Loading...
PCRES 1999-012PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-012 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 98-372 PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 25691 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-372 APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of January, 1999 held a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 98-372 for Tentative Tract 25691, generally located on the north side of Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as follows: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 604-072-005 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 98-372) 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 25691, 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 25691 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that all significant impacts identified by Environmental Assessment 98-372 can be mitigated. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 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 P APCRes-EA98-3 72.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 99-012 Environmental Assessment 98-372 January 26, 1999 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. 3. The proposed Tentative Tract 25691 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 25691 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 25691 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: 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 98-372 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of January, 1999 by the following vote, to wit: RTCRes-EA98-372.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 99-012 Environmental Assessment 98-372 January 26, 1999 AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: ' HERMAN, Community Development Director La Quinta, California P: TCRes-EA98-372. wpd Appendix I Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 25691 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di Iorio 760-777-7000 4. Project Location: North side of Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of Dune Palms Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: World Development 78-120 Calle Estado, 4104 La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential $. 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.) 10.12 Acre site, to be divided into 38 lots and 5 lettered lots, averaging 7,733 s.f. Streets are proposed to be public. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. West: Vacant East: Vacant North: Single Family Residential South: Miles Avenue 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd 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 X Transportation/Circulation Public Services X Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics X Water Hazards X Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation Mandatory Finds 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. X 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. 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 (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigaton measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Printed Name 13& �*?9 Date For P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd 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 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. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd 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 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: a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (Source#(s): 1) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact M�M b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by X agencies with jurisdiction over the project. ( 1 ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1, 2) X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( 2 ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( 2 ) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. X through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? ( 1 ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( 1 ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( 3 ) M� P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground shaking? ( 3 ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( 3 ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 3 ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( 3 ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( 1, 3 ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( 3 ) h) Expansive soils? ( 3 ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( 3 ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact m�m M��= m��= a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount X of surface runoff? ( 3 ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( 3 ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( 3 ) PAEnvironmental Checklist Form.wpd V Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( 3 ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( 3 ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X I) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 13 ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( 3 ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( 3 ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( 3 ) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: �-1 im�m© __© a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? ( 3 ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( 3) 1 1 1 X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( 3 ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( 3 ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: m�m P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( 1, 3 ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( 1, 3 ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( 2 ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ( 6 ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( 4 ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( 1 ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( I ) VIL 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, 3 ) M �Mm m�M b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ( 1, 3 ) X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal X habitat, etc.)? (1, 3 ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (1, 3 ) 1 1 1 X P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd VIII. IX. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( I, 3 ) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( 1 ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X MMM© c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that X would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances X (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? (1, 3 ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X (1,3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( 3, 4) __©= P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (3,4) XI. 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? ( 3 ) b) Police protection? ( 3 ) c) Schools? ( 3 ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, 3 ) e) Other governmental services? ( 1, 3 ) 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? ( 3 ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact �Mitigated Impact Impact M�m M©�= M©�= b) Communications systems? ( 3 ) I I I X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( 3 X d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 3 ) e) Storm water drainage? ( 3 ) P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd XIII. XIV Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): f) Solid waste disposal? ( 3 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( 3 ) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( 1, 3 ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( 1, 3 ) c) Create light or glare? ( 1, 3 ) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( 3, 5 ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( 3, 5 ) c) Affect historical resources? ( 3, 5 ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated _ Impact Impact �I X m�m i�m© _©_= M�Mm d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic cultural values? ( 3,5 ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential I I X impact area? ( 3, 5 ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X recreational facilities? ( 3 ) P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd XVI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 3 ) 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? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the X 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.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? XVIL 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. 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. P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd 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:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Sources Cited Above: City of La Quinta General Plan 1992 2. Aerial Photograph provided by applicant, dated 6/22/98 3. City of La Quinta General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 1992 4. Noise Impact Analysis, TT25691, Giroux & Associates, November 20, 1998 5. Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 25691, Archaeological Associates, November 20, 1998. 6. City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance. P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd Addendum, Environmental Assessment 98-372 The discussion provided below analyses those potential impacts which may be signficant, as identified in the checklist above. III. a. & b. The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed tract map is located in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, approximately 2.0 miles east of an inferred and inactive fault. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance. III. f. The grade differential proposed for the individual pads in this tract could potentially result in an erosion hazard. The City requires that all soils be properly compacted. In addition, each of the slope types will be analysed to ensure that they do not exceed the City's standards (retention basin, landscaped parkway, individual lots). The Building Department and City Engineer will review all grading plans to ensure that City standards are met. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from erosion or unstable soil conditions are reduced to a level of insignificance. IV. a. The construction of homes on currently vacant desert lands will reduce the permeable surface available for absorption, and will increase surface runoff. The proposed tract has designed a retention basin which is of sufficient size to accommodate the 100 year, 24 hour storm. The retention basin will allow for the controlled release of storm flows, reducing the impact on the rate of surface runoff. The retention basin will be re -vegetated, and will allow absorption, and percolation into the soil will occur. The construction of the retention basin, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, will reduce the impacts to surface water runoff to a level of insignifcance. IV. c. The paving of surfaces within the proposed tract will increase the risk that pollutants will affect surface waters. As these surface waters travel through the project, they will be subject to such pollution. Once in the retention basin, however, surface waters which percolate into the soil will benefit from the City's standards for retention basins, which include the installation of trickling sand filters and leachfields. These mitigation measures, in the form of conditions of approval, will decrease the potential imapcts to surface water to a level of insignificance. IV. f. The construction of the proposed project will result in an increased demand for domestic water. The Valley's water supplies are being recharged through contractual agreement with the Metropolitan Water District, utilizing California Water Project resources. Although the regional groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, the efforts of the Coachella Valley Water District, the City's water conservation requirements, and other outside agency efforts are mitigating the regional draw -down of groundwater. P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd VI. g. The proposed tract's access road occurs on Miles Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of Dm Palms Road. The Miles Avenue traffic at this intersection will be uncontrolled. Traffic exitii the proposed tract and turning left could result in a traffic hazard on Miles Avenue. The Ci Engineer has reviewed this potential impact, and determined that project traffic exiting Lot is will only be allowed to turn right. In addition, Lot C will be constructed to the western property boundary to connect to future roads on adjacent property which will eventually provide a controlled intersection which will allow for left and right turns from this area. VII. a. The project parcel can be characterized as an area of sand dunes, created by regional winds and supporting a number of specieis. The proposed project is within the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan fee mitigation area. The proposed tract will be required to contribute a fee of $600.00 per acre for the mitigation of impacts to this protected species. The contribution for the fringe -toed lizard will also contribute to the preservation of habitat for other species which live in similar habitat. The site is only 10.12 acres in size, and is in an area of the City which is experiencing rapid growth. The loss of this site is not expected to have a significant impact on biological resources. X. b. A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed tract map, and significant impacts were found to be possible, unless mitigation measures are implemented. The noise levels along the Miles Avenue corridor are currently elevated, and the General Plan requires that all new development mitigate these impacts, and provide an exterior noise level of 60 dBA or less for residential land uses. The noise study found that a six foot wall along the property line of individual lots who back yards will occur adjacent to Miles Avenue will reduce exterior noise levels to 59.5 dB CNEL, which will meet the City's standard. Furthermore, the study found that the use of STC=23 or higher windows in these units will reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less, which meets the City's standards for interior noise levels in residential land uses. These mitigation measures are sufficient to lower the potential impact to eventual residents of this project to a less than significant level. Should the applicant propose 2-story homes on these lots, further mitigation will be required, and should be incorporated into Development Review conditions of approval at that time. XI. c. The proposed project will generate potential new students for the Desert Sands Unified School District. The State of California has developed an impact fee for all residential and commercial development to mitigate the impacts to school facilities. The proposed project will be required to contribute its share to the District, as required by City codes. The payment of the fee will lower the impact to the District to a less than significant level. XI. d. The proposed tract will create new City roadways, in the form of Lots B, C and D. These roadways will be incorporated into the City's street system, and require maintenance. The construction of the roadway will be the applicant's responsibility. The maintenance of a City street is a General Fund expense for the City. Once constructed, the homes on this tract will generate property tax, which will be deposited into the City's General Fund. These increas revenues will help to offset the cost of maintenance of the roadways. The impact is expected be less than significant. P:\Environmental Checklist Form.wpd XIII. a. The proposed tract occurs on one of the City's secondary image corridors. These corridors require that special care and attention be given to the streetscape. The proposed project meets the City's requirement in this regard, and mitigates the potential impact by creating a landscaping parkway with an average width of 20 feet. Once landscaped, this parkway will improve the image of the roadway. XIV. b. An archaeological resource assessment was conducted for the proposed project. The assessment, which included both records search and site survey, concluded that the probability of archaeological resources on the site is low. The study further states that no further monitoring or additional analysis is necessary. The impact to archaeological resources is less than significant. PAEnvironmental Checklist Form.wpd