PCRES 2000-027PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066 TO REDUCE
THE RADIUS FROM 45' TO 38' FOR PRIVATE CUL-DE-SAC
STREETS PER TABLE 2-CIR OF THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 TO
ALLOW A 30-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE, 150-
FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the gth day of May, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by
Century -Crowell Communities on the Environmental Analysis for General Plan
Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563, generally located on the north
side of Westward Ho Drive, approximately 150-feet west of Dune Palms Road, more
particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Number 604-061-019 (Portion); Portion of SE 1/4 of the SW
1 /4 of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of Riverside, California
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies 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
amendment and subdivision 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 conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following
facts to justify a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element and the Fire
Marshal to provide adequately sized streets within the City; and the Tentative
Resolution 2000-27
Environmental Assessment 99-391- Recommended
May 9, 2000
Tract Map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Subdivision Ordinance, and will not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures, as the noise,
geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this
project did not identify any significant impacts that could not be reasonably
mitigated to levels of insignificance.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have
the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
with the successful implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical,
hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not
identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have
impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as the
noise, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for
this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or
indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical, and
hydrological studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant
impact with regard to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
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 recommend certification of the environmental determination
and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 99-391 for proposed
General Plan Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 9"' day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Butler
ABSTAIN: None
P:\pcearesEA99-391 AlisoII5-9-00.wpd
Resolution 2000-27
Environmental Assessment 99-391- Recommended
May 9, 2000
TO".RK, Chairman
City of a Quinta, California
"i111*19
HERAAAN, Community Development Director
La Quinta, California
P:\pcearesEA99-391 AlisolI5-9-OO.wpd
EA 99-391
Appendix G
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: TTM 29563 and GPA 2000-066 - Aliso Del Rey H
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) 777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Westward Ho Drive, 140 feet west of Dune Palms
Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Century Crowell
1535 South "D" Street, Suite 200
San Bernardino, CA 92408
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (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.)
Subdivide 7.65 acres into 30 single family residential lots, other common lots, and
construct housing units ranging in size from 1,500 to 2,008 square feet.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North - single family residential
South - public high school campus
East - single family residential
West - single family residential and vacant residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
P:\CEQAcbecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.upd -]
008
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportationfrraffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
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 revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the applicant. 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. 11
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated' on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EK including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required. n
Date
For
U 0 9.2_
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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.
q) "Negative Qeclaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less 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 XVIII, `Earlier Analysis," 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 XVIH 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.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-3-
P:\CEQAchecklist7'rM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-13)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-13)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Site visit, aerial
photographs)
III AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
K4
km
X
X
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd Olt
-4-
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-44)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application Materials)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5; site visit)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-21; Archaeological Advisory Group,
Dec. 1999)
i�
X
91
0.4
X
14
G1
X
X
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd
A2
-5-
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999)
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; Sladden
Engineering, March 8, 2000)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-7)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master .
Environmental Assessment 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Application
Materials)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse? (Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
013
VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment? (Emma, Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Division, April 24, 2000)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use
map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
b) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VID. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (i.e., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted? ( )
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site? (Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999)
X
X
X
X
`i
►:i
M
iN
X
FA
ON
P:\CEDAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd
A4
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Dudek &
Associates, Nov. 17, 1999)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ?
(Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
X
/N
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or X
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Master
Environmental Assessment 2-11)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XL NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-17, 6-19; Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22,
2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Gordon Bricken & Associates,
March 22, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000)
X
K4
X
94
X
M
AJ, 1'5 -s-
0
XIV.
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master
Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan reap)
POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ?
(Application Materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (Fire Marshal letter, )
Police protection? (Sheriff letter, )
Schools? (DSUSD letter, )
parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
other public facilities? (General Plan)
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
X
X
T
dX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.. .......ems nnnnnn naarmmi,mira Oq_3g1 wod
XVL
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(Application Materials; Master Environmental Assessment 3-7)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Master Environmental Assessment 3-
7; General Plan 3-13)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm .
equipment) ? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials;
Fire Marshal letter)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials;
Zoning Code -Parking)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (General Plan)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? ()
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD
letter, Dec. 16, 1999)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, Dec.
16, 1999)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources. or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\CEDAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd
o 17 -10-
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 or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? ()
b) Does the project have the potential to 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
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( )
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( )
XVM. 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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the
above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES
Gordon Bricken & Associates
Acoustical Analysis, Tract 29563, City of La Quinta, March 22, 2000.
Dudek & Associates
Aliso II - Tentative Tract 29563 Preliminary Drainage Study, La Quinta, CA., Nov. 17, 1999.
0
X
X
Sladden Engineering
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd lll0 p -11-
Geotechnical Investigation: Aliso II - Hopkins Property, Tract 29563, La Quinta, CA., March 8, 2000.
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
Archaeological Advisory Group
Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 29563, LA Quinta, California (Aliso 2 Project), December 1999.
Emma, Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division, 4-24-2000, personal communication.
Fire Marshal letter, dated
Sheriff Department letter, dated
DSUSD letter, dated
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391.wpd -12-
019
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EA 99-391
IV. f. The project site is within an area designated as potential habitat for the
Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed
Lizard. The project site is a developed golf school that has been graded,
turfed, and in use for several years. There is no undisturbed or undeveloped
habitat within the project site. The site is within the Habitat Conservation Plan
mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While there
is no natural habitat left within the project boundaries, the mandated $100
fee per acre of disturbed land will be required as mitigation. This mitigation
reduces impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance (Source:
Master Environmental Assessment, 5-5).
VI. a.ii. The project is located in a seismically active area. The proposed subdivision
is located within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within 314-mile of an inferred
and inactive fault. The potential for seismic activity should be considered in
structure design. As a minimum, the Uniform Building Code requirements for
Seismic Zone 4 will be considered in design. The geotechnical report for the
project provides seismic design criteria. This mitigation measure will ensure
that impacts from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant
level.
IX. b. The applicant proposes a 38-foot radius for a private street cul de sac. The
General Plan Circulation Element requires that cul de sac radii are at least
45-feet, resulting in the proposed project conflicting with the City General
Plan. The applicant proposes General Plan Amendment 2000-066 to modify
Table 2 of the Circulation Element to reduce the size of cul de sac bulbs for
private streets from a radii of 45 feet to 38 feet. A letter from the Riverside
County Fire Department, dated April 10, 2000, indicates that a 38' radius to
face of curb is acceptable and is the standard used in the unincorporated
areas of the County. The 38' radius prohibits any curb side parking as the
entire cul de sac is required to properly turn fire department vehicles.
Mitigation for the proposed cul de sac reduction from 45' to 38' shall be the
adoption of GPA 2000-066, otherwise a 45' radius shall be required.
IX. a. Single family residential communities are considered noise sensitive land
uses along with schools, hospitals, and churches. A noise study was
prepared for the proposed project by Gordon Bricken & Associates, March
22, 2000, wherein it was determined that noise mitigation is required. The
primary noise source in the project area is traffic noise from Westward Ho
Drive. Exterior backyard living areas adjacent to Westward Ho Drive will be
exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of over 60 CNEL at Lots 1 to 6, 29
and 30. The grading plan shows that the pads will be below the grade of the
street, providing some shielding by the grade slope. To mitigate projected
noise impacts, a barrier should be wrapped around the sides of Lots 8, 1, 30
PAAddendumEA99-391TTM29563.wpd U r) 0
and 29 for a distance equal to the setback of the house from the rear
property line. The barrier should be constructed of solid materials without any
openings. Concrete block, slumpstone, earthen berm or steel are acceptable
materials.
The City's interior noise standard for single family residential units is 45
CNEL. All homes throughout the project will meet the City's 45 CNEL interior
noise standard without building upgrades, with closed windows and
mechanical ventilation. The noise study showed that there is a potential for
temporary construction noise impacts.
To mitigate short-term construction noise impacts, construction shall comply
with the City's Municipal Code regarding construction activities near existing
residential development which are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction will
not be permitted on Sunday or Federal holidays. These mitigation measures
will ensure that identified impacts will be reduced to a level less than
significant.
PAAddendumEA99-391TTM29563.wpd U 2 1