parcels into the Specific Plan, will not exceed the allowed number of units analyzed in the original Environmental Assessment 85-034 and approved for Specific Plan 85-006. The tentative tract map proposes lots greater than the 6,000 square feet minimum required by Specific Plan 85-006. As designed, the proposed single family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Traffic generation from the proposed tentative tract map is expected to be 490 vehicle trips per day or less. The number of vehicles trips planned for the ultimate build -out of Specific Plan 85-006 is 29,000. The interior private circulation plan is consistent with the requirements of the adopted specific plan. Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private interior street and residential lots within the proposed tentative tract map have been designed around the existing golf course fairways as required by the Specific Plan 85-006. Design standards of the City's General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance have been included into the project's design. Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project and are readily available. Impacts associated with development of the project can be mitigated through adherence to the recommended conditions. Annexation of the two parcels into the Specific Plan will not significantly modify the overall design or improvements of the Specific Plan. Impacts associated with annexation of the two parcels into the Specific Plan can be mitigated through adherence to the Specific Plan development standards. Issue 3 - Health and Safety All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be constructed as required by the attached conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. All electric services will be installed in underground piping and will meet all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The health, safety and welfare of residents is ensured based on recommended conditions. CONCLUSION: Both the annexation request and the subdivision request is a logical expansion of The Ranch Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment, as conditioned, is consistent with adjacent development patterns in the immediate area, and in conformance with City and Specific Plan requirements. The tentative tract map, as conditioned, is consistent with adjacent development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City and Specific Plan requirements. Findings for recommendations for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-361. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan Amendment 3, subject to findings and conditions. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28447, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 Booklet (Planning Commission Only) 3. TTM 28447 - Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only) Prepared by: Cslie Mouriqu d, Ass late Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager PCrptTTM28797RJT 0001')v� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 AMENDMENT 3, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28447, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, NORTH OF 54TH AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of July, 1998, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by KSL Land Corp. on Environmental Assessment 98-361 for Tentative Tract 28447, generally located on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of 54th Avenue, and south of 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 5 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study, and has determined that although the proposed Tentative Tract could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 28447, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following facts, findings and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3, and Tentative Tract 28447 are consistent with the Low Density Residential land use goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, in that they are in keeping with Goal 2-1 to develop low density residential areas with generous areas of open space. 001 0P 5 P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-361.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-361 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the Tentative Tract 28447 and Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 in that the slope and topographic relief of the project site is relatively flat, and the soil type is suitable for residential development. 3. Tentative Tract 28447 is consistent with the development standards of Specific Plan 85-006, as the project site is zoned R-L (Low Density Residential), which permits minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet or more, and the minimum lot size will be 7,425 square feet for this subdivision. 4. Proposed Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 and Tentative Tract 28447 are not likely to cause public health problems as the project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and the Building & Safety Department for those specific issues. 5. The design of Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3, and Tentative Tract 28447 will not conflict with existing public easements, as the project has been designed around, and with consideration for, these easements. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the zone change as proposed, does nto affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 98-361 for the proposed Tentative Tract 28447 and Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: iF)nnu6 P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-361.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-361 Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-361.wpd Appendix 1 Environmental Checklist Form - EA 98-361 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 85-006 Amd. #3 - The Ranch; Tentative Tract 28447 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand (760) 777-7068 4. Project Location: SP 85-006 Amd. #3: 3+ acres on the north side of 54`h Avenue, approximately 1500 feet west of Jefferson Street and annexation of 1.7+ acres on the east side of Park Avenue, approximately 110 feet north of Calle Tampico. Tentative Tract 28447: west side of Nectaro, north of Nispero and on the south side of Mandarina, west of Mango within the Ranch Specific Plan, formerly known as the Citrus. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: KSL Land Corporation, Inc. 56-140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: LDR 7. Zoning: RL 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.) Resubdivision of a portion of Tract 24889 and adjacent parcel into 49 Single Family Residential lot within Specific Plan 85-006, and annexation of two parcels into the boundaries of SP 85-006. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Residential, golf, vacant South: Residential, golf, vacant East: Vacant residential, watercourse (canal), vacant Neighborhood Commercial West: Golf, residential, Open Space (mountains) 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.. permits, financing approval. or participation agreement.) None identified. PA LESLMEAcklist98-361.wpd �. 00fI 8 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. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing X Geological Problems Water X Air Quality Determination Transportatioi>/Circulation N Public Services Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Systems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Hazards N Cultural Resources Noise N Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance (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 11 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant etiect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are -imposed upon the proposed project. June 30. 1998 4ia"ture Date _Leslie Mouriquand _City. of La Quinta _ Printed Name For SO 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 reference 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). Z) 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 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. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. PALESLIEEAckli%08-36 l .wpd -3 - t�o;}��� 1� Sample question: I. II. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides'? (1,6) (Attached source list explains that I is the general plan, and G is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need ftirther explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning'? (Source#(s): ) JSee Addenduni for all sources 0'* Ij b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project'? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant t;mess Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact F-1 I I �-] d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)'? ( I I X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority coninuutity)'? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in all area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastnicture)'? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault nipture? ( X m onnn11 PALESLIEEAcklist98-36 I .wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground slinking'? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( d) Seiclie, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( e) Landslides or mudflows? ( f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill'? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( h) Expansive soils? ( i) Unique geologic or physical features'? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body'? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant unless Significant NO Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) X PALESLIEEA&HA98-36 l .wpd V. VI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant Nu Impact %litigated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X capability'? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater'? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies'? ( ) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants'? ( c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate'? ( I I I X d) Create objectionable odors? ( TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion'? ( b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sliarp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( I I I X c) Iliadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site'? ( VII. VIIII. Issues (and Supporting Inforfmation Sources): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'? ( I I I X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts'? ( BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)'? ( ) I X b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)'? ( c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)'? ( ) d) Wetland liabitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)'? ( e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? ( ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? ( ) im� mx� b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner'? I I I X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'? PALESLIEEA& A9R-361.wpd IX. X. XL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant t'nless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides. chemicals, or radiation)'? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( I I I I X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) I I I X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards'? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flamniable brusli, grass, or trees'? I I I I X 71 NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels'? ( PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered government services in anv of the following areas: a) Fire protection'? ( b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) M�M I IXE-1-1 Potentiath Potentially Significant Less Than Significant ('mess Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XI)L UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systenis or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas'? ( I I X b) Communications systems'? ( I I I X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities'? ( ) I I X 1 :1 d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( I I I X e) Storm water drainage'? ( I I I I X f) Solid waste disposal'? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies'? ( I I X I 1 :1 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway'? ( ) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aestlietic effect'? ( I I I X c) Create light or glare'? ( I I 1 :1 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources'? ( ) X b) Disturb archaeological resources'? ( I I I X I --] P:\LESLIE\EAck1ist98-36 I .wpd XV. XVL Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Affect historical resources? ( d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant 11Wess Significant \o Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( I I I I X RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities'? ( I I X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities'? ( MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 to 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 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.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P:\LESLIENEAck1iA98-36 I .wpd X\/II. 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. EA 85-034 (SCH No. 85050112 prepared for SP 85-006; La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992), La Quinta General Plan EIR (1992). These documents are available in the Community Development Department, City of La Quinta 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 Nk-hetlier such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. P:\LES L[E\EAcklist98-36l .wpd INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-361 The Ranch Specific Plan: Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment #3 Tentative Tract 28447 Applicant: KSL Land Corporation, Inc. 56-140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 July 1, 1998 0('10`11� TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1:2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics 5 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 8 3.3 Earth Resources 10 3.4 Water 13 3.5 Air Quality 17 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 18 3.7 Biological Resources 21 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 25 3.9 Hazards 26 3.10 Noise 27 3.11 Public Services 28 3.12 Utilities 30 3.13 Aesthetics 32 3.14 Cultural Resources 33 3.15 Recreation 34 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 35 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 35 2 P:\EA98-361Ranch.wpd SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of a proposed boundary annexation to Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment #3, and of proposed Tentative Tract 28447 to reconfigure an existing portion of Tract 24889 and an adjacent parcel into 49 single family residential lots. Two small parcels are proposed for inclusion within the boundaries of Specific Plan 85-006, the first parcel being 3+ acres located on the north side of 5411 Avenue, approximately 1500 feet west of Jefferson Street and the second parcel of 1.7+ acres located on the east side of Park Avenue, approximately 110 feet north of Calle Tampico. The Specific Plan has been known as "The Citrus," and "Oak Tree West." The applicant proposes to rename the Specific Plan area "The Ranch." Originally, the specific plan approval included one 27-hole and one 18-hole golf course on a total of 400 acres, 2245 single family, attached and detached dwellings on 449 acres, a 200-room hotel, and a 25,000-square-foot golf clubhouse on a 36.5 acre site, a 200,000-square-foot off ce/commercial center on 3.5 acres, a private golf course club facility, 115 acres of hillside (undevelopable) remaining as natural open space, and 16 acres of rights -of -way dedications. This original project was evaluated for environmental impacts in Environmental Assessment 85-034. With subsequent amendments, the specific plan now consists of the potential of 2245 dwelling units, a 3.5-acre commercial office site with a 26,000 square foot office building and 104 parking spaces, 115 acres of hillside open space, and golf course. As of October 1,1997, there have been 96 building permits issued for residential dwellings, and the golf course and clubhouse have been constructed. Within Specific Plan 85-006, the applicant proposes Tentative Tract 28447 to reconfigure existing condominium lots into single family lots. The location of this request is west side of Nectaro, north of Nispero, and on the south side of Mandarina, west of Mango. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve amendments to projects. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Specific Plan amendment and Tentative Tract, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed requests. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: 3 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd • To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the specific plan amendment and tentative tract map; • To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the requests, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the projects to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; • To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed projects; • To facilitate environmental review early in the review of the amendment and tentative tract; • To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the amendment and tentative tract will not have significant effects on the environment; • To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, • To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the projects. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Specific Plan amendment and tentative tract applications were deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended and future development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts to air quality, biological resources, public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and cultural resources, issues contained in the Environmental Checklist. The degree of these adverse impacts is significant, however, with the recommended mitigation measures, the level of significance will be reduced to less -than -significant levels. As a result, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2• PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 4 PAEA98-361Ranchmpd �" �' 2.2 PHVSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Specific Plan amendment is a request to annex two small parcels within the boundaries of the Specific Plan 85-006, and proposed Tentative Tract 28447 would reconfigure existing condominium lots into 49 single family residential lots within Specific Plan 85-006. A portion of the area within Tentative Tract 28447 is outside of the boundaries of Specific Plan 85-006 and cannot be approved unless that area is annexed into the boundaries. In addition, another small parcel located along the southern Specific Plan boundary is to be annexed into the boundaries for future development. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The annexed parcels would be a part of the Ranch Specific Plan and would be developed under the development and architectural standards of the Specific Plan. The proposed tentative tract would operate as a single family subdivision within the Specific Plan. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed boundary amendment is to increase the size and development potential of Specific Plan 85-006. The objective of Tentative Tract 28447 is to provide for single family residential lots for sale for profit to the applicant. 2.5 DISCRETIONAR'Y ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed specific plan amendment and tentative tract will require discretionary recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of the Environmental Assessment 98-361; Approval of Specific Plan Amendment #3; and, Tentative Tract Map 28447. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There is a related project, proposed Tentative Tract 28797. It is related in that it is located within Specific Plan 85-006, but is being evaluated for environmental impacts in Environmental Assessment 98-361. The applicant for this project is RJT Homes, Inc. SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use and subdivision design approval of the proposed specific plan boundary amendment and tentative tract. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the ll n P:\EA98-361Ranch.wpd environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed amendment. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). Mitigation measures are discussed for each issue and are formalized in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan that is a part of the project conditions of approval. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to approximately 10,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains in the distant southeast, the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The local setting for The Ranch is that of both flatter desert floor area and mountainous open space. Existing and proposed development areas are in the flatter desert floor areas. The Specific Plan is located near the south-central portion of the City, with the Coral Reef Mountains along the western boundary of the southern half of the project. To the south is the PGA West development and Lake Cahuilla, a regional recreation/water storage facility operated by Riverside County Parks and Recreation and the Coachella Valley Water District. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? No Impact. Adjacent land uses and their designations to the Specific Plan boundary consist of residential, golf, and vacant parcels south of Avenue 54; residential, golf, and vacant parcels along the northern boundary, near 50'' Avenue; vacant designated residential, the Coachella Canal, and a vacant designated Neighborhood Commercial parcel along the Jefferson Street eastern boundary; and golf, residential, and designated open space (Coral Reef Mountains) along the western boundary. These adjacent land uses and designations are compatible with the proposed residential, golf, and commercial office land uses of Specific Plan 85-006. The two parcels proposed for annexation into the specific plan are both designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the General Plan and Low Density Residential (RL) on the Zoning Map. Thus, there are no adverse impacts identified for this request. The land use and zoning designation for proposed Tentative Tract 28447 is LDR and RL, respectively. There is no conflict identified for this request. No mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over the Specific Plan and proposed Tentative Tract. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La 6 P:\EA98-361Ranch.wpd Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed boundary amendment and tentative tract do not conflict with the above referenced documents adopted by the City Council. No mitigation is required for this issue. C. Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Potentially significant Unless Mitigated. Specific Plan 85-006 was approved by the La Quinta City Council in 1985, with findings as stated in Environmental Assessment 85-034. Significant effects to adjacent properties and land uses were identified for this issue in that 1985 environmental assessment. Analysis of the anticipated Specific Plan was included in the City's General Plan EIR. The approval of the "Oak Tree West" Specific Plan was conditioned to ensure land use compatibility between uses within the project and also between the project and adjacent properties and land uses. Mitigation for this impact consisted of the applicant maintaining all land within the project boundaries in agricultural production until such land is graded for development, provided that such agricultural production is economically feasible. In the event said undeveloped land is not continued or placed in agricultural production, the applicant shall plant and maintain said land in appropriate ground cover to prevent dust and erosion and to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment (Source: EA 85-034). D. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been fanning activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort and residential development over the past 15 years. Historically, the area within Specific. Plan 85-006 has been under agriculture, and the original environmental assessment identified that the project would convert approximately 900 acres of prime agricultural land to urban land uses. This conversion was addressed within the Final EIR for the La Quinta General Plan (1984), of which the proposed "Oak Tree West" is a part of. It was found that construction of this project with the accompanying extensions and improvements to the infrastructure system will encourage owners of adjacent properties having prime agricultural soils to develop their land. Active farming of the property ceased several years ago in anticipation of development. There are only relic farming activities adjacent to the east of the project site. Thus, the impact on prime agricultural resources or operations in the immediate area has already occurred to a large extend since 1985, and is likely to continue. The proposed boundary annexation will result in converting additional agricultural lands to urban uses. Development of agricultural lands in the project area is essential to achieving the objectives of the adopted La Quinta Redevelopment Project. The unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as adopted by the La Quinta General Plan (1984). Development from growth inducement will result in increases in population and intensification of urban uses. The amount of open space will be reduced to accommodate urban development as envisioned in the City's General Plan and the City's Redevelopment Plan (Sources: EA 85-034; La Quinta General Plan; Site Survey; SP 85-006 Amd.#3). 7 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd E. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? No Impact. The proposed tentative tract will be developed with single family lots for general market sale. The Specific Plan boundary amendments will provide additional area for development under the plan's adopted standards. Residential land uses are located in all directions adjacent to the Specific Plan, except for the mountains adjacent to the west. The future development of these lots will not disrupt or divide the community as they are a part of a planned private community. The proposed amendment will not affect the physical arrangement of the existing or planned nearby neighborhoods even though they are on the periphery of the project site (Sources: Site Survey; Specific Plan 85-006 Amd. #3 ). No mitigation measures are required for this issue. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. The current population is estimated at 20,444. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000, and by 2010, the population could be 32,786 (Source: Community Development Department, 1998). The average age of a City resident is 32.2 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: 1990 Census). The average household income is $56,126. In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. With more resort opportunities being created in the City, the numbers of visitors increases. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source: Community Development Department, 1998). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home values in La Quinta are approximately $117,400 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview 1996 Edition). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 81 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21 % are college graduates (Source: 1990 Census/Estimates). r 8 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd Local Environmental Setting The specific plan area consists of 1020 acres or 1.6 square miles of a developing private country club with residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. The proposed annexation of the two parcels will add 4.7+ acres to Specific Plan 85-006. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The development planned for the proposed tentative tract will ultimately result in the conversion of 49 condominium lots to 49 single family lots, which will result in no loss or gain in units. While the City's average population is 2.85 per dwelling unit, the proposed project is projected to have a lower per unit population given the fact that it will be a private country club with high -end custom home lots. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living with them. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. Using the factor of 1.94 people per unit, the potential build -out population for the project could be 4355.3 new residents in the City (Source: SP 85-006; EA 96-333). Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created as a result of continued development within the Specific Plan, including the proposed tentative tract, such as administration and maintenance jobs, managers and service providers, and security personnel for the country club. No jobs are anticipated to be lost as a result of the project. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. No mitigation measures are required for this issue. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. As the Ranch project is developed, changing the property from agricultural uses to urban uses, there will be changes in the location, distribution, and density of population in the area. It is anticipated that because the project will have growth inducing impacts (see the preceding Land Use section), the project will also result in an increase in the growth rate of the population in the area. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan annexation could have an impact upon existing housing, as the parcel proposed for annexation at the southern boundary of the Specific Plan is a vacant ranch house that was the residence of the Kennedy Ranch, located at 79-700 54' Avenue. The applicant indicates that the house has been abandoned, therefore, there is the possibility that the house will be demolished in the future to facilitate development (Sources: MEA; SP 85-006 application). If the house is demolished, there will be a insignificant loss of one dwelling unit in the City's total housing stock, and that of the Specific Plan. 9 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd �� t.� ` � ;2 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the Specific Plan area has been under agriculture in the past. The elevation of the property ranges from approximately Sea Level to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (Source: USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map). One hundred -fifteen acres of the project site will not be developed, as it is located in the steep, rocky Coral Reef Mountains (Source: SP 85-006). There is an inferred earthquake fault line located through the northeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, that transects in a northwest to southeast trend. There has been no recorded activity along this fault line, and these faults traces are not considered active. However, the City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Major active faults in the region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west, and the Elsinore Fault Zone located to the southwest. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III of the Modified Mercalli Scale, with Zone XII being the most hazardous. Very strong groundshaking, as well as the possibility of ground rupture, can occur during a major earthquake along these regional faults and represent the primary source of geologic hazard for the City. Should groundshaking occur, the grain size distribution and unconsolidated nature of alluvial sediments located within the City contributes to the potential for ground rupture, liquefaction and dynamic settlement, landsliding and geologic instability (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). A Preliminary Geotechnical reconnaissance investigation was conducted on the project site, in November 1984, and February 1985, by Leighton and Associates. The report indicates that the portion of the Specific Plan proposed for development has underlying ancient lake deposits. This report identifies three soil types on the property, light brown slightly silty fine to course sand and gravel, light brown silt and very fine sand, and brown silty fine to medium sand with some gravel. The investigation included ten borings drilled in various portions of the project site. The report states that the bearing soils showed expansion indices of zero when tested. All indications are that the soils on the site will allow for the proposed development, including single family houses irrespective of the height. 1 ` J i I .. � 10 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed annexation to Specific Plan 85-006 or the development of Tentative Tract 28447 could be effected by potential fault rupture hazards in the event of a large earthquake. The Seismically induced ground rupture, or earth cracking is not considered a significant hazard due to the absence of known active faulting located within City boundaries. Ground rupture produced through groundshaking of regionally active faults is not considered likely, although the possibility cannot be entirely discounted (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). B. Would the project results in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Specific Plan area is within Groundshaking Zone III which indicates that there is a potential for hazardous groundshaking from seismically induced earthquakes. Mitigation for this potential hazard consists of constructing all habitable structures to specific standards for Groundshaking Zone III. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction and ground failure are produced in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched (trapped) groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. While groundwater depths can vary significantly over short distances, due to the presence of localized perched aquifers, the presence of known shallow water tables increases the potential for liquefaction throughout the region. The Specific Plan area is west of the known liquefaction hazard area in the City, thus an adverse impacts are assumed to be less than significant (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). The preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance report prepared by Leighton and Associates indicates that the portion of the Specific Plan area proposed for development has underlying ancient lake deposits. Ground failure due to these poorly consolidated sediments has occurred in the past following severe storms accompanied by heavy flooding. Under current conditions, the soils are unsuitable for the proposed construction. The Applicant shall be required to overexcavate and recompact the soil to provide suitable building areas, with the anticipated shrinkage between cut and fill of the top five feet of soil estimated at 25% and 30% (Source: EA 85-034). In 1986, a Soil Engineering Report was prepared for the Specific Plan area north of 52"d Avenue, by Buena Engineers, which states that no free water was encountered during test drilling to a depth of 41 feet, thus, liquefaction does not seem to be a consideration for the project site. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley, separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an 11 P:AEA98-361Ranch.wpd earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect this project in the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is approximately one mile south of the southern boundary of the Specific Plan (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. No mudflows are anticipated for this project, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material. The general area of the project site is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located in various locations of the City, and existing retention basins and drainage channels within the project site. (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map; TT 28470). The proposed subdivision will not be effected by this hazard issue as the lots involved in Tentative Tract 28447 are several hundred feet north of the hillsides. Falling rock and rolling boulders may be a hazard for those areas adjacent to or on the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains/Coral Reef Mountains. The Specific Plan proposes approximately 5% of the area adjacent to the mountains is proposed for residential development that would be expose people and property to this particular geologic hazard. For those areas adjacent to or on the toes of the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains/Coral Reef Mountains, the geotechnical reports shall determine natural slope stability and potential hazards from falling rock or tumbling boulders (Source: EA 85- 034). All proposed development shall comply with the City's adopted Hillside Overlay District Ordinance. F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As the Specific Plan is developed there will be changes in the topography, both natural and historically altered through agriculture. These changes will include grading, excavation, cut and fill activities. Approved grading plans are required prior to any such activity. Geotechnical reports for each area disturbed shall identify specific hazards and mitigation measures for the proposed development type. The preliminary geotechnical reports state that the soil types found on the Specific Plan area have a moderate potential for wind erosion (defined as wind removal and/or soil accumulation in hummocks up to 24-inches high). In addition, due to silty nature of the surface soils, severe dust storms can be expected locally in areas not covered by vegetation. Therefore, an increase in wind erosion can be anticipated during grading and during development until ground cover is reestablished on the site (Source: EA 85-034). Impacts from erosion shall be mitigated by design or by implementation of the approved PM-10 Mitigation Plan to be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area designated for subsidence hazards. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: 12 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 0 0 0 (( 3 0 La Quinta MEA, 1992). The proposed specific Plan amendment, or Tentative Tract, will not have any significant effects from subsidence hazards is the recommendations of the geotechnical report is implemented. H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The -underlying soils on the parcels have a low potential for expansion, thus future construction is not expected to be subject to problems from soil expansion. The soil types identified within the specific Plan area are: Is, Ip, Ro Ru, GbA, GbB, MaB, MaD, and GeA. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits (Sources: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area). Mitigation consists of implementing the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports for this issue. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic feature in the La Quinta area. This unique feature is located in the southwestern portion (115 acres) of the Specific Plan area. Any development proposed within this area is subject to the standards of the Hillside Overlay District, and the Open Space land use policies of the General Plan. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. 13 PAEA98-361Ranchmpd The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: Bechtel Civil, Inc. 1989:1). Local Environmental Setting The project site does not have any natural standing water, however, the Coachella Canal bisects the Specific Plan area as it trends southward from the east side of the Specific Plan to Lake Cahuilla. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately one mile to the south of the southern border of the Specific Plan. The Whitewater River channel is located approximately 3 miles to the north of the Specific Plan area, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Specific Plan, and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. 1 14 P:AEA98-361Ranch.wpd� - �' w In a Geotechnical investigation conducted in November, 1984, for 500 acres within the Specific Plan, Leighton and Associates state that during very severe rain storms, the area north and west of the Coachella Canal might become subject to heavy localized runoff (possibly flash flooding) from the mountains bordering the site on the west. The canal embankment would undoubtedly act as a levee and a deterrent to flooding over southeastern portions of the property. A flood control levee along the west side of La Quinta directs flow from Bear Creek to the Oleander Reservoir for containment, and diverts that runoff away from the site to Whitewater Wash via La Quinta Evacuation Channel. These improvements appear to have mitigated the greatest threat to flooding with respect to the site. Flooding resulting from canal embankment failures is considered unlikely (Source: Leighton and Associates, 1984). A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and installation of the drainage facilities has been partially completed for the project. The proposed amendment will effect the drainage system by adding additional acreage to the overall Specific Plan area, which will require additional stormwater runoff collection and storage capacity. Mitigation for this issue shall be the revision of the existing hydrology reports and plan to include the additional area, with recommendations for facility modification as necessary. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The Specific Plan area is partially within the X (areas of 500-year flood), X (areas outside 500-year flood), and AO designated flood hazard zones. The AO designation is the 100 year flood plain FIRM zone in which the hazard consists of shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet average depths of inundation, but where flood hazard factors have not been determined. The proposed annexation of the two parcels and the tentative tract intend to fully utilize existing improvements and integrate them into the overall development and drainage system. The existing structures and basins will remain in place, however, new ones may also be included. No significant impact is identified for this issue. C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site is required to be directed into the existing and proposed retention basins and be controlled by existing drainage facilities. There are no existing natural bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site. Artificial golf course lakes have been constructed on the golf course which also function as retention areas (Source: Aerial photographs). The proposed Specific Plan amendment and tentative tract will not have any effect upon surface waters. .1 15 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no proposed changes to any of the existing artificial lakes, or the Coachella Canal. There are no impacts identified for this issue. E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The proposed amendment will not have any effect upon currents or water movements. There are no impacts identified for this issue. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development of the Specific Plan will require significant amounts of water. Irrigation water for the existing golf course is provided by the Coachella Canal (Colorado River water), although water will be provided from onsite water wells during emergency conditions. Future changes in contracts with the Federal Government for allocation of the Colorado River water could also result in increased use of well water for irrigation during the life of the project. Anticipated water usage for the golf course is 5.5 to 7.0 acre feet per year per acre of golf course, based upon an ongoing study by Desert Water Agency. Therefore, water usage was calculated to be between 2200 and 2800 acre feet per year. Groundwater usage for the proposed development was anticipated to be between 0.2 to 0.5 acre feet per year per unit, or between 440 and 1,100 acre feet per year. (Source: EA 85-034). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. Coachella Valley Water District is quoted in EA 85-034 as stating that the depth of groundwater has been relatively stable since water has been imported from the Colorado River, with the level ranging from 60 to 90 feet below the site. The District states that they "do not believe that this development will have a significant impact on groundwater level in the area." H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing and future development of the Specific Plan area will include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site, and golf course pathways. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into on -site basins channels, lakes, and pipes. Following a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the basins or into the nearby storm drains that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. The use of Best Management Practices in the application of chemicals, solvents, cleansers, oils, etc. is the only practical mitigation available. Q00, t`31 16 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air at over 32 monitoring station in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but of a lesser extent than the SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, among other causes. Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulates since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate and has been in operation since 1985. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed annexation of the two parcels and the tentative tract will contribute to the anticipated impact from Specific Plan 85-006. EA 85-034 discusses the emission generation factors for the "Oak Tree West" project as contained within the 17 P:\EA98-361Ranch.wpd 0 n 0` 1 3 5 La Quinta General Plan EIR. This assessment concludes that the Specific Plan will generate substantial emission from mobile sources. Grading of the project areas will cause temporary adverse impacts on the air quality due to blowing dust and sand (Source: EA 85-034). B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Specific Plan is a sensitive receptor with residential uses and passive recreation use (golf course). Development within the Specific Plan will not have any anticipated adverse impacts upon the project itself, or to adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses also consist of sensitive receptors (residential units, schools, and recreation areas [golf courses], thus, there is no identified adverse impacts associated with the proposed annexation or subdivision requests. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. Moisture content may increase as the golf course and individual yards are planted and irrigated. Swimming pools would add to the moisture index of the area. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the continued development of the Specific Plan. The evaporation of golf course irrigation water would be less than or comparable to the evaporation of agricultural irrigation water from the former and relic agricultural land use of the Specific Plan area. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed amendment will not result in development which may create objectionable odors, such as waste hauling or chemical products. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable on the project site. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly (Source: Specific Plan 85-006; EA 85-034). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 19,444 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early road work constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. 00C1 ' 3 ['' 18 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by SunLine Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quints General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan area is located south of 50' Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, north of 541 Avenue, and east of Park Avenue. Jefferson Street is classified as a Major Arterial with a 120 foot right-of- way. Jefferson Street is a 3-lane roadway from the northeast corner of the Specific Plan south to 52' Avenue, then a 2-lane roadway south to 54th Avenue. The intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 is currently controlled by 4-way stop signs. There are three Primary Arterials surrounding the Specific Plan, 541h Avenue, 501h Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. Primary Arterials have 100-foot to 110-foot rights -of -way. West of Jefferson Street, 54th Avenue is a 2-lane roadway, and east of Jefferson Street, it is a 3-lane roadway. Park Avenue is a 2-lane local street. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. In 1991, it was determined that Jefferson Street experienced a daily traffic volume of 6,200 between 50th and 52nd Avenues. Between 52nd and 54th Avenues, the traffic volume on Jefferson Street was 5,800. West of Jefferson Street, the traffic volume was 8,200. On 521 Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, the count was 5,200, and on 54t' Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, the count was 2,200 trips (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Buildout traffic capacity for 501h Avenue is projected at 25,500 daily trips west of Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street buildout is projected south of 50' Avenue at 47,600 trips, and south of 53'd Avenue, at 42,600 trips. West of Jefferson Street, buildout for 52nd Avenue is at 34,100 trips, and for 54`h Avenue, buildout west of Madison is at 22,900 daily trips. A detailed explanation of buildout traffic conditions and levels of service is found in the La Quinta General Plan. Jefferson Street is a designated Primary Image Corridor on the General Plan. Secondary Image Corridors are 50', 521, and 54t' Avenues. Bikeways include the east side of Jefferson Street, the south side of 50t!' Avenue, south side of 52' Avenue, and 54t' Avenue east of Jefferson Street. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study prepared by LSA, Inc. for the original Specific Plan review indicated that the Specific Plan is anticipated to generate approximately 29,000 average daily trips. The Specific Plan will have direct impacts on the City's circulation system as well as add cumulatively to the overall traffic levels on streets within the City and in the adjacent unincorporated and incorporated areas. The traffic study recommended extensive improvements in order to minimize Cill00 19 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd traffic congestion at various points, some of which have been accomplished. The proposed annexation of the two parcels will create additional daily trips when they are developed. The proposed tentative tract incorporates the northerly parcel into its boundaries and will become single family residential lots. The intended land use for the southerly parcel has not been declared. The additional trips are not anticipated to be significant, but rather cumulative to the project whole. The project whole is significant. Since only 96 of the 2,245 residences approved have been built, the proposed trips generated by the 47 units will be well within the overall trips generated within the Specific Plan. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified hazards from design features in the existing roadways or the proposed circulation system. Automobile, motorcycle, and golf cart traffic are the only types of vehicles that typically use private residential streets, with the exception of delivery trucks. A golf cart path system will be constructed within the country club. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less than significant Impact. Development of the project site would not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. This requirement is a part of project conditions of approval. Additional emergency accesses will also be required by the City for the project. The Coachella Canal does bisect the southern half of the Specific Plan area. There are no existing bridges over the canal that can be used for vehicular traffic. The canal is fenced along both sides further dividing the southern half of the Specific Plan area. There could be internal emergency circulation and access constraints due to the canal. There is adequate access from peripheral public roadways around three sides of the Specific Plan, with 52' Avenue bisecting the project. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? No Impact. Parking will be required for each custom-built or production housing unit as it is constructed, which will consist of a two to three car garage, and tandem parking in the driveway. As each application for commercial, resort, or other types of development are considered, parking concerns will be assessed. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. The east side of Jefferson Street, south sides of 50'h and 52nd Avenues, and along 54t' Avenue east of Jefferson Street are designated Bikeways in the City's General Plan. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will not be increased significantly as a result of the proposed annexation of the two parcels or the reconfigured tentative tract (Source: La Quinta General Plan). Only the parcel along 54' Avenue will contribute additional street -side area within the Specific Plan that is also designated bikeway. The Specific Plan contributes cumulative impacts to traffic hazards in that increased traffic levels results in the increased possibility for conflicts (Source: EA 85-034). 20 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd� r 3 3 F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. Bicycle racks are only required for commercial land uses, and are addressed by the Off -Street Parking Ordinance. There are no proposed bus turn -outs as the SunLine Transit Agency bus system does not have a route near the Specific Plan area, the closest route is along Washington Street, approximately '/z mile west of the project. The City has an adopted City policy pertaining to alternative transportation is the Transportation Demand Management ordinance that applies to entities that employ 100 or more employees. This ordinance will apply to the Specific Plan once there are 100 or more workers employed. The City's General Plan Circulation Element identifies linkages between alternative modes of transportation and the development of the circulation system to establish feasible multi -modal and mass transit strategies. General Plan Objectives pertaining to alternative transportation modes include: 3-5.1 -The General Plan should promote convenient and efficient public transit as an alternative to the automobile; 3-6.1 - The City shall facilitate the use of alternative, non -vehicular modes of transportation through the identification of conceptual bicycle corridors throughout the City; 3-6.2 -The General Plan shall promote the use of the bicycle as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation; 3-6.3 -The General Plan shall promote the development of pedestrian facilities throughout the City to encourage walking as a mode of transportation and recreation; and 3-6.4 -The General Plan shall promote the development of equestrian trails as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation. The Circulation Element of the Specific Plan states that the project has been designed to provide for alternatives to total dependence upon the automobile, and to promote the utilization of public transportation when available. The Specific Plan is generally consistent with the alternative transportation policies of the General Plan. The proposed annexation of the two parcels will add additional area to the project that will be subject to these policies. The proposed tentative tract only reconfigures an existing subdivision for single family development and does not impact this issue. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impacts. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately six miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area of Riverside County (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). The proposed parcel annexation and tentative tract will not impact this issue. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). 21 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd Local Environmental Setting The project site is located partially in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem, and partially in the rocky bajada and rocky slope habitats. The Sonoran Desert Scrub is the most typical environment found in the Coachella Valley desert floor. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. Typically, undeveloped land within these ecosystems is rich in biological resources and habitat. However, the Specific Plan area not in the hillsides has largely been disturbed by agriculture and mass grading in the distant and recent past. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and /or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Bighorn sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The Desert Transition areas are found in the alluvial fan areas and slopes of the surrounding mountains. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky mountain slopes. The La Quinta General Plan identifies the property as being within the habitat of the Fringe -toed Lizard, prairie falcon, and the Black -tailed gnatcatcher. In addition, there have been sightings of the endangered plant, California ditaxis, in the general area of the project (Sources: La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta MEA identifies potential for the following biological resources within the boundaries of the Specific Plan: prairie falcon, Black -tailed gnatcatcher, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard, and a rare plant California Ditaxis. EA 85-034 states that LSA, Inc., researched the occurrence of Ditaxis Californicus, designated as a threatened plant by the Smithsonian Institution, and found that its occurrence is not probable. With the exceptions of the mountain area, the bajada and the mesquite dune are located in the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area, the site, has been significantly modified in the past by its conversion to citrus orchards and agricultural fields. Development of the site will prevent reestablishment of the vegetation found in the bajada and sand dune areas, both of which support abundant wildlife. The bajada is a habitat area for the blacktailed gnatcatcher, a designated sensitive species. The rocky slope area will not be modified. The Specific Plan area is partially developed and will continue to be developed in the future. n n;I 'l 0 22 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd EA 85-034 states that there was a biological reconnaissance report on the site prepared by LSA, Inc., in which numerous wildlife species were identified. The mesquite dune area at the northwest corner of the project are was heavily used as habitat. This area has since been developed with homes and golf course. The biology report indicates that the four rare, endangered, or sensitive species are known to occur onsite or have been previously reported on the site. At the time of the biology survey, the Preserve and mitigation fee program for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard was not in place. The Specific Plan area is not within the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Preserve Development Fee Area, thus there is no mitigation requirement for this species. EA 85-034 states that the adjacent mountains are designated as a "zone of deficiency" for the Bighorn Sheep by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), meaning that the lack of a year-round water source has limited Bighorn Sheep to seasonal use in this area. The nearest lambing area was reported to be several miles to the southwest in a different watershed. Regarding the Prairie Falcon, an eyrie was reported in the cliffs, on the rocky slopes west and south of the Specific Plan area. A survey conducted by LSA, Inc., in the spring of 1984 in conjunction with the "PGA West" project adjacent to the south, revealed no active eyrie in this area. EA 85-034 states that records by California Department of Fish and Game and the BLM indicate that a Prairie Falcon and suitable nesting habitat were observed during a helicopter survey. The Prairie Falcon was also observed in the bajada habitat area on the site. EA 85-034 indicates that the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher was a candidate for Federal listing as a rare or endangered species. This bird was observed onsite in both the rocky slope and bajada habitat types, with the majority of these birds observed in the bajada area. The denser vegetation in this area provides more food and cover for these and other species. The biological survey prepared by LSA, Inc., states that although this species currently (at that time) has no legal status as a rare or endangered species, impacts affecting it should be considered to be significant. In the 1992 La Quinta MEA, the Black -tailed gnatcatcher is listed as a Species of Special Concern and endangered for the DFG. EA 85-034 also discusses the Brown Crested Flycatcher as a Species of Special Concern, but having no legal status as a rare or endangered species. The biological report states that impacts affecting it should be considered significant. Staff transmitted a copy of the Specific Plan annexation request and the proposed tentative tract to the DFG and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 28, 1998, and has not received any response at the time of this writing. EA 85-034 states that changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the Specific Plan, or are otherwise being implemented which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures included: (1) Landscaping materials should employ plant materials native to the Coachella Valley desert habitats and surrounding desert to the maximum degree practical; (2) Ponds constructed in the golf course should include patches of appropriate riparian species to increase the habitat value of these ponds; (3) Drip irrigation should be used to the 23 P:AEA98-361Ranch.wpd, extent practical to minimize the establishment of weedy vegetation; (4) Development should be avoided above the existing flood control dike at the base of the bajada habitat; however, limited improvements may be allowed if designated in a manner sensitive to the habitat; (5) The project shall be designed to discourage human access to the bajada and rocky slope habitat types, as identified in the biological reconnaissance report prepared by LSA, Inc., December 1984); (6) Prior to approval of final maps, the issuance of grading permits for the disturbance of land in the mesquite sand dune area at the northeast corner of the site, the Applicant shall pay the established mitigation fee for the impacts on the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard for that area determined by the DFG to be the habitat area of this endangered species. Since the Fringe -Toed Lizard fee area stops on the north side of 501 Avenue, the Specific Plan does not have to pay the mitigation fee (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Mitigation Measures 1 through 5 should remain a condition of approval for the Specific Plan, unless information to the contrary is received from the DFG prior to the City Council public hearing for these requests. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have locally designated natural communities. Some of the Specific Plan parcels are developed with homes, a golf course, or roadways. Many of the parcels have been disturbed by agricultural activities and/or grading to the extent that there are very few existing natural or relic plant communities left (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no known natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the project site or nearby. It is possible that there could be artificially created wetlands from potential leakage of water from the canal. However, so such condition has been identified within the Specific Plan boundaries. E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by developed parcels, vacant parcels, and land under agriculture on three sides which have effectively cut off migration corridors to and from the Coral Reef Mountains. Wildlife corridors are still open in the Coral Reef Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains to the south. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). OPO(42 24 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or near the project site. While the project site is undeveloped, there is no significant resource to be mined, such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. The MRZ-1 designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The MRZ-3 designation is for those areas (mountainous areas) containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The northern portion of the project is within an area of Prime Agricultural Soils (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan, however, there are goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan pertaining to conservation of prime soil and mineral resource areas; and energy efficiency. Objective 6-5.1 states... Where feasible, the City shall conserve prime soil and mineral resources through a variety of alternative means. Policies 6-5.1.1 encourages that areas historically utilized as agricultural production remain as open space as long as possible. Policy 6-5.1.2 states that Mineral Resource Areas shall be reserved for mineral extraction activities, after which be reclaimed to a similar natural condition. Policy 6-5.1.3 states that the loss of soils through erosion shall be minimized through conservation of native vegetation, use of permeable ground materials and careful regulation of grading practices. Goal 6-6 states that public and private sector development projects which demonstrate that the best available technologies of energy efficiency and energy conservation techniques. Objective 6-6.1 states the City shall encourage that the best available technologies of energy efficiency and energy conservation techniques are incorporated into both public and private sector development projects. Policies 6- 6.1.1, 6-6.1.2, 6-6.1.3, and 6-6.1.4 provide a variety of methods to achieve the stated goal. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this Specific Plan include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction and operation. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA; Water Conservation Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District). 25 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 3.9 HAZARDS Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such material out of, and around, La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Specific Plan area has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, other than agriculture, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances on the property (Sources: Aerial Photos). A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? No Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from swimming pool chemicals and pesticides that may be used by residents of the existing and future homes within the Specific Plan. No other risks are anticipated by the land division, future homes, commercial office complex, or other proposed structures (Source: SP 85-006 Amd. #3). B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the Specific Plan boundaries, except for minimal off -site work as is necessary for road improvements, etc.. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be implemented whenever required. Emergency accesses will be required for the project to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed amendment to Specific Plan 85-006 Amd. #3 or Tentative Tract 28447, which consist of residential development with accessory resort recreation and commercial office land uses. 0()0"'44 26 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan or the tentative tract. E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed amendment and tentative tract will not have any effect upon fire hazard issues, as the Specific Plan is not in a area with significant natural fire hazards. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the State Highway 111 and major or primary arterial roadways. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise from Jefferson Street, 52°d Avenue, Park Avenue, and 541' Avenue. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest residential use is located adjacent to the east and north of the project site. The State Building Code requires that the interior noise level in buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A noise study prepared for the La Quinta General Plan, by Gordon Bricken Associates, is referenced in EA 85-034. Mitigation included the construction of noise barriers, including walls and berms; siting and orientation of noise sensitive uses within the project; and siting of golf course and other less noise sensitive land uses to serve as noise buffer areas within the Specific Plan. The perimeter sound walls and berms have been partially constructed around the Citrus Project of the Specific Plan and were included in the environmental assessment for the 1992 La Quinta General Plan. Thus, this issue has been partially mitigated. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Portions of the Specific Plan in the vicinity of 52' Avenue and Jefferson Street will be subject to severe noise levels created by the anticipated future traffic volumes along the perimeter roadways (Source: EA 85-034). The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy 000"45 27 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction, or during the "operation" of the development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within City Civic Center. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. Another elementary school is under construction within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). 28 PAEA98-361Ranchmpd Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in the I I I Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan is roughly between two City fire stations, one located on Frances Hack Lane, near Avenida Bermudas, and the second station at the corner of 54" Avenue and Madison Street. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the Desert Sand Unified School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. A response to the Specific Plan amendment was received from the Fire Marshal on June 11,1998. There were no comments on the response. Annexing new parcels into the Specific Plan boundaries will cumulatively increase the need for fire protection services for the Ranch Specific Plan, however, this increase is not anticipated to be significant. B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department responded on June 3, 1998, that they have no negative comments regarding the Specific Plan amendment C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A letter from the attorney for Desert Sands Unified School District, dated June 19, 1998, was received by the City, with extensive comments on impacts to the school system. The letter is on file in the Community Development Department. At present the only feasible mitigation available is through school fees and Hand dedication requirements. Projects proposed and approved under the Specific Plan shall be required to pay school mitigation fees as established by State mandate. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the proposed annexation and subdivision as proposed do not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented. D. Would the project have. an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development of the Specific Plan will result in the incremental increase in maintenance of public facilities especially local roads due to the increase in 29 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 47 traffic. To mitigate this impact, the applicant shall pay infrastructure fees in accordance with the City's adopted program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits (Source: EA 85-034). E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development within the Specific Plan will result in an incremental increase in the demand for other governmental services (Source: EA 85-034). Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Media One serves the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting The project is adjacent to developed areas on the west, north, and east. The site is former farm land that has been under cultivation until recent years. In recent years, a golf course and several buildings have been constructed on the project site. Custom and production homes, a clubhouse building, and a maintenance building have been constructed within the Specific Plan 85-006. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Electricity for the Specific Plan is provided by Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The system was expanded in the mid-1980's to provide adequate service to the existing and anticipated development within La Quinta. A comment letter from IID, dated June 29, 1998, states that the proposed amendment will not impact electric service to the area. Another nr'48 30 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd letter from IID, dated June 29, 1998, states that meetings have been held between KSL and IID to discuss additional electrical infrastructure required for the Specific Plan. IID states that they will be able to provide electrical service to the Specific Plan if the steps itemized in the letter are met. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. With continued development within the Specific Plan, there will be an incremental need for additional communication systems for telephone and television cable services. The applicant will have to coordinate with the providers of these services. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there could be additional water treatment or distribution facilities needed within the Specific Plan area. However, a comment letter from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has not been received for these applications. The applicant will have to coordinate with CVWD for any additional facilities needed for continued development. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. There is the potential that additional sewer facilities will be needed for the continued development within the Specific Plan. There has been no comment received from CVWD regarding this issue, however, the applicant will have to meet any requirements for additional sewer facilities. E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? No Impact. There are no additional requirement for storm water drainage facilities within the Specific Plan. All storm water is designed to drain to the golf course where there is adequate retention and absorption capabilities (Source: Steve Speer, Public Works Department, City of La Quinta, July 9, 1998). F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The continued development within the Specific Plan will require incremental increases in solid waste disposal services from Waste Management of the Desert, the current purveyor of solid waste collection. Of) 0;149 31 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a predominately residential zoned area in the southeastern portion of the City. Views from the project site consist of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southwest, the alluvial fan area to the west, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. EA 85-034 indicated that the Specific Plan might have an impact to scenic vista or views open to the public. However, the attached addendum did not address this item. The Specific Plan is partially built with residential units, a golf course, clubhouse, and maintenance building. There is a perimeter masonry block wall with gated entries. Mature landscaping exists in much of the Specific Plan area. Continued development within the Specific Plan will result in incremental increases in buildings and landscaping, all subject to architectural reviews and approvals by the City to ensure a pleasing design and compatibility with the existing features. In light of this situation, the proposed amendment and tentative tract are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to this issue. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment and development of the tentative tract will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the Specific Plan standards and the City in effect at the time of development. No significant adverse impact is anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendment will potentially create additional light and glare. Custom and production houses will include exterior security and low level landscaping lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare in the City. All such lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and other policies of the City, in order to reduce the impact. 32 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City. There are seven recorded archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area and numerous sites within a one -mile radius. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The entire Specific Plan area, except for the hillsides, is within the Lakebed Paleontological area as indicated on the Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map in the Community Development Department. There is a potential for adverse impact to paleontological resources with continued development within the Specific Plan. To mitigate this impact, all excavation activities shall be monitored by a professionally -qualified paleontologist. B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. An archaeological and historical survey of the Specific Plan area was completed by LSA, Inc. Seven sites were found on the property. Samples from all the sites were recovered and were analyzed. The recommendation of LSA, Inc., is that based upon review of the records and of the recovered material, no further testing is warranted. None of the sites were determined to be of a significance that would warrant preservation or protection of the sites by design requirements placed upon the development. However, the potential for subsurface cultural deposits exists in area that have not been graded. To mitigate this potential mitigated measures shall be: (1) A qualified archeologist shall be retained to monitor grading operations in the areas of the archaeological sites identified in the project's archaeological assessment on file with the City; (2) If buried cultural remains are uncovered, construction in this area shall be stopped or relocated until appropriate mitigation measures can be taken, and (3) All artifacts, field notes and catalog information be curated at the City of La Quinta. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. The parcel containing the Kennedy ]Stanch house was evaluated for historic significance during the City's Historic Survey Project, in 1997, and was not determined to have either local or regional historic significance. However, the City's General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992) states that the La Quinta Historic Society recognizes the Kennedy 33 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd Ranch (now PGA West) as a historic landmark/residence. In the event that the applicant should propose to demolish the Kennedy Ranch house, a detailed historic report shall be required to be prepared by a qualified historian or architectural historian, submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Commission for review and acceptance, and approval by the City Council prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The Coachella Branch of the All American Canal bisects the Specific Plan area. The portion of the canal that is within the City of La Quinta has been recorded as a local historic linear engineered structure. The canal was recorded during the City-wide Historic Survey Project, on October 6, 1997. The canal was determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Status 3S (Source: Canal Recordation Form). The proposed annexation and the proposed tentative tract do not propose any type of modification to the canal, thus, there is no anticipated adverse impact. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic value to the Specific Plan area. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses within the Specific Plan boundaries. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is former farm land. There is an existing golf course within the specific Plan boundaries, constructed in recent years. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The increase in demand for park and recreation facilities resulting in the need for dedication of parkland is estimated to be 3 acres per 1000 in population. Based upon that State Department of Finance figure of 2.75 persons per household, the population 34 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd of the Specific Pan will be approximately 6,175 at buildout, warranting the dedication of 6.2 acres of parkland to the City (Source: EA 85-034). However, changes, alterations and other measures have been incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures imposed upon the Specific Plan in 1985 consisted of. (1) Provision of on -site, private recreational facilities shall be in accordance with the Municipal Land Use and Land Division Ordinance in effect at the time of development; (2) Provision shall be made to provide public open space and recreation facilities through public use of golf course facilities, dedication of public parkland, or similar programs (Source: EA 85-034). B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. Continued development with the Specific Plan will be in accordance with the existing master site plan which would consist of in -fill development around the existing golf course. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed Specific Plan amendment and tentative tract will not have significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum, that cannon be mitigated to insignificant levels. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: * The proposed Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 and Tentative Tract 28447 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 and Tentative Tract 28447 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 and Tentative Tract 28447 will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity, and the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 3 and Tentative Tract 28447 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSIS A. Earlier Analysis Used. In 1985, EA 85-034 was prepared for Specific Plan 85-006. EA 85- 034 assessed the potential impacts to the environment from the project proposed at that time. 35 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd Also utilized in the current analysis was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is attached to this Environmental Assessment. The Conditions of Approval also contain many of the required mitigation measures. 36 PAEA98-361Ranch.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006 CASE NO.:SPECIFIC PLAN 85-006, AMENDMENT #3 KSL LAND HOLDINGS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 141h day of July, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Land Holdings for approval of an Amendment to the Ranch Specific Plan, formerly known as the Oak Tree West Specific Plan for the annexation of two parcels into the Specific Plan boundaries generally located on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of 541h Avenue, and south of 50th Avenue, more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 5 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Director has prepared an Initial Study (EA 98-361); and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the two parcels will be a logical part of the development of the Specific Plan area. Z. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development allowed under the Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with existing uses. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment will provide land use compatibility with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed will require that uses be reviewed to ensure they are compatible with the surrounding properties. PALESLIE\pc-res-sp 85-006 amend-3 .wpd } (I (), f Planning Commission Resolution 98- July 14, 1998 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P P P:\LESLIE\pc-res-s 85-006 amend-3 .w d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SP 85-006, AMENDMENT #3 KSL LAND HOLDINGS, INC. JULY 14, 1998 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 85-006, Amendment #3, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text on file in the Community Development Department, shall be revised to include the following conditions with final texts submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of final approval. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. 4. Required off -site and perimeter improvements shall be extended along the frontage of the two annexations to the Specific Plan area. 6. The applicant shall revise the existing hydrology report to incorporate the two annexed areas. p:\stan\coaccSP85-006,AMD #3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28447 TO ALLOW A 49-LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 11.66 ACRES CASE NO.: TTM 28447 APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of .duly, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Land Corp. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 49 lots on 11.66 acres, in the area encompassing the Ranch Specific Plan 85-006, generally located east of Park Avenue and South of 50th Avenue, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF SECTION 5, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study, and has determined that although the proposed Tentative Tract could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included int eh condtions of approval for Tentative Tract 28447, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environment should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28447: 1. The proposed map and its design is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 85-006 in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map has been disturbed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. 0nr'��`� PALESLI E\peres-TT28447.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98- 3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that access to the area will be provided in accordance with Specific Plan 85-006. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 28447 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 0()0115 PALESLI E\peres-TT28447.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 28447 - THE RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN JULY 14, 1998 GENERAL Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28447 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410- 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. P:ALESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 1 (9 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 UM01 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. 8. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications required of this development include: A. Park Avenue - 30-foot half of 60-foot right of way. 10. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Park Avenue - 10 feet. The minimum width may be used as average widths if a meandering wall is approved. PALESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 2 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 Where public sidewalks are placed on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 12. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Park Avenue from lots abutting the street. 13. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 15. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans 16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading, " "Precise Grading, " "Streets & Drainage, " and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. P:\LESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 18. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 19. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. GRADING P:\LESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 4 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 23. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this development with abutting properties and of separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 000 PALESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 5 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 28. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 29. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development or, if feasible, on the adjacent Tracts 24890- X. For drainage onto the adjacent tracts, the applicant shall provide an addendum to or revision of the existing hydrology report for those tracts which indicates sufficient capacity for the additional stormwater. 30. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 31. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 32. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. 33. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 34. Nuisance water shall be retained on site unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter(s) shall be sized to percolate 3.5 gallons per house per hour. The leachfield shall be sized to percolate 20 gallons per house per day. 35. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 36. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to the hardscape improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 37. Applicant shall meet the requirements as stipulated by Imperial Irrigation District in their letter of June 29, 1998 on file in the Community Development Department and as listed below: p '+65 PALESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 6 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 A. KSL shall pay for and install three six inch conduits and one four inch conduit (with the associated cable vaults for splicing and switching) along the northern right of way of 52"d Avenue, west of Jefferson Street. As long as the three six inch conduits are installed in the same horizontal plane, no concrete encasement will be required. KSL shall also pay for the line extension charges of a parallel 750 Aluminum cable system through this conduit system. B. Whenever the land west of Jefferson Street, south of 52A Avenue develops, KSL, (or current land owner) will pay for and install three six inch conduits (with the associated cable vaults for splicing and switching) along the southern right of way of 52nd Avenue, west of Jefferson Street. As long as the three six inch conduits are installed in the same horizontal plane, no concrete encasement will be required. KSL, or current land owner, will also pay for the line extension charges of a parallel 750 Aluminum cable system through this conduit system. C. KSL, or current land owner, will pay for and install six conduits to interconnect between #1 and #2 above to the conduit system present being installed along the southern right of way of 52"d Avenue by The Tradition development. D. KSL, or current land owner, will pay for the installation of a concrete encased duct bank consisting of 21 six inch and one four inch conduit between Jefferson Street and the Jefferson Substation along 57d Avenue. Thirteen of these conduits will be required to serve KSL projects, the remainder of the conduits will be paid for by other developers or by Imperial Irrigation District as system improvements. It has been calculated that Imperial Irrigation District will reimburse $19.93 per linear foot of this conduit system to KSL for these other eight conduits. The distance between Jefferson Street and Jefferson Substation is approximately 1,000 feet, bringing the total amount of reimbursement to $19,930. This reimbursement will be in the form of waived line extension charges to KSL. KSL may elect to install all 21 six inch conduits in one duct bank at one time, or they may elect to install some conduits in a duct bank now, with the remainder of the conduits installed when further development occurs within the area. The amount of conduits installed and the timing of the installation will have to be approved by Imperial Irrigation District. In either event, the total amount that will be reimbursed to KSL will be $19,930 for the entire project. KSL will also pay for the line extension charges for the five and one-third parallel 750 Aluminum cables through this conduit system as they are required and installed. E. A minimum of three conduits will have to be installed between Jefferson Street and Jefferson Substation at the same time as the conduits are installed in Condition #36.A. This is required to allow for a new circuit to be constructed from Jefferson Substation to the Citrus development along 57d Avenue. The City of La Quinta may grant a variance and allow this portion of the new circuit east of Jefferson Street to be P:\LESLM\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 7 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 constructed overhead, with the plan to replace it with underground cable when the entire duct bank is installed. F. It is believed that six five inch conduits presently exist under Jefferson Street along the northern right of way of 52' Avenue. These conduits may be used to interconnect the systems described above. However, if these conduits cannot be found, or they have been damaged to the point of being rendered useless, then KSL will have to install the appropriate amount of conduits under Jefferson Street. 38. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Construct a six -foot -wide sidewalk along this tract's Park Avenue frontage. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1. The private street shall match the geometry of the streets to which it connects (in the adjacent tracts). 39. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 40. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 41. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site street improvements shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 42. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 0001"6" PALESL1E\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 8 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 43. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping. 44. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 45. Final inspection and occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development will not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings have improved access, including street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs, to publicly -maintained streets. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. MUM-an'tun 46. . Perimeter wall and landscaping along Park Avenue shall be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless a phasing plan or construction schedule is approved by the City Engineer. PALFSLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 9 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 47. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, and retention basins shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 48. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 49. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 50. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with grades and turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 51. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 52. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 53. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 54. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 55. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings P:ALESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 10 H 0 0 C).i Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Tentative Tract 28447 July 14, 1998 shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. 56. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. 57. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 58. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. P:\LESLIE\TT28447-c.ofa.wpd 11 Ave. 5s w] =��Ii11111iiI11i1111N11��_ �� �� __Iitlllunnnun'-_ i = ! �JIIi11�1N1lll �` .���/�������� � �Hlll rll► ����////�, ,11H1111111/� ''��j� mass // �K /�10�ff � �rl►III►! ����� ��1►�� ���0����►Ij���i� Irll►// Ilk% ��IItH1111tnti.. A�YI� CC _A_ 0 :f."MIIII:9e i1iiT: PH #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 14, 1998 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 28797 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF 11.81 ACRES INTO 53 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 LETTERED LOTS LOCATION: ALONG TORONJA AND AZAHAR STREET, WEST OF MANGO, WITHIN THE RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 85-006) APPLICANT: RJT HOMES, LLC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 WAS PREPARED FOR PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 28797 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING/ DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) BACKGROUND: Site Background The proposed tentative tract map is a reconfiguration of a previously approved condominium tract map (TT 24890-8). The applicant proposes to convert the property to single family residential subdivision for detached dwelling units. The project site is located within The Ranch Specific Plan, formerly known as The Oak Tree West Specific Plan. The Specific Plan, approved in 1985, currently has an existing golf course, club house building, maintenance building, and a mix of custom and production residential units. The majority of the designated residential areas are undeveloped. P:\perptT 1W8797RJT.wpd Project Request Tentative Tract Map 28797 proposes to create 53 single family residential lots and TWO lettered lots for private roadways, on 11.81 acres (Attachment 1). The proposed lots vary in size from approximately 7,425 square feet to 12,624 square feet. Lot widths are typically 55-feet wide by 136-feet and front onto private streets. The subdivision is an elongated "Y" shape with an open space/recreation lot within the "Y". All of the proposed lots back onto the existing golf course. The proposed Tentative Tract is within a gated private community. The closest access is off of 52"d Avenue and Park Avenue. Public Notice This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 28, 1998. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plan 85-006, Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance, the following overview of the project is provided: Issue 1 - General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency The City's General Plan designates the subdivision as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing (e.g., attached or detached housing units). Past development approvals by the City within The Ranch Specific Plan reflect a low number of housing units built since 1985 (96 building permits have been issued for the 2,245 units approved). Therefore, converting the 53 condominium lots into 53 single family lots will not exceed the allowed number of units analyzed in the original Environmental Assessment 85-034 and approved for Specific Plan 85-006. This map proposes lots greater than the 6,000 square feet minimum required by Specific Plan 85-006. As designed, the proposed single family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Traffic generation from the development is expected to be 530 vehicle trips per day or less. The number of vehicles planned for the ultimate build -out of Specific Plan 85-006 is 29,000. The interior private circulation plan is consistent with the requirements of the adopted specific plan. PAperptTTM28797RJT.wpd Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements Private interior street and residential lots have been designed around the existing golf course fairways as required by the Specific Plan 85-006. Design standards of the City's General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance have been included into the project's design. Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project and are readily available. Impacts associated with development of the project can be mitigated through adherence to the recommended conditions. Issue 3 - Health and Safety All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be constructed as required by the attached conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. All electric services will be installed in underground piping and will meet all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The health, safety and welfare of residents is ensured based on recommended conditions. CONCLUSION: This development request is a logical expansion of The Ranch Specific Plan and Citrus project. The tentative tract map, as conditioned, is consistent with adjacent development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City and Specific Plan requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolution, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-363. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28797, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: Location Map 2. TTM 28797 - Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only) Prepared by: Submitted by: eslie MouriquaAd, Ass ate Planner Christine di lorio, Plarthing Manager PCrptTTM28797RJT .. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 28797 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of July, 1998 held a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 98-363 for Tentative Tract 28797, generally located on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of 54th Avenue, and south of 50' Avenue, more particularly described as follows: PORTIONS OF SECTION 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 98-363) and has determined that although the proposed tentative tract could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 28797, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should 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 proposed Tentative Tract 28797 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 98-363. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract 28797 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, as no new impacts have been identified. 000,004 Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-363 July 14, 1998 3. The proposed Tentative Tract 28797 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. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract 28797 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract 28797 will not have 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. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the tract map as proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 98-363 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 000005 P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-363.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-363 July 14, 1998 Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California ()(00006 P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-363.wpd Appendix I Environmental Checklist Form - EA 98-363 Project Title: Tentative Tract 28797 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand (760) 777-7068 4. Project Location: SP 85-006; APN's - 769-460-007 thru 10, -016, -029, -030 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RJT Homes 50-842 Grand Traverse P. O. Box 810 La Quinta, California 92253 6. General Plan Designation: LDR 7. Zoning: RL 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.) Resubdivision of 53 condominium lots to 53 single family lots and 2 lettered lots, with private streets. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings. North: Golf course South: Golf course East: Condo lots West: SFR lots 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., pennits, financing approval. or participation agreement.) None identified. P:\LES LIE\EAckli%t98-363.wpd 000007 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. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation X Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Svstems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics X Water Hamrds Cultural Resources X Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of tiigniticance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. 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 significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier. EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ` July9. 1998 6iifat4ur&e Date _Leslie Mouriquand _City of La Quinta Printed Name For On(i(4)8 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 reference 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 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 brietly 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 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. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. PALESLIE\EAck1ist98-363.wpd -3 - ���0��09 Sample question: 1. II. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential inipacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) (Attached source list explains that I is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source#(s): ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority conilmutity)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections'? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirecth (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing'? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault nipture'? ( X PALES LIE\EAcklist98-363.wpd Q00()1v IV. Potentially Potentially Signitleant Less Than Significant t'niess Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) X d) Seiche, tsunaini, or volcanic hazard? ( I I I I X e) Landslides or mudflows? ( I I X f) Erosion, changes in topography or writable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) I I X g) Subsidence of the land? ( I I I X 1 71 h) Expansive soils? ( I I I X i) Unique geologic or physical features'! I I X WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface ninoff? ( I I I X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( I I I X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( I X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body'? ( ) I I I I X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) I I i X PALES LIE\EAcklist98-3G3.wpd 000011 V Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X capability'? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater'? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality'? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. or cause any change in climate? ( I I X d) Create objectionable odors? ( TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion'? ( rnX-1 b) I-zzuds to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) I I I X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses'? ( d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site'? ( VII. Issues (and Supporting Infortmation Sources): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less 'Chan Significant Unless Significant \u Impact Mitigated Impact Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'? ( ) X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( I I I I X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) X b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)'? ( c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.. oak forest. coastal habitat, etc.)'? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors'? ( VIII, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans'? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner'? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'? PA LESLIE\EAcklist9R-3G3.wpd 1)(10 o 13 M X. XL, Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides. chemicals. or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuatioIl plaIl'? ( ) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard'? ( ) I X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ilanlniable bnish. grass, or trees'? I I 1 1 X NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels'? ( ) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have in effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection'? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools'? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads'? ( ) e) Other governmental services'? ( ) M�M 000014 PotentiaUv Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies. or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) X b) Communications systems? ( ) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) X d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) X e) Storm water drainage? ( ) X f) Solid waste disposal'? ( ) X g) Local or regional water supplies? ( I I X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( I I I X c) Create light or glare'? ( ) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( I I X b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) X PALESLIE\EAe14 ist98-3 G3. wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Affect historical resources'? ( d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values'? ( ) Potentialli Potentially Significant Less'rhan Significant finless Significant No Impact Mitigated impact Impact M� e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( I I 1 1 X XN. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities'? ( ) 1 7 X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( XNI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 aniulal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or aninial, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-teriu. to the disadvantage of long -terns, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 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.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P:\LESL1E\EAck1ist98-363.wpd 000016 XNIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequateIN analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following oil attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. EA 85-034 (SCH No. 85050112 prepared for SP 85-006; La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992), La Quinta General Plan EIR (1992). These documents are available in the Community Development Department, City of La Quinta b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier dociunent 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 Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which tile% address site -specific conditions for the project. P:\LES LI E\EAcklist9 8-363. wpd INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-363 Tentative Tract 28797 in Specific Plan 85-006 - The Ranch Applicant: RJT Homes Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community. Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 July 9, 1998 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 5 3.2 Population and Housing 7 3.3 Earth Resources 9 3.4 Water 12 3.5 Air Quality 16 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 16 3.7 Biological Resources 21 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 24 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 25 3.10 Noise 26 3.11 Public Services 27 3.12 Utilities 29 3.13 Aesthetics 31 3.14 Cultural Resources 32 3.15 Recreation 33 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 34 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 34 2 P:\L.ESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd 0() 0 o 1 0 v SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of a proposed Tentative Tract 28797 to subdivide 11.81 acres into 53 single family residential lots within Specific Plan 85-006- The Ranch. The parcels involved in the subdivision are 769-460-007 through -010, - 016, -029, and -030. The project site is located along Toronja and Azahar Streets, west of Mango. The Specific Plan has been known as "The Citrus," and "Oak Tree West." The applicant proposes to rename the Specific Plan area "The Ranch." Originally, the specific plan approval included one 27-hole and one 18-hole golf course on a total of 400 acres, 2245 single family, attached and detached dwellings on 449 acres, a 200-room hotel, and a 25,000-square-foot golf clubhouse on a 36.5 acre site, a 200,000-square-foot office/commercial center on 3.5 acres, a private golf course club facility, 115 acres of hillside (undevelopable) remaining as natural open space, and 16 acres of rights -of -way dedications. This original Specific Plan project was evaluated for environmental impacts in Environmental Assessment 85-034. With subsequent amendments, the specific plan now consists of potential of 2245 dwelling units, a 3.5-acre commercial office site with a 26,000 square foot office building and 104 parking spaces, 115 acres of hillside open space, and golf course. As of October 1, 1997, there have been 96 building permits issued for residential dwellings, and the golf course and clubhouse have been constructed. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve amendments to projects. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Tentative Tract, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed requests. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the tentative tract map; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the requests, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the projects to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; r►(10()20 3 PAL.ESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd • To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed projects; • To facilitate environmental review early in the review of the tentative tract; • To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the tentative tract will not have significant effects on the environment; • To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, • To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the projects. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed tentative tract application was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended and future development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts to air quality, biological resources, public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and cultural resources, issues contained in the Environmental Checklist. The degree of these adverse impacts is significant, however, with the recommended mitigation measures, the level of significance will be reduced to less -than -significant levels. As a result, A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Tentative Tract 28797 would create 53 single family residential lots within Specific Plan 85-006. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed tentative tract would operate as a single family subdivision within the Specific Plan. f l ) 4 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd r 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed Tentative Tract 28797 is to provide for single family residential lots for sale for profit to the applicant. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed tentative tract will require discretionary recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of the Environmental Assessment 98-363 Tentative Tract Map 28797 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There is a related project, proposed Tentative Tract 28447. It is related in that it is located within Specific Plan 85-006, but is being evaluated for environmental impacts in Environmental Assessment 98-361. The applicant for this project is KSL Land Corp. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use and subdivision design approval of the proposed tentative tract. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed subdivision. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). Mitigation measures are discussed for each issue and are formalized in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan that is a part of the project conditions of approval. 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to approximately 10,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains in the distant southeast, the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd E)' I O{� 4 7 Local Environmental Setting The local setting for The Ranch is that of both flatter desert floor area and mountainous open space. Existing and proposed development areas are in the flatter desert floor areas. The Specific Plan is located near the south-central portion of the City, with the Coral Reef Mountains along the western boundary of the southern half of the project. To the south is the PGA West development and Lake Cahuilla, a regional recreation/water storage facility operated by Riverside County Parks and Recreation and the Coachella Valley Water District. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? No Impact. Adjacent land uses and their designations to the Specific Plan boundary consist of residential, golf, and vacant parcels south of Avenue 54; residential, golf, and vacant parcels along the northern boundary, near 50'h Avenue; vacant designated residential, the Coachella Canal, and a vacant designated Neighborhood Commercial parcel along the Jefferson Street eastern boundary; and golf, residential, and designated open space (Coral Reef Mountains) along the western boundary. These adjacent land uses and designations are compatible with the proposed residential, golf, and commercial office land uses of Specific Plan 85-006. The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the City's General Plan, and Low Density Residential (RL) on the City's Zoning Map. Thus, there are no adverse impacts identified for this request. There is no conflict identified for this request. No mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over the Specific Plan and proposed Tentative Tract. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The proposed tentative tract do not conflict with the above referenced documents adopted by the City Council. No mitigation is required for this issue. C. Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Potentially significant Unless Mitigated. Specific Plan 85-006 was approved by the La Quinta City Council in 1985, with findings as stated in Environmental Assessment 85-034. Significant effects to adjacent properties and land uses were identified for this issue in that 1985 environmental assessment, however, the La Quinta General Plan EIR as adopted by the City state that this impact is unavoidable. The approval of the "Oak Tree West" Specific Plan was conditioned to ensure land use compatibility between uses within the project and also between the project and adjacent properties and land uses. Mitigation for this impact consisted of the applicant maintaining all land within the project boundaries in agricultural production until such land is graded for development, provided that such agricultural production is economically feasible. In the event said undeveloped land is not continued or placed in agricultural production, the applicant shall plant and maintain said land in appropriate ground cover to prevent dust and erosion and to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment (Source: EA 85-034). 6 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd D. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort and residential development over the past 15 years. Historically, the area within Specific Plan 85-006 has been under agriculture, and the original environmental assessment identified that the project would convert approximately 900 acres of prime agricultural land to urban land uses. This conversion was addressed within the Final EIR for the La Quinta General Plan, of which the proposed "Oak Tree West" is a part of. It was found that construction of this project with the accompanying extensions and improvements to the infrastructure system will encourage owners of adjacent properties having prime agricultural soils to develop their land. Active farming of the property ceased several years ago in anticipation of development. There are only relic farming activities adjacent to the east of the project site. Thus, the impact on prime agricultural resources or operations in the immediate area has already occurred to a large extend since 1985, and is likely to continue. Development of agricultural lands in the project area is essential to achieving the objectives of the adopted La Quinta General Plan. The amount of open space will be reduced to accommodate urban development as envisioned in the City's General Plan (Sources: EA 85-034; La Quinta General Plan; Site Survey; SP 85-006 Amd.#3). E. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? No Impact. The proposed tentative tract will be developed with single family lots for general market sale. Residential land uses are located in all directions adjacent to the Specific Plan, except for the mountains adjacent to the west. The future development of these lots will not disrupt or divide the community as they are a part of a planned private community. The proposed subdivision will not affect the physical arrangement of the existing or planned nearby neighborhoods as it is within the Specific Plan boundaries (Sources: Site Survey; Specific Plan 85-006 Amd. #3 ). No mitigation measures are required for this issue. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Vetting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S. Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. The current population is estimated at 20,444. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000, and by 2010, the population could be 32,786 (Source: Community Development Department, 1998). 7 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd The average age of a City resident is 32.2 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: 1990 Census). The average household income is $56,126. In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. With more resort opportunities being created in the City, the numbers of visitors increases. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source: Community Development Department, 1998). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of finance 1996). Median home values in La Quinta are approximately $117,400 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overview 1996 Edition). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 81 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21 % are college graduates (Source: 1990 Census/Estimates). Local Environmental Setting The specific plan area consists of 1020 acres or 1.6 square miles of a developing private country club with residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. The proposed annexation of the two parcels will add 4.7+ acres to Specific Plan 85-006. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The development planned for the proposed tentative tract will ultimately result in the conversion of 53 condominium lots to 53 single family lots, which will result in no loss or gain in units. While the City's average population is 2.85 per dwelling unit, the proposed project is projected to have a lower per unit population given the fact that it will be a private country club with high -end custom home lots. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living with them. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents (Source: SP 85-006; EA 96-333). Temporary construction -related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created as a result of continued development within the Specific Plan, including the proposed tentative tract, such as administration and maintenance jobs, managers and service providers, and security personnel for the country club. No jobs are anticipated to be lost as a result of the project. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. No mitigation measures are required for this issue. 8 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. As the Ranch project is developed, changing the property from agricultural uses to urban uses, there will be changes in the location, distribution, and density of population in the area. It is anticipated that because the project will have growth inducing impacts (see the preceding Land Use section), the project will also result in an increase in the growth rate of the population in the area. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not have an impact upon existing housing, as there are no existing housing units on the subject property (Sources: MEA; SP 85-006 application). 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside area on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the Specific Plan area has been under agriculture in the past. The elevation of the property ranges from approximately Sea Level to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (Source: USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map). One hundred -fifteen acres of the project site will not be developed, as it is located in the steep, rocky Coral Reef Mountains (Source: SP 85-006). There is an inferred earthquake fault line located through the northeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, that transects in a northwest to southeast trend. There has been no recorded activity along this fault line, and these faults traces are not considered active. However, the City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Major active faults in the region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west, and the Elsinore Fault Zone located to the southwest. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III of the Modified Mercalli Scale, with Zone XII being the most hazardous. Very strong groundshaking, as well as the possibility of ground rupture, can occur during a major earthquake along these regional faults and represent the primary source of geologic hazard for the City. Should groundshaking occur, the grain size distribution and unconsolidated nature of alluvial sediments located within the City contributes 9 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd 0 0 0 () .� to the potential for ground rupture, liquefaction and dynamic settlement, landsliding and geologic instability (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). A Preliminary Geotechnical reconnaissance investigation was conducted on the Specific Plan site, in November 1984, and February 1985, by Leighton and Associates. The report indicates that the portion of the Specific Plan proposed for development has underlying ancient lake deposits. This report identifies three soil types on the property, light brown slightly silty fine to course sand and gravel, light brown silt and very fine sand, and brown silty fine to medium sand with some gravel. The investigation included ten borings drilled in various portions of the project site. The report states that the bearing soils showed expansion indices of zero when tested. All indications are that the soils on the site will allow for the proposed development, including single family houses irrespective of the height. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development of Tentative Tract 28797 could be effected by potential fault rupture hazards in the event of a large earthquake. The Seismically induced ground rupture, or earth cracking is not considered a significant hazard due to the absence of known active faulting located within City boundaries. Ground rupture produced through groundshaking of regionally active faults is not considered likely, although the possibility cannot be entirely discounted (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). B. Would the project results in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Specific Plan area is within Groundshaking Zone III which indicates that there is a potential for hazardous groundshaking from seismically induced earthquakes. Mitigation for this potential hazard consists of constructing all habitable structures to specific standards for Groundshaking Zone III. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction and ground failure are produced in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix ,with perched (trapped) groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. While groundwater depths can vary significantly over short distances, due to the presence of localized perched aquifers, the presence of known shallow water tables increases the potential for liquefaction throughout the region. The Specific Plan area is west of the known liquefaction hazard area in the City, thus an adverse impacts are assumed to be less than significant (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). The preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance report prepared by Leighton and Associates indicates that the portion of the Specific Plan area proposed for development has underlying ancient lake deposits. Ground failure due to these poorly consolidated sediments has occurred in the past following severe storms accompanied 0000"' 10 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd by heavy flooding. Under current conditions, the soils are unsuitable for the proposed construction. The Applicant shall be required to overexcavate and recompact the soil to provide suitable building areas, with the anticipated shrinkage .between cut and fill of the top five feet of soil estimated at 25% and 30% (Source: EA 85-034). In 1986, a Soil Engineering Report was prepared for the Specific Plan area north of 52nd Avenue, by Buena Engineers, which states that no free water was encountered during test drilling to a depth of 41 feet, thus, liquefaction does not seem to be a consideration for the project site (Source: Buena Engineers, 1986). D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley, separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect this project in the event of a levee failure or seiche because the lake is approximately one mile south of the southern boundary of the Specific Plan (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map). E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. No mudflows are anticipated for this project, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granitic material. The general area of the project site is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located in various locations of the City, and existing retention basins and drainage channels within the project site. (Source: La Quinta MEA; La Quinta USGS 7.5' Quad Map; TT 28470). The proposed subdivision will not be effected by this hazard issue as the lots involved in Tentative Tract 28797 are several hundred feet north of the hillsides. Falling rock and rolling boulders may be a hazard for those areas adjacent to or on the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains/Coral Reef Mountains. The Specific Plan proposes approximately 5% of the area adjacent to the mountains is proposed for residential development that would be expose people and property to this particular geologic hazard. For those areas adjacent to ore toed( of the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains/Coral Reef Mountains, the geotechnical reports shall determine natural slope stability and potential hazards from falling rock or tumbling boulders (Source: EA 85- 034). All proposed development shall comply with the City's adopted HillsideueQelegy ©ualay District Ordinance. F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As the Specific Plan is developed there will be changes in the topography, both natural and historically altered through agriculture. These changes will include grading, excavation, cut and fill activities. Approved grading plans are required prior to any such activity. Geotechnical reports for each area disturbed shall identify specific hazards and 0000128 11 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd mitigation measures for the proposed development type. The preliminary geotechnical reports state that the soil types found on the Specific Plan area have a moderate potential for wind erosion (defined as wind removal and/or soil accumulation in hummocks up to 24-inches high). In addition, due to silty nature of the surface soils, severe dust storms can be expected locally in areas not covered by vegetation. Therefore, an increase in wind erosion can be anticipated during grading and during development until ground cover is reestablished on the site (Source: EA 85-034). Impacts from erosion shall be mitigated by design or by implementation of the approved PM-10 Mitigation Plan to be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving ubsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area designated for subsidence hazards. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). The proposed Tentative Tract, will not have any significant effects from subsidence hazards is the recommendations of the geotechnical report is implemented. H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the parcels have a low potential for expansion, thus future construction is not expected to be subject to problems from soil expansion. The soil types identified within the specific Plan area are: Is, Ip, Ro Ru, GbA, GbB, MaB, MaD, and GeA. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits (Sources: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area). Mitigation consists of implementing the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports for this issue. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Coral Reef Mountains represent a unique geologic feature in the La Quinta area. This unique feature is located in the southwestern portion (115 acres) of the Specific Plan area. Any development proposed within this area is subject to the standards of the Hillside/'7fl Overlay District, and the Open Space land use policies of the General Plan. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Vetting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin 12 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd 000, 029 which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986. 0000,10 13 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd Local Environmental Setting The project site does not have any natural standing water, however, the Coachella Canal bisects the Specific Plan area as it trends southward from the east side of the Specific Plan to Lake Cahuilla. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir is located approximately one mile to the south of the southern border of the Specific Plan. The Whitewater River channel is located approximately 3 miles to the north of the Specific Plan area, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Specific Plan, and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. In a Geotechnical investigation conducted in November, 1984, for 500 acres within the Specific Plan, Leighton and Associates state that during very severe rain storms, the area north and west of the Coachella Canal might become subject to heavy localized runoff (possibly flash flooding) from the mountains bordering the site on the west. The canal embankment would undoubtedly act as a levee and a deterrent to flooding over southeastern portions of the property. A flood control levee along the west side of La Quinta directs flow from Bear Creek to the Oleander Reservoir for containment, and diverts that runoff away from the site to Whitewater Wash via La Quinta Evacuation Channel. These improvements appear to have mitigated the greatest threat to flooding with respect to the site. Flooding resulting from canal embankment failures is considered unlikely (Source: Leighton and Associates, 1984). A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and installation of the drainage facilities has been partially completed for the project. The proposed amendment will effect the drainage system by adding additional acreage to the overall Specific Plan area, which will require additional stormwater runoff collection and storage capacity. Mitigation for this issue shall be the revision of the existing hydrology reports and plan to include the additional area, with recommendations for facility modification as necessary. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The Specific Plan area is partially within the X (areas of 500-year flood), X (areas outside 500-year flood), and AO designated flood hazard zones. The AO designation is the 100 year flood plain FIRM zone in which the hazard consists of shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet average depths of inundation, but where flood hazard factors have not been determined. The existing structures and basins will remain in place, however, new ones may also be included. No significant impact is identified for this issue. 14 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site is required to be directed into the existing and proposed retention basins and be controlled by existing drainage facilities. There are no existing natural bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site. Artificial golf course lakes have been constructed on the golf course which also function as retention areas (Source: Aerial photographs). The proposed tentative tract will not have any effect upon surface waters. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no proposed changes to any of the existing artificial lakes, or the Coachella Canal. There are no impacts identified for this issue. E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not have any effect upon currents or water movements. There are no impacts identified for this issue. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development of the Specific Plan will require significant amounts of water. Irrigation water for the existing golf course is provided by the Coachella Canal (Colorado River water), although water will be provided from onsite water wells during emergency conditions. Future changes in contracts with the Federal Government for allocation of the Colorado River water could also result in increased use of well water for irrigation during the life of the project. Anticipated water usage for the golf course is 5.5 to 7.0 acre feet per year per acre of golf course, based upon an ongoing study by Desert Water Agency. Therefore, water usage was calculated to be between 2200 and 2800 acre feet per year. Groundwater usage for the proposed development was anticipated to be between 0.2 to 0.5 acre feet per year per unit, or between 440 and 1,100 acre feet per year. (Source: EA 85-034). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. Coachella Valley Water District is quoted in EA 85-034 as stating that the depth of groundwater has been relatively stable since water has been imported from the Colorado River, with the level ranging from 60 to 90 feet below the site. The District states that they "do not believe that this development will have a significant impact on groundwater level in the area." 15 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing and future development of the Specific Plan area will include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site, and golf course pathways. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff will be discharged into on -site basins channels, lakes, and pipes. Following a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the basins or into the nearby storm drains that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. The use of Best Management Practices in the application of chemicals, solvents, cleansers, oils, etc. is the only practical mitigation available. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air at over 32 monitoring station in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but of a lesser extent than the SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, among other causes. Local Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. 000,033 16 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulates since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate and has been in operation since 1985. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed tentative tract will contribute to the anticipated impact from Specific Plan 85-006. Environmental Assessment 85-034 concludes that the Specific Plan will generate substantial emission from mobile sources. Grading of the project areas will cause temporary adverse impacts on the air quality due to blowing dust and sand (Source: EA 85-034). B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed subdivision would result in new single family residential units within the Specific Plan. Residential units are sensitive receptors. There are no anticipated adverse impacts identified with the proposed subdivision. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. Moisture content may increase as the golf course and individual yards are planted and irrigated. Swimming pools would add to the moisture index of the area. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the continued development of the Specific Plan. The evaporation of golf course irrigation water would be less than or comparable to the evaporation of agricultural irrigation water from the former and relic agricultural land use of the Specific Plan area. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not result in development which may create objectionable odors, such as waste hauling or chemical products. Vehicles traveling on nearby and internal project streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable on the project site. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly (Source: Specific Plan 85-006; EA 85-034). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 19,444 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of Q 0 0 03 17 PAL.ESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd early road work constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by SunLine Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan area is located south of 501 Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, north of 54'h Avenue, and east of Park Avenue. Jefferson Street is classified as a Major Arterial with a 120 foot right-of- way. Jefferson Street is a 3-lane roadway from the northeast corner of the Specific Plan south to 52' Avenue, then a 2-lane roadway south to 54th Avenue. The intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 is currently controlled by 4-way stop signs. There are three Primary Arterials surrounding the Specific Plan, 5411 Avenue, 501'' Avenue, and 52nd Avenue. Primary Arterials have 100-foot to 110-foot rights -of -way. West of Jefferson Street, 54'h Avenue is a 2-lane roadway, and east of Jefferson Street, it is a 3-lane roadway. Park Avenue is a 2-lane local street. The La Quinta General Plan gives design standards for the various street classifications. In 1991, it was determined that Jefferson Street experienced a daily traffic volume of 6,200 between 501 and 52"d Avenues. Between 52nd and 541h Avenues, the traffic volume on Jefferson Street was 5,800. West of Jefferson Street, the traffic volume was 8,200. On 52nd Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, the count was 5,200, and on 541 Avenue, west of Jefferson Street, the count was 2,200 trips (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Buildout traffic capacity for 501 Avenue is projected at 25,500 daily trips west of Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street buildout is projected south of 50"' Avenue at 47,600 trips, and south of 53`d Avenue, at 42,600 trips. West of Jefferson Street, buildout for 52nd Avenue is at 34,100 trips, and for 54'h Avenue, buildout west of Madison is at 22,900 daily trips. A detailed explanation of buildout traffic conditions and levels of service is found in the La Quinta General Plan. Jefferson Street is a designated Primary Image Corridor on the General Plan. Secondary Image Corridors are 50", 52nd, and 541 Avenues. Bikeways include the east side of Jefferson Street, the south side of 50' Avenue, south side of 52"d Avenue, and 541h Avenue east of Jefferson Street. 00, 0035 18 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study prepared by LSA, Inc. for the original Specific Plan review indicated that the Specific Plan is anticipated to generate approximately 29,000 average daily trips. The Specific Plan will have direct impacts on the City's circulation system as well as add cumulatively to the overall traffic levels on streets within the City and in the adjacent unincorporated and incorporated areas. The traffic study recommended extensive improvements in order to minimize traffic congestion at various points, some of which have been accomplished. The additional trips are not anticipated to be significant, but rather cumulative to the project whole. The project whole is significant. Since only 96 of the 2245 residences approved have been built, the trips generated by the proposed 53 units will be well within the overall trips generated within the Specific Plan at buildout. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified hazards from design features in the existing roadways or the proposed circulation system. Automobile, motorcycle, and golf cart traffic are the only types of vehicles that typically use private residential streets, with the exception of delivery trucks. A golf cart path system will be constructed within the country club. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less than significant Impact. Development of the project site would not be permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. This requirement is a part of project conditions of approval. Additional emergency accesses will also be required by the City for the project. The Coachella Canal does bisect the southern half of the Specific Plan area. There are no existing bridges over the canal that can be used for vehicular traffic. The canal is fenced along both sides further dividing the southern half of the Specific Plan area. There could be internal emergency circulation and access constraints due to the canal. There is adequate access from peripheral public roadways around three sides of the Specific Plan, with 52nd Avenue bisecting the project. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? No Impact. Parking will be required for each custom-built or production housing unit as it is constructed, which will consist of a two to three car garage, and tandem parking in the driveway. As each application for commercial, resort, or other types of development are considered, parking concerns will be assessed. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. The east side of Jefferson Street, south sides of 50" and 52' Avenues, and along 54' Avenue east of Jefferson Street are designated Bikeways in the City's General Plan. It is anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will not be increased 000036 19 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd significantly as a result of the proposed tentative tract (Source: La Quinta General Plan).The Specific Plan contributes cumulative impacts to traffic hazards in that increased traffic levels results in the increased possibility for conflicts (Source: EA 85-034). F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. Bicycle racks are only required for commercial land uses, and are addressed by the Off -Street Parking Ordinance. There are no proposed bus turn -outs as the SunLine Transit Agency bus system does not have a route near the Specific Plan area, the closest route is along Washington Street, approximately'/2 mile west of the project. The City has an adopted City policy pertaining to alternative transportation is the Transportation Demand Management ordinance that applies to entities that employ 100 or more employees. This ordinance will apply to the Specific Plan once there are 100 or more workers employed. The City's General Plan Circulation Element identifies linkages between alternative modes of transportation and the development of the circulation system to establish feasible multi -modal and mass transit strategies. General Plan Objectives pertaining to alternative transportation modes include: 3-5.1 -The General Plan should promote convenient and efficient public transit as an alternative to the automobile; 3-6.1 - The City shall facilitate the use of alternative, non -vehicular modes of transportation through the identification of conceptual bicycle corridors throughout the City; 3-6.2 -The General Plan shall promote the use of the bicycle as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation; 3-6.3 -The General Plan shall promote the development of pedestrian facilities throughout the City to encourage walking as a mode of transportation and recreation; and 3-6.4 -The General Plan shall promote the development of equestrian trails as a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation. The Circulation Element of the Specific Plan states that the project has been designed to provide for alternatives to total dependence upon the automobile, and to promote the utilization of public transportation when available. The Specific Plan is generally consistent with the alternative transportation policies of the General Plan. The proposed annexation of the two parcels will add additional area to the project that will be subject to these policies. The proposed tentative tract only reconfigures an existing subdivision for single family development and does not impact this issue. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impacts. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately six miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site and the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area of Riverside County (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; Site Survey). The proposed tentative tract will not impact this issue. %_ i 20 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located partially in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem, and partially in the rocky bajada and rocky slope habitats. The Sonoran Desert Scrub is the most typical environment found in the Coachella Valley desert floor. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. Typically, undeveloped land within these ecosystems is rich in biological resources and habitat. However, the Specific Plan area not in the hillsides has largely been disturbed by agriculture and mass grading in the distant and recent past. The Sonoran Scrub. areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Bighorn sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The Desert Transition areas are found in the alluvial fan areas and slopes of the surrounding mountains. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky mountain slopes. The La Quinta General Plan identifies the property as being within the habitat of the Fringe -toed Lizard, prairie falcon, and the Black -tailed gnatcatcher. In addition, there have been sightings of the endangered plant, California ditaxis, in the general area of the project (Sources: La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The La Quinta MEA identifies potential for the following biological resources within the boundaries of the Specific Plan: prairie falcon, Black -tailed gnatcatcher, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard, and a rare plant 000038 21 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd California Ditaxis. EA 85-034 states that LSA, Inc., researched the occurrence of Ditaxis Californicus, designated as a threatened plant by the Smithsonian Institution, and found that its occurrence is not probable. With the exceptions of the mountain area, the bajada and the mesquite dune are located in the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area, the site has been significantly modified in the past by its conversion to citrus orchards and agricultural fields. Development of the site will prevent reestablishment of the vegetation found in the bajada and sand dune areas, both of which support abundant wildlife. The bajada is a habitat area for the blacktailed gnatcatcher, a designated sensitive species. The rocky slope area will not be modified. The Specific Plan area is partially developed and will continue to be developed in the future. EA 85-034 states that there was a biological reconnaissance report on the site prepared by LSA, Inc., in which numerous wildlife species were identified. The mesquite dune area at the northwest corner of the project are was heavily used as habitat. This area has since been developed with homes and golf course. The biology report indicates that the four rare, endangered, or sensitive species are known to occur onsite or have been previously reported on the site. At the time of the biology survey, the Preserve and mitigation fee program for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard was not in place. The Specific Plan area is not within the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Preserve Development Fee Area, thus there is no mitigation requirement for this species. EA 85-034 states that the adjacent mountains are designated as a "zone of deficiency" for the Bighorn Sheep by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), meaning that the lack of a year-round water source has limited Bighorn Sheep to seasonal use in this area. The nearest lambing area was reported to be several miles to the southwest in a different watershed. Regarding the Prairie Falcon, an eyrie was reported in the cliffs, on the rocky slopes west and south of the Specific Plan area. A survey conducted by LSA, Inc., in the spring of 1984 in conjunction with the "PGA West" project adjacent to the south, revealed no active eyrie in this area. EA 85-034 states that records by California Department of Fish and Game and the BLM indicate that a Prairie Falcon and suitable nesting habitat were observed during a helicopter survey. The Prairie Falcon was also observed in the bajada habitat area on the site. EA 85-034 indicates that the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher was a candidate for Federal listing as a rare or endangered species. This bird was observed onsite in both the rocky slope and bajada habitat types, with the majority of these birds observed in the bajada area. The denser vegetation in this area provides more food and cover for these and other species. The biological survey prepared by LSA, Inc., states that although this species currently (at that time) has no legal status as a rare or endangered species, impacts affecting it should be considered to be significant. In the 1992 La Quinta MEA, the Black -tailed gnatcatcher is listed as a Species of Special Concern and endangered for the DFG. EA 85-034 also discusses the Brown Crested Flycatcher as a Species of Special Concern, but having no legal status as a rare or endangered species. The biological report states that impacts affecting it should be considered significant. ()00()31 22 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd Staff transmitted a copy of the proposed tentative tract to the DFG and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 28, 1998, and has not received any response at the time of this writing. EA 85-034 states that changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the Specific Plan, or are otherwise being implemented which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures included: (1) Landscaping materials should employ plant materials native to the Coachella Valley desert habitats and surrounding desert to the maximum degree practical; (2) Ponds constructed in the golf course should include patches of appropriate riparian species to increase the habitat value of these ponds; (3) Drip irrigation should be used to the extent practical to minimize the establishment of weedy vegetation; (4) Development should be avoided above the existing flood control dike at the base of the bajada habitat; however, limited improvements may be allowed if designated in a manner sensitive to the habitat; (5) The project shall be designed to discourage human access to the bajada and rocky slope habitat types, as identified in the biological reconnaissance report prepared by LSA, Inc., December 1984); (6) Prior to approval of final maps, the issuance of grading permits for the disturbance of land in the mesquite sand dune area at the northeast corner of the site, the Applicant shall pay the established mitigation fee for the impacts on the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard for that area determined by the DFG to be the habitat area of this endangered species. Since the Fringe -Toed Lizard fee area stops on the north side of 50`' Avenue, the Specific Plan does not have to pay the mitigation fee (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Mitigation Measures 1 through 5 should remain a condition of approval for the Specific Plan, unless information to the contrary is received from the DFG prior to the City Council public hearing for these requests. In the future, aspects of development within the Specific Plan could be subject to the requirements of the Coachella Valley Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. This plan is currently in preparation, but has not been adopted yet. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have locally designated natural communities. Some of the Specific Plan parcels are developed with homes, a golf course, or roadways. Many of the parcels have been disturbed by agricultural activities and/or grading to the extent that there are very few existing natural or relic plant communities left (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). 0000el0 23 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no known natural wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the project site or nearby. It is possible that there could be artificially created wetlands from potential leakage of water from the canal. However, so such condition has been identified within the Specific Plan boundaries. E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by developed parcels, vacant parcels, and land under agriculture on three sides which have effectively cut off migration corridors to and from the Coral Reef Mountains. Wildlife corridors are still open in the Coral Reef Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains to the south. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources on or near the project site. While the project site is undeveloped, there is no significant resource to be mined, such as rock or gravel. The project site is located within MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. The MRZ-1 designation is applied to those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The MRZ-3 designation is for those areas (mountainous areas) containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. The northern portion of the project is within an area of Prime Agricultural Soils (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey). A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan, however, there are goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan pertaining to conservation of prime soil and mineral resource areas, and energy efficiency. Objective 6-5.1 states... Where feasible, the City shall conserve prime soil and mineral resources through a variety of alternative means. Policies 6-5.1.1 encourages that areas historically utilized as agricultural production remain as open space as long as possible. Policy 6-5.1.2 states that Mineral Resource Areas shall be reserved for mineral extraction activities, after which be reclaimed to a similar natural condition. Policy 6-5.1.3 states that the loss of soils through erosion shall be minimized through conservation of native 24 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd vegetation, use of permeable ground materials and careful regulation of grading practices. Goal 6-6 states that public and private sector development projects which demonstrate that the best available technologies of energy efficiency and energy conservation techniques. Objective 6-6.1 states the City shall encourage that the best available technologies of energy efficiency and energy conservation techniques are incorporated into both public and private sector development projects. Policies 6- 6.1.1, 6-6.1.2, 6-6.1.3, and 6-6.1.4 provide a variety of methods to achieve the stated goal. B. , Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this Specific Plan include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction and operation. Title 24 requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: La Quinta MEA; Water Conservation Ordinance; Coachella Valley Water District). 3.9 HAZARDS Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such material out of, and around, La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Specific Plan area has not been used for any type of manufacturing or industry, other than agriculture, and there has not been any known dumping of hazardous substances on the property (Sources: Aerial Photos). A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? No Impact. There is a minimal risk of exposure from swimming pool chemicals and pesticides that may be used by residents of the existing and future homes within the Specific Plan. No other risks are anticipated by the land division, future homes, commercial office complex, or other proposed structures (Source: SP 85-006 Amd. #3). 0000462 25 TALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A noise study prepared for the La Quinta General Plan, by Gordon Bricken Associates, is referenced in EA 85-034. Mitigation includes the construction of noise barriers, including walls and berms; siting and orientation of noise sensitive uses within the project; and siting of golf course and other less noise sensitive land uses to serve as noise buffer areas within the Specific Plan. The perimeter sound walls and berms have been partially constructed around the Citrus Project of the Specific Plan and were included in the environmental assessment for the 1992 La Quinta General Plan. Thus, this issue has been partially mitigated. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Portions of the Specific Plan in the vicinity of 52' Avenue and Jefferson Street will be subject to severe noise levels created by the anticipated future traffic volumes along the perimeter roadways (Source: EA 85-034). The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction, or during the "operation" of the development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within City Civic Center. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features. are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. 000043 27 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A noise study prepared for the La Quinta General Plan, by Gordon Bricken Associates, is referenced in EA 85-034. Mitigation includes the construction of noise barriers, including walls and berms; siting and orientation of noise sensitive uses within the project; and siting of golf course and other less noise sensitive land uses to serve as noise buffer areas within the Specific Plan. The perimeter sound walls and berms have been constructed around the Citrus Project of the Specific Plan and were included in the environmental assessment for the 1992 La Quinta General Plan. Thus, this issue has been mitigated. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Portions of the Specific Plan in the vicinity of 52' Avenue and Jefferson Street will be subject to severe noise levels created by the anticipated future traffic volumes along the perimeter roadways (Source: EA 85-034). The proposed development will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated nor permitted after construction, or during the `operation" of the development (Source: La Quinta General Plan). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within City Civic Center. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved (Source: La Quinta MEA). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. 27 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. Another elementary school is under construction within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in the 111 Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service (Source: La Quinta MEA, 1992). Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan is roughly between two City fire stations, one located on Frances Hack Lane, near Avenida Bermudas, and the second station at the corner of 541 Avenue and Madison Street. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be serviced by the Desert Sand Unified School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. A response to the Specific Plan amendment was received from the Fire Marshal on June 11, 1998. There were no comments on the response. Development of the subdivision will cumulatively increase the need for fire protection services for the Ranch Specific Plan, however, this increase is not anticipated to be significant. B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department responded on June 3, 1998, that they have no negative comments regarding the tentative tract. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A letter from the attorney for Desert Sands Unified School District, dated June 19, 1998, was received by the City, with extensive comments on impacts to the school system. The letter is on file in the Community Development Department. At present 28 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd the only feasible mitigation available is through school fees and land dedication requirements. Projects proposed and approved under the Specific Plan will have to pay school fees as established by State mandate. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the proposed subdivision as proposed does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development, whether or not the project was implemented. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development of the Specific Plan will result in the incremental increase in maintenance of public facilities especially local roads due to the increase in traffic. To mitigate this impact, the applicant shall pay infrastructure fees in accordance with the City's adopted program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits (Source: EA 85-034). E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Development within the Specific Plan will result in an incremental increase in the demand for other governmental services (Source: EA 85-034). Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the project will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Media One serves the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and.from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. 000f!46 29 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd Local Environmental Setting The project is adjacent to developed areas on the west, north, and east. The site is former farm land that has been under cultivation until recent years. In recent years, a golf course and several buildings have been constructed on the project site. Custom and production homes, a clubhouse building, and a maintenance building have been constructed within the Specific Plan 85-006. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Electricity for the Specific Plan is provided by Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The system was expanded in the mid- 1980's to provide adequate service to the existing and anticipated development within La Quinta. A letter from IID, dated June 29, 1998, states that meetings have been held between KSL and IID to discuss additional electrical infrastructure required for the Specific Plan. IID states that they will be able to provide electrical service to the Specific Plan if the steps itemized in the letter are met. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. With continued development within the Specific Plan, there will be an incremental need for additional communication systems for telephone and television cable services. The applicant will have to coordinate with the providers of these services. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there could be additional water treatment or distribution facilities needed within the Specific Plan area. However, a comment letter from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has not been received for these applications. The applicant will have to coordinate with CVWD for any additional facilities needed for continued development. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. There is the potential that additional sewer facilities will be needed for the continued development within the Specific Plan. There has been no comment received from CVWD regarding this issue, however, the applicant will have to meet any requirements for additional sewer facilities. E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? No Impact. There are no additional requirement for storm water drainage facilities within the Specific Plan. All storm water is designed to drain to the golf course where there is adequate retention and absorption capabilities (Source: Steve Speer, Public Works Department, City of La Quinta, July 9, 1998). 30 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The continued development within the Specific Plan will require incremental increases in solid waste disposal services from Waste Management of the Desert, the current purveyor of solid waste collection. 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a predominately residential zoned area in the southeastern portion of the City. Views from the project site consist of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south and southwest, the alluvial fan area to the west, and the open valley floor to the north and northeast (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. EA 85-034 indicated that the Specific Plan might have an impact to scenic vista or views open to the public. However, the attached addendum did not address this item. The Specific Plan is partially built with residential units, a golf course, clubhouse, and maintenance building. There is a perimeter masonry block wall with gated entries. Mature landscaping exists in much of the Specific Plan area. Continued development within the Specific Plan will result in incremental increases in buildings and landscaping, all subject to architectural reviews and approvals by the City to ensure a pleasing design and compatibility with the existing features. In light of this situation, the proposed tentative tract are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to this issue. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development of the tentative tract will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the Specific Plan standards and the City in effect at the time of development. No significant adverse impact is anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed subdivision will potentially create additional light and glare. Custom and production houses will include exterior security and low level landscaping 000A8 31 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare in the City. All such lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and other policies of the City, in order to reduce the impact. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City. There are seven recorded archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area and numerous sites within a one -mile radius. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The entire Specific Plan area, except for the hillsides, is within the Lakebed Paleontological area as indicated on the Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map in the Community Development Department. There is a potential for adverse impact to paleontological resources with continued development within the Specific Plan. To mitigate this impact, all excavation activities shall be monitored by a professionally -qualified paleontologist. B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. An archaeological and historical survey of the Specific Plan area was completed by LSA, Inc. Seven sites were found on the property. Samples from all the sites were recovered and were analyzed. The recommendation of LSA, Inc., is that based upon review of the records and of the recovered material, no further testing is warranted. None of the sites were determined to be of a significance that would warrant preservation or protection of the sites by design requirements placed upon the development. However, the potential for subsurface cultural deposits exists in areas that have not been graded. To mitigate this potential mitigation measures shall be: (1) A qualified archeologist shall be retained to monitor grading operations in the areas of the archaeological sites identified in the project's archaeological assessment on file with the City; (2) If buried cultural remains are uncovered, construction in this area shall be stopped or relocated until appropriate mitigation measures can be taken, and (3) All artifacts, field notes and catalog information shall be curated with the City of La Quinta. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. The Coachella Branch of the All American Canal bisects the Specific Plan area. The portion of the canal that is within the City of La Quinta has been recorded 32 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd 00049 as a local historic linear engineered structure. The canal was recorded during the City-wide Historic Survey Project, on October 6, 1997. The canal was determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Status 3S (Source: Canal Recordation Form). The proposed tentative tract is not proposing any type of modification to the canal, thus, there is no anticipated adverse impact. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? No Impact. There is no identifiable unique ethnic value to the Specific Plan area. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known current religious uses or sacred uses within the Specific Plan boundaries. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is former farm land. There is an existing golf course within the specific Plan boundaries, constructed in recent years. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The increase in demand for park and recreation facilities resulting in the need for dedication of parkland is estimated to be 3 acres per 1000 in population. Based upon that State Department of Finance figure of 2.75 persons per household, the population of the Specific Pan will be approximately 6,175 at buildout, warranting the dedication of 6.2 acres of parkland to the City (Source: EA 85-034). However, changes, alterations and other measures have been incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures imposed upon the Specific Plan in 1985 consisted of: (1) Provision of on -site, private recreational facilities shall be in accordance with the Municipal Land Use and Land Division Ordinance in effect at the time of development; (2) Provision shall be made to provide public open space and recreation facilities through public use of golf course facilities, dedication of public parkland, or similar programs (Source: EA 85-034). 000050 33 PALESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. Continued development with the Specific Plan will be in accordance with the existing master site plan which would consist of in -fill development around the existing golf course. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed tentative tract will not have significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum, that cannon be mitigated to insignificant levels. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: * The proposed Tentative Tract 28447 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Tentative Tract 28447 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Tentative Tract 28447 will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity; and the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed Tentative Tract 28447 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. In 1985, EA 85-034 was prepared for Specific Plan 85-006. EA 85- 03E assessed the potential impacts to the environment from the project proposed at that time. Also utilized in the current analysis was the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), prepared in 1991, in conjunction with the 1992 General Plan Update and related EIR. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is attached to this Environmental Assessment. The Conditions of Approval also contain many of the required mitigation measures. 34 P:\LESLIE\EA98-363RJT.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28797 TO DEVELOP A 53 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 11.81 ACRES LOCATED ON TORONJA AND AZAHAR STREETS, WEST OF MANGO WITHIN THE RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN. CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28797 APPLICANT: RJT HOMES PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1411 day of July, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for RJT Homes for development of a single family residential and other common lot subdivision on 11.81 acres generally located on Toronja and Azahar Streets, west of Mango within The Ranch Specific Plan, more particularly described as: APN's: 769-460-007 - 10, 769-460-016, and 769-460-029 - 030 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28797: Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan: A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) and Specific Plan 85-006 Amendment 2 because single family low density residential lots are proposed. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Specific Plan 85-006 Circulation Element. Finding Number 2 - Consistency with Specific Plan 85-006 (Amendment #2) and City Zoning Ordinance: A. The proposed single family lots exceed the minimum size requirement of 6,000 square feet. Specific Plan 85-006 allows 2,245 houses oriented around golf courses and other resort commercial land uses. The proposed residential lots are consistent with and will not negatively impact the overall growth and development of The Ranch. PALESLIE\peres-TT28797.wpd 0 t, l 0 (1 J `) Planning Commission Resolution 98- B. The proposed single family lots are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in The Ranch Specific Plan supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning Code. Detached single family houses will be built as required. Conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with both The Ranch Specific Plan and City's Zoning Code. Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act: A. Tentative Tract Map 28797 is within Specific Plan 85-006 and subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). Finding Number 4 - Site Design: A. The proposed design of the subdivision conforms with the development guidelines identified in Specific Plan 85-006 and provides a harmonious transition between other approved residential subdivisions in The Ranch. B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division, as the area is relatively flat and without physical constraints. Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements: A. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf course to ensure off -site properties are not impacted from seasonal storms. B. The proposed private street serves all proposed lots and connects to other existing streets in The Ranch development. Internal access is provided as required, ensuring public safety vehicles proper access to this residential area. C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will be extended to service the site in underground facilities as planned under the Specific Plan. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters of response from affected public agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; PALESLIE\peres-TT28797.wpd 000053 Planning Commission Resolution 98- 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for Specific Plans 85-006 as amended; 3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 98-363 assessed the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract; and, 4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28797 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PALESLIE\peres-TT28797.wpd 0 n 0( 5 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 28797 - THE RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN JULY 14, 1998 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28797 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410- 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. P ALESLI E\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd 0000 )5 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way -and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. 8. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications required of this development include: A. Street Lots A and B: 37-foot width Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 12. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. P:\LESL1E\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 U :_ . Z6 .*. 13. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. 14. The subdivider shall submit existing improvement plans to the City for review under current improvement standards and revise the plans as required by the City Engineer. New plans, where necessary, shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All new plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans shall not be used for construction until they are approved and, where necessary, signed by the appropriate agency. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. P:\LESL1E\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 16. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 17. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 19. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 20. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. P:\LESLIE\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd 011" a 8 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 21. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 22. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 23. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 24. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this development with abutting properties and of separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. WA The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 27. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the Citrus development according to the approved hydrology plan unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. In design of retention facilities (if necessary), the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. o n R\LESLIE\M8797-c.ofampd Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 29. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 30. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter(s) shall be sized to percolate 3.5 gallons per house per hour. The leachfield line(s) shall be sized to percolate 20 gallons per house per day. UTILITIES 31. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 32. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to the hardscape improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 33. Applicant shall meet the requirements as stipulated by Imperial Irrigation District in their letter of June 29, 1998 on file in the Community Development Department and as listed below: A. KSL shall pay for and install three six inch conduits and one four inch conduit (with the associated cable vaults for splicing and switching) along the northern right of way of 52nd Avenue, west of Jefferson Street. As long as the three six inch conduits are installed in the same horizontal plane, no concrete encasement will be required. KSL shall also pay for the line extension charges of a parallel 750 Aluminum cable system through this conduit system. B. Whenever the land west of Jefferson Street, south of 52nd Avenue develops, KSL, (or current land owner) will pay for and install three six inch conduits (with the associated cable vaults for splicing and switching) along the southern right of way of 52nd Avenue, west of Jefferson Street. As long as the three six inch conduits are installed in the same horizontal plane, no concrete encasement will be required. KSL, or current land owner, will also pay for the line extension charges of a parallel 750 Aluminum cable system through this conduit system. C. KSL, or current land owner, will pay for and install six conduits to interconnect between #1 and #2 above to the conduit system present being installed along the southern right of way of 52nd Avenue by The Tradition development. P:\LESLIE\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd 0 ()`1 9 ? rj n Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 D. KSL, or current land owner, will pay for the installation of a concrete encased duct bank consisting of 21 six inch and one four inch conduit between Jefferson Street and the Jefferson Substation along 52°d Avenue. Thirteen of these conduits will be required to serve KSL projects, the remainder of the conduits will be paid for by other developers or by Imperial Irrigation District as system improvements. It has been calculated that Imperial Irrigation District will reimburse $19.93 per linear foot of this conduit system to KSL for these other eight conduits. The distance between Jefferson Street and Jefferson Substation is approximately 1,000 feet, bringing the total amount of reimbursement to $19,930. This reimbursement will be in the form of waived line extension charges to KSL. KSL may elect to install all 21 six inch conduits in one duct bank at one time, or they may elect to install some conduits in a duct bank now, with the remainder of the conduits installed when further development occurs within the area. The amount of conduits installed and the timing of the installation will have to be approved by Imperial Irrigation District. In either event, the total amount that will be reimbursed to KSL will be $19,930 for the entire project. KSL will also pay for the line extension charges for the five and one-third parallel 750 Aluminum cables through this conduit system as they are required and installed. E. A minimum of three conduits will have to be installed between Jefferson Street and Jefferson Substation at the same time as the conduits are installed in Condition #36.A. This is required to allow for a new circuit to be constructed from Jefferson Substation to the Citrus development along 5Td Avenue. The City of La Quinta may grant a variance and allow this portion of the new circuit east of Jefferson Street to be constructed overhead, with the plan to replace it with underground cable when the entire duct bank is installed. F. It is believed that six five inch conduits presently exist under Jefferson Street along the northern right of way of 52°d Avenue. These conduits may be used to interconnect the systems described above. However, if these conduits cannot be found, or they have been damaged to the point of being rendered useless, then KSL will have to install the appropriate amount of conduits under Jefferson Street. 34. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. P:\LESLIE\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 35. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed: A. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC l . Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (building lots on both sides), 32 feet if single loaded 2. Collector (a300 homes or 3,000 vpd) - 40 feet wide 3. Cul de sac curb radius - 45' Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 36. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 37. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 38. Improvement plans for -all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 39. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 40. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping. 41. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: P:ALESLIE\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd (1 0 0 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"16.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 42. Final inspection and occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development will not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings have improved access, including street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs, to publicly -maintained streets. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. k"MOO&UN 43. Prior to approval of any final map, the applicant shall either: A. Revise the tentative map to incorporate the landscape lots which are part of the underlying Tracts 24890-8 and -9, furnish plans for improvement of the lots and construct or secure the improvements, or B. Provide alternate arrangements acceptable to the City Engineer which ensure improvement and maintenance of the lots (concurrently with development of this tentative map area) and the eventual transferral of the lots to (and acceptance by) the homeowners' association. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 000063 P:ALESLIE\T728797-c.ofa.wpd ,..1 _ 03 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 45. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 46. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 48. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with grades and turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 49. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. • _ 1 50. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 51. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 52. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 53. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. 00(y)f;j P:\LESLI E\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 28797-Citrus July 14, 1998 MAINTENANCE 54. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the City. Offla-S.11 " '6- 55. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 56. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. MISCELLANEOUS 57. This map shall remain subject to all existing and future restrictions, requirements and agreements applicable to the underlying Tentative Map 24890, including the existing moratorium on building permits, unless specifically exempted from such requirements by the City. 58. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. P:\LESLIE\TT28797-c.ofa.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 III11114111111161 rill Iff �%I II I, I I; r,iU';,,,,u�.=�- r_ All 6 _,own _ _ f/ 'ti � ,�tllrtltrr � rril/ rerll,►,,�.;tr 41 sit #off ��a�r■��r'■�■a�� ilntr� r�r 0.111n urunuti� %Nllltillll/,�/tl1 i CASE MAP CASE No. TTM 28787 The Ranch Specific Plan NORTH SCALE: