PCRES 2000-040PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-065, SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-046
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29436
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-386
APPLICANT: U.S. HOME CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 13th day of June, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and continued
said Public Hearing to the 27`h day of June to consider Environmental Assessment 99-
386 for General Plan Amendment 2000-065, Specific Plan 2000-046 and Tentative
Tract 29436 herein referred to as the "Project" for U.S. Home Corporation, 8577
Haven Avenue, Suite 201, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; and,
WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA99-386) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact could be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1 . The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
P:\FRED\PC US Home\PC RESO EA 99-386.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-040
Environmental Assessment 99-386
June 27, 2000
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 99-
386 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
8. EA 99-385 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis
9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 922253.
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 99-386 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.
P:\FRED\PC US Home\PC RESO EA 99-386.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-040
Environmental Assessment 99-386
June 27. 2000
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 27th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins
ABSTAIN: None
jI
K, Chairman
La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
1Y HER AN, Community Development Director
of La duinta, California
P:\PREMPC US Home\PC RESO EA 99-386.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
2.
3
91
10
Project Title: La Quinta Cove Project, Tentative Tract Map 29436
General Plan Amendment 2000-065
Specific Plan 2000-046
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
Project Location: North side of Eisenhower Drive, east of Coachella Drive
APNs: 623-310-008, 623-310-009, 631-311-001 to 003, 631-312-001 to
020, 643-090-004, 643-096-025
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: US Homes Corp.
8577 Haven Avenue, Suite 201
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and Open Space
Zoning: Low Density Residential and Open Space
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.)
Tentative Tract Map to divide 190.51 gross acres into 169 residential lots on Low
Density Residential designated land. General Plan text amendment to allow for spacing of
traffic signals at a distance less than the currently mandated 1,200 lineal feet under cetain
circumstances. Master Plan of Signals to implement the General Plan text amendment, and
allow a signal at the project entry, approximately 1,200 lineal feet from the existing signal
at Coachella Drive.
Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Santa Rosa Mountains
South: Low Density Residential (La Quinta Country Club)
East: Low Density Residential (Laguna de la Paz)
West: Vacant land, designated for Low Density Residential
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None
PACEQAcheckhS.wpd
"vrronmentai ractors Yotentially Atlected:
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
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
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
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.
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 enviromnent,
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, nothing further is required.
Sim e
Printed Name
to
For
❑s
F
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) "Negative Declaration: 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 XVIII 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
PACEQAchecklis.wpd
3
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
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 to non-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? (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)
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?
(Application Materials)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application Materials)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
09
X
►4
M
ro
X
X
M
PACEQAchcckHstEA 99-386.wpd
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? (Biological Assessment, James Cornett, April, 2000,
revised May 22, 2000)
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? (Biological Assessment, James
Cornett, April, 2000, revised May 22, 2000)
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? (Biological Assessment, James Cornett, April, 2000, revised
May 22, 2000)
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? (Biological Assessment, James Cornett, April, 2000, revised
May 22, 2000)
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; Biological Assessment, James Cornett, April, 2000,
revised May 22, 2000)
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? (CRM Tech,
Cutlural Resources Report and Phase II Analysis, 1999)
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)? (CRM Tech, Cutlural Resources Report and Phase II
Analysis, 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? (CRM Tech, Cutlural Resources Report and Phase
II Analysis, 1999)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
X
X
X
X
X
X
gj
X
M
f.i
P:\CEQAchcckhstEA 99-386.wpd
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? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Preliminary
Geotechnical Evaluation, GeoSoils, Inc., April, 1999)
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? (Supplemental Rockfall Evaluation, GeoSoils, Inc., October,
1999)
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? (Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, GeoSoils, Inc., April,
1999)
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)
VIL 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? (County Hazardous Materials Listing)
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)
h) 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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ei
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:%CEQAcheckhstEA 99-386.wpd
VIII. 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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
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? (Hydrologic Analysis, Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., August,
1999)
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? (Hydrologic Analysis,
Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., August, 1999)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Hydrologic Analysis, Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., August, 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? (Hydrologic Analysis, Mainiero, Smith &
Assoc., August, 1999)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial photos)
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? (General Plan Amendment materials)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
R
M
0.4
as
P:\CEQAchecklistEA 99-386.wpd
XI. 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? (General Plan EIR, Exh. 4.9-1)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan EIR, Exh. 4.9-1)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Application materials)
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 Land Use map)
XII. 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) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. 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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
is
X
PACEQAchccklistEA 99-386.wpd
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
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, General Plan FEIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application materials, General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
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? (Application materials, General Plan FEIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application materials, General Plan FEIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application materials, General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
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? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
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? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
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?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P10EQAchcckHstEA 99-386.wpd
XVII. 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 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?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier_ analyses and state where they
are available for review.
The General Plan EIR of 1992 was used in this analysis.
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.
X
X
X
X
P:\CEQAchecklistEA 99-386.wpd
10
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-386
I. a) The proposed project is located on a Primary Image Corridor, as depicted on
Exhibit CIR-5 of the General Plan. The roadway is also designated as a Primary
Arterial in the General Plan. The Tentative Tract Map includes a setback area of
20 feet, which will provide the required setbacks to protect the Image Corridor.
By complying with the General Plan standards, the applicant is providing
sufficient mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
b), c)
The proposed project occurs immediately below the toe -of -slope of the Santa
Rosa Mountains. The Tract Map does not, however, propose to subdivide lots
above the toe -of -slope. Rather, the slope areas along the northern boundary of
the proposed project will remain in Open Space. This will preserve the scenic
value of the hillsides, and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In
order to protect these areas in perpetuity, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
The 3 remainder parcels shown on Tentative Tract Map 29436 shall be
deed restricted as permanent open space prior to recordation of the Final
Tract Map.
I. d) There will be new light sources and potential for glare from automobile
headlights with buildout of the proposed project. The General Plan EIR analyzed
the project site, at planned densities. The proposed project will be required to
comply with the City's standards for outdoor lighting. These measures will
serve to reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level.
II. The project site does not involve agricultural uses.
III. c) & d)
The implementation of low density residential land uses on the project site was
analyzed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are
expected to continue as buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are
likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route
improvements in the future have the potential to reduce impacts. The City, at
the time of certification of the General Plan EIR determined that air quality
impacts required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined
that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulative
only when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the
City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its
boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not
expected to have a significant impact on air quality resources.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
Grading and site preparation of the subject property is expected to occur in
several distinct phases. Mass grading of the entire site is expected to occur at
one time, and will take approximately 30 working days to complete.
Construction equipment will include three scrapers, a motor grader, rubber -tire
front end loader, bulldozer, and two water trucks. It is anticipated that precise
grading will occur in four phases, each of which will encompass about 20±
acres and will require about 10 working days to complete. Each phase will
require the operation of a motor grader, skip loader, excavator, backhoe, water
truck and dump truck. The Utilities Installation phase of development will
include installation of water, sewer, curb/gutter, and dry utilities, as well as
street grading. This process is expected to occur in four phases and will take
approximately 60 days per phase, for a total of approximately 240 working
days. Each phase will require a backhoe, motor grader, front end loader, and
water truck. Each piece of construction equipment will operate for
approximately eight hours per day and will require two construction workers to
operate.
The following table provides an estimate of construction -related emissions,
including those associated with the operation of construction equipment and
those from construction worker commuter vehicles.
Table I
Anticipated Construction -Related Emissions
(pounds/day)
Pollutant Development Phase
Threshold
Criteria * *
Mass
Utilities
Precise
Total Pounds
Grading
Install.
Grading
Per Day
ROGs 11.69
14.76
27.24
80.00
Carbon Monoxide 65.02
80.08
210.72
820.00
Nitrogen Oxides 179.84
217.24
504.36
80.00
Sulfur Oxides 23.19
34.20
50.20
220.00
Particulates 17.17
21.80
33.64
220.00
* * Threshold criteria offered by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
for assistance in determining the significance
of air quality
impacts.
As shown in the table above, no threshold criteria are expected to be exceeded
during grading and site preparation, with the exception of nitrogen oxides. This
daily threshold could be exceeded during mass grading, precise grading and the
installation of utilities. Mass grading is expected to occur for only a 30 day
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
period, while precise grading will require about 40. The impacts from these
activities are therefore short term, and will not represent a long term permanent
impact. Although the installation of utilities is expected to take about 240 days
to complete, it will occur in four distinct phases, each of which represents a
temporary, short term impact. They are not expected, therefore, to be
significant.
Operational emissions include moving exhaust emissions from residents of the
proposed project. Buildout of the project will result in the construction of 169
single-family homes. The following moving exhaust emission projections
assume an average of 10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit, and an average
trip length of 5 miles.
Table II
Anticipated Operations -Related Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
Project -Related
Emissions
2.05
43.09
6.34
0.38
SCAQMD Thresholds
75.00
550.00
100.00
150.00
As shown in the table above, operational emissions associated with project
buildout are not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria
pollutants.
The Coachella Valley has been a non -attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10
microns or less). The proposed project will result in 169 single family dwelling
units. The primary long term air quality impact caused by these units will be
from the operation of automobiles; short term impacts are also likely from
construction activities. The proposed project shall implement the following
mitigation measures to mitigate impacts to air quality.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
4. The project shall submit a PM10 Plan to the City which includes adequate
provisions for fugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and
after grading operations. The PM10 Plan shall be approved by the City
prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. Construction roads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as
soon as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day.
All unpaved roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
IV. a), b) & f)
A biological Assessment was prepared for the proposed project. The
assessment included field surveys to determine the presence of listed,
endangered or threatened species. The survey found that portions of the project
site have been significantly impacted by roadway development and off -road
vehicle use. No listed, threatened or endangered species were found on the
project site.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
The project site occurs adjacent tot he Santa Rosa Mountains, which is habitat
for the federally listed Peninsular bighorn sheep. No sheep or sheep sign was
located on the project site. Continued urbanization adjacent to bighorn sheep
habitat has the potential to indirectly impact the animal. In order to mitigate the
indirect impacts of the proposed project on the species, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide an easement
to be recorded for the three remainder parcels on the subject property, to remain
undeveloped open space. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney
prior to recordation.
No blasting or pile -driving shall be permitted as part of the construction of this
project during bighorn lambing season, from Jan. 1 to June 30.
In the final project design, the applicant shall ensure that the roads and
driveways within the tract are designed to minimize headlight shine from
vehicles onto the hillsides. This design shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department.
All landscaping on the proposed greenbelts, retention basins and common open
space shall be non -toxic to the Peninsular bighorn sheep. All exotic plants and
plants which are known to invade or degrade Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat,
such as tamarisk and fountain grass, shall be prohibited. All landscaping plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee.
The design of lighting for homes within the project shall incorporate the use of
non -glare glass. Exterior lighting shall be kept at a minimum, and shall be aimed
away from the hillsides. All lighting plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department.
To assess the need for a buffer fence between the development and the toe of
the slope of the hillside to keep Peninsular bighorn sheep off the project site on
an ongoing basis, a three person committee shall be formed to monitor the
Peninsular bighorn sheep activity in the area. The committee shall consist of a
member of the Homeowners' Association (HOA), an official of the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Community Development
Director. The committee shall monitor sheep activity through various means,
including interviews with residents, and any available scientific information or
studies to be funded by the HOA. If bighorn sheep are entering the project site,
the committee shall require the HOA, at its expense, to construct an 8 foot
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
fence between the development and the hillsides. The fence shall not contain
gaps of greater than 11 centimeters (4.3 inches). If fencing is required, and if
the HOA is requested to do so by the CDFG, the HOA shall, at its expense,
construct temporary fencing to the specifications of the CDFG to prevent
Peninsular bighorn sheep from entering the project site pending construction of
the permanent fence. The committee shall exist for at least ten years, unless the
Peninsular bighorn sheep are removed from the threatened or endangered
species list, or no longer inhabit the Santa Rosa Mountains. If, at the end of the
10 year period, any member of the committee deems it appropriate to keep the
committee in existence, the committee shall continue to function until it is
unanimously agreed by its members that it is no longer necessary.
The project's Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall prohibit
unleashed dogs within the project site. Dogs shall not be permitted in any of the
drainage areas along the perimeter of the tract adjacent to the hillsides.
The CC&Rs shall prohibit human access from the tract to the hillsides. The
project shall be designed so as to not facilitate persons entering the hillsides
from the project site. To the extent that any portion of the project site begins
to be used by persons entering the hillside, the Homeowners' Association shall
post notices to discourage such use.
The CC&Rs shall require that all swimming pools be fenced.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall submit a plan
demonstrating that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers to be used
during the construction and operation of the site will not be harmful to wildlife.
This plan shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department, and once approved shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs.
If required to do so by law, the project applicant shall obtain a Section 2081
permit from CDFG.
If required to do so by law, the applicant shall enter into a Section 1603
Agreement with CDFG and ovtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers, and comply with any additional conditions imposed in the Agreement
or Permit.
The a portion of the project occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley
fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and shall be required to contribute
a mitigation fee of $100 per acre towards the purchase of off -site habitat. This
mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project to
less than significant levels.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
V. a) & b)
Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Reports were conducted for the proposed
project'. The analysis concluded that there were 9 potentially significant
archaeologic or historic sites on or adjacent to the property. A Phase II
investigation was recommended and undertaken. The site investigation resulted
in seven of the nine sites not being considered significant, as defined by CEQA.
One site, a rock shelter, was recommended for further testing and preservation.
10% of the site is to be tested to determine whether buried artifacts are
present, and 90% of the site is to be preserved. The other, a trail which occurs
outside the development area, should be protected from future access.
The project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at its
meeting of January 6, 2000. The Commission accepted the recommendations
made by the project archaeologist, and these mitigation measures are hereby
incorporated into this environmental assessment by reference.
VI. a) i)
The proposed project does not occur in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Hazards
from ground rupture are not expected to be significant.
VI. a)
The City does occur in an area subject to significant seismic ground shaking.
The project site is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has
adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard.
Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these
standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
A preliminary soils engineering report was prepared for the proposed project2.
The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The depth to
groundwater in the project area is estimated to be more than 100 feet. The soils
on the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic
event. The soil engineering report prepared for the proposed project
"Cultural Resources Report, La Quinta Cove Project," prepared by
CRM Tech, May 1999; and Phase II cultural mitigation for same,
also by CRM Tech.
z
"Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation... for US Home Corporation,"
prepared by Geosoils, Inc., April, 1999.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
recommends over -excavation and recompaction of the site in any area where
structures are proposed. The findings of the report are preliminary, and not
based on construction plans. The City's standards for site preparation and
geologic analysis, as detailed below, will reduce this potential impact to a less
than significant level.
VI. a) iv)
The proposed project occurs adjacent to the foothills of the Santa Rosa
Mountains. A rock fall analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. The
analysis included site investigations and modeling of conditions at the site to
determine stability of the slopes. The study resulted in a finding that the
east -southeast -facing slopes and the westerly -facing slopes around the site
"have a moderate potential for toppling or wedge failure type of rock fall to
occur." In order to mitigate this potential hazard, the following mitigation
measures are recommended:
In conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans, the applicant shall
prepare, or cause to be prepared, a rock fall mitigation plan, to include but not
be limited to catchment systems, and impact/diversion walls or berms. The plan
shall include a construction phasing schedule which determines when the
protection structure(s) must be completed in order to protect surrounding
homes. Such a plan shall be prepared at a scale of Y=40% and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
A qualified soils engineer shall be on -site during the grading of the project, to
confirm and/or further evaluate geologic conditions. If adverse geologic
structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork shall
be recommended and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
All data provided in the "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation" and the
"Supplemental Rock Fall Evaluation" report shall be applied to the design of the
site.
VI. b), c) & d)
As discussed above, the soils on the proposed site are loose silty sand. As
such, unstable soil conditions can occur from improper grading or excavation.
The City's standards for site preparation shall be adhered to in all site
preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the
3
"Supplemental Rock Fall Evaluation... for US Home Corporation,"
prepared by Geosoils, Inc., October, 1999.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
VIII. a)
proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit on the proposed site, the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific
soil study. The findings in this study shall be the basis for all grading plans on
the project site.
All development activity has the potential to concentrate pollutants and cause
a hazard to water quality. The proposed project includes a system of retention
basins designed to retain the 100 year, 24-hour storm on site. The City's
requirements for such facilities include standards for swales, oil separators and
other structures which ensure that contaminants are removed from surface
waters. The imposition of these standards will reduce the potential impacts to
water quality to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
Development consistent with the proposed project was analyzed under the
City's General Plan EIR in 1992. Although continued development will impact
the Valley's groundwater supplies, the impacts are being mitigated through
groundwater recharge programs, and the percolation of surface water in
retention basins. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which will
provide water to the proposed project, continues to implement programs to
conserve water. The project's impacts on groundwater supplies are not
expected to be significant.
VIII. c), d) & e)
The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year, 24-hour storm on -site.
The proposed project must also retain off -site flows which can be expected
from the adjacent hillsides. The diversion of these flows into the planned system
of retention basins will represent a substantial change from the sheet flooding
which typically occurs on undeveloped desert lands. The project design includes
de -silting basins which will control the potential for erosion on the project site.
The implementation of the project's planned drainage and retention system will
reduce the potential impacts of flooding both on and off site, and control the
release of flood waters from the site. The potential impacts of flooding, with
implementation of the proposed drainage system, are expected to be less than
significant.
IX. b) The proposed project includes a request which would conflict with existing
General Plan Policy 3-2.1.5 and Table CIR-2. To eliminate this conflict, the
applicant has requested a General Plan Text Amendment, which would modify
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
the City's current standards. The City currently requires that signalized
intersections on Primary Arterials be a minimum of 1,200 feet apart. The
proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the modification of this
standard under certain conditions, and with the implementation of a Master Plan
of Signals. The proposed project would allow a signalized intersection at a
distance of 1,000 fee from another. The applicant has provided the Master Plan
of Signals (SP 2000-046) and has therefore complied with the requirements of
the General Plan Amendment. Should the Amendment be adopted, the proposed
project will not conflict with the General Plan. (Technical discussion regarding
the implementation of a reduced standard is included under item XV, below.)
XI. a) & c)
The proposed project occurs along Eisenhower Drive, which has noise levels,
immediately adjacent to the right -of way, in excess of 60 dBA CNEL. The
balance of the property occurs in an area where noise levels do not exceed 60
dBA CNEL. A landscape parkway, wall and retention area are planned for the
frontage along Eisenhower Drive. The closest single family home will be located
at least 25 feet from the roadway right-of-way. Land uses consistent with the
proposed project were analyzed in the General Plan EIR in 1992. Residential land
uses are considered sensitive receptors. The construction of the project with a
perimeter wall, will lower potential noise impacts from circulation activity on
Eisenhower Drive. In order to ensure that the homes which abut Eisenhower
Drive do not exceed City standards, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes which abut the Eisenhower
Drive right-of-way, the applicant shall provide analysis to the Community
Development Department demonstrating that exterior noise levels in the rear
yards of these homes will not exceed the City's exterior noise standard in place
at that time.
The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
XIII. a)
Development consistent with the proposed project was analysed in the General
Plan EIR. The impacts to public services from this project will not be significant.
Cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City have been addressed
through the imposition of Impact Fees, and plans for future public facilities and —
services, to which this project will contribute.
XIV. a)
Development consistent with the proposed project was analyzed in the General
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
Plan EIR. The projects retention basins will provide for passive recreational
opportunities for its residents. The impacts to parks and recreation from this
project will not be significant. Cumulative impacts associated with buildout of
the City have been addressed through the imposition of Impact Fees, and plans
for future parks, to which this project will contribute.
XV. a) & b)
Development consistent with the proposed project was analyzed in the General
Plan EIR. The levels of service on Eisenhower Drive are expected to be
acceptable at buildout. The proposed project will not contribute significantly to
the area's traffic. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
be required to pay the City's Development Impact Fee. The impact fee funds an
improvement program established by the City to pay for a specific scope of
improvements identified to mitigate impacts to the General Plan circulation
system caused by a specific threshold of anticipated development.
XV. d)
The proposed project includes a General Plan Text Amendment which would
allow a reduction in the distance between traffic signals on Primary Arterial
roadways. The applicant has requested such a reduction, from 1,200 to 800
feet between the proposed on -site signal and the existing signal at Laguna de
la Paz.
The Villa La Quinta project, located adjacent and southwesterly of the proposed
project, will take access at Coachella Drive. The traffic analysis prepared for
that project included analysis of shared access at the Coachella Drive
intersection, plus a right -in -right -out -left -in access point at the center of the
property, 1 ,000 feet to the north. An alternative, which included no shared
access but the same restricted access at the project entrance, showed that left
turn movements would double at Coachella Drive. The shared access at
Coachella Drive was therefore the preferred alternative.
The issue of traffic safety is of particular concern on Eisenhower Drive because
of the significant curve in the roadway. The proposed General Plan Amendment
would also allow the reduction in standards throughout the City, on a case by
case basis. The amendment would clear the way for this project to have a
proposed signal, if the Signal Master Plan demonstrates that the signals in the
corridor can be adequately synchronized. The proposed signal would serve only
the proposed project, and no other development. The lands on the east side of
Eisenhower are developed, and no access is taken at that point in the roadway.
Further, this proposed amendment is not necessary to provide access to the
property. Access can be achieved by either right -in -right -out -left -in, and/or by
sharing access to the project at Coachella Drive, if signalized access is desired
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist
EA 99-386 - U S Homes
by the proponent.
The General Plan amendment, and associated signalized intersection, will have
a potentially significant impact on traffic movement on Eisenhower Drive.
Mitigation of this impact can be achieved by redesigning the subdivision to
allow shared access at Coachella Drive, or by limited access at the project
entrance.
XVI. c)
A comprehensive drainage system, to handle both on and off site 100 year
storm flows, is included in the proposed project. The applicant will be required
to secure approval of the City Engineer prior to implementation of the drainage
plan. These requirements ensure that the impacts to storm water facilities will
be reduced to a less than significant level.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EA Addendum USHomes.WPD