PCRES 2002-004PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417, REVISED
APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 11`h day of December, 2001, and 81h day of January, 2002, hold a duly
noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for
Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) located at the northwest corner of
Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 761-720-020
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 3rd day of July, 2001, adopt Resolution 2001-91 certifying Environmental
Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, a 97-lot single family subdivision with private
streets in a RL Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-417,
Revised) and has determined that although the proposed residential development could
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to recommend to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-417 (Revised).
PACC Reso & COA\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-004
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for TTM 30092, Amendment #1
January 8, 2002
2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the revised Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not result in impacts which
are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned
or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in
the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or
indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect
human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
417 (Revised) and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
P:\CC Reso & COA\EA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-004
Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) for TTM 30092, Amendment #1
January 8, 2002
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 certification of Environmental Assessment
2001-417 (Revised) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated
in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 81h day of January, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
M�.1r_w~MERLIMM
,YACQ ES ABELS, Chairman
City f La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRr IERMM4, Community Development Director
City of a Quinta, California
P1CC Reso & COMEA PCResoTTM30092#1.wpd
REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417
1 . Project Title: TTM 30092 (Barton Properties)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: NW Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe St.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barton Properties,
11611 San Vicente Blvd., S-605,
Los Angeles, CA 90049
(310-826-4658)
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: 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.)
Original application involved development of 97 single family and common lots on
37 acres at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Application has
been modified to include 130 residential lots of about 8,000 square feet each. The
application also includes lettered lots for streets, a well, and a retention basin.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant (previously agriculture)
South: Across Ave. 58, date palm grove and residential
East: Across Monroe St., vacant and scattered residential
West: IID Corporate facility
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
0
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 & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination 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
4
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 21 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.
El
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 EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
C-c �C6&L) I IyI
Signature Uate
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ante ame
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\13artonCk1st.WPD 2
9
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
•
11 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 analysis 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 analysis 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
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 3
`J
•
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)
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 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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
X
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
1'
1:
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 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?
(Application materials)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
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, p.
5-2 ff.)
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, p. 5-2 ff.)
EI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\6artonCklst.WPD 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? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by
A.A.G. dated April 2001.
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)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by
A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech,
10/19/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and
Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 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 and Sladden Geotechnical Report
dated 2-9-2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical
Report dated 2-9-2001)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
X
X
X
1'1
X
13
X
11
G:\WPOOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
11
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? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and
Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001)
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)
VII. 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? (Riverside
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
L
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD
Vill. 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. and
Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM
30092)
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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker
Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker
Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092)
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 )
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? (Project
Description)
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 Land Use Element)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 8
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
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)
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, p. 4-157 ff. and Noise Impact Report
prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc. dated 4-4-01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General
Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
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? (Application Materials)
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 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)
X
X
X
1:
X
X
X
X
N
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 9
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. )
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:
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)? (General Plan EIR, 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?
(General Plan EIR, 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)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCk1s1.WPD 10
0
•
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
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)
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?
X
1:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\8artonCklst.WPD 11
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 Analysis.
X
X
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential
impacts of the proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317;
Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. City EA 2001-408 covers this site and 240 acres
to the north.
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:
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; City of La Quinta Municipal Code;
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October
18, 2000; "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech,
October 19, 2000; "Phase 1 Archaeological/Historic Resources Assessment for TTM
30092", prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2001; "Noise Report
#/01 106 for TTM 30092," prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc., April 4, 2001;
"Geotechnical Investigation for TTM 30092," prepared by Sladden Eng., Feb. 9,
200 1 ; "Preliminary Drainage Calc. - TTM 30092," prepared by Hacker Eng., April 13,
2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 12
C
Revised Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-417
for Tentative Tract Map 30092
Introduction
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address changes made to
Tentative Tract Map 30092. The original application was reviewed under EA 2001-
417, an environmental assessment to supplement EA 2001-408 prepared for General
Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 (City Council Resolution
2001-34). Since the original approval and environmental review, the applicant has
increased the number of residential lots from 97 to 130.
II. c) The proposed parcel is not currently under Williamson Act contract.
Development of the site will result in the loss of land available for agriculture.
Residential subdivisions are being developed to the north of the site and the
project area is an isolated parcel. Lands to the south and east continue to be
farmed. The loss of this site for agriculture is not expected to be significant
based on the conclusion of this assessment and EA 2001-408.
III. a), c) & d)
Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular
emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 1,300 average
daily trips'. These trips could generate the following emissions. The Table
below also includes the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for each potential
pollutant.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
c0 ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 67.15 2.58 13.77 -- 0.29 0.29
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,300 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. ' Operational thresholds provided by
SCAOMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
"Trip Generation, 61h Edition, Volume P prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Single
Family detached housing (210) used.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 1
0
The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller). The non -attainment status results in potentially significant impacts
associated with new development, particularly during the construction of new
projects. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements
on development to control dust. In addition to these standards, SCAQMD suggests
mitigation for PM10, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM10 Management Plan.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site, unless otherwise allowed
by the City Engineer.
6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall
be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading
activity on the site. Any portion of the site that is 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.
8. 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, grass seed or chemical
stabilizers.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second sta,
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BanonRevAdd.WPD 2
0 0
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project will not be significant.
IV. a) Biological resource analysis has not been performed because the site has been
actively used for farm activities and therefore is not likely to be a valuable
habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known
sensitive species and is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The changes associated with the
application will not change the potential impacts to biological resources.
Impacts from development are not expected to be significant.
V. a) & b)
Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property. The survey
found that no significant resources occur on the site.
V. c) The site has been previously assessed for paleontologic resources'. The area
was within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, but no vertebrate
remains have been located. The mollusks found are abundant in this area, and
do not represent a significant resource. As such, the on -site investigation and
report found that the impacts on paleontologic resources are less than
significant, and that no further analysis of the site is necessary.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State
and is mapped in the Ground Shaking Zone IV. To ensure structures can
withstand damage from earthquakes, compliance with the Geotechnical
Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering dated February 9, 2001, and any
other site specific soil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of grading permits shall be required. This requirement will ensure that impacts
from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
This site may be subject to liquefaction due to groundwater being found within
25 to 30 feet requiring "remedial grading including overexcavation and
recompaction." (Sladden Report). The modification of the application does not
2
5
Him orical/Archaeolopical Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000;
Phase I Archaeolopical/Historical Survey, prepared by James Brock, MA, RPA dated April 2001.
Paleontological Resources Assessment Repon, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track
�98.39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover
200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 3
affect this potential impact, and requires equivalent mitigation as the previous
application. To develop the site, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1. Grading activities and structure development shall comply with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by
Sladden Engineering for TTM 30092 including over -excavation, and other
methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on
residential structures.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
Development of the site will replace the use of canal water for crop irrigation
and may represent a positive impact insofar as water usage may be reduced
when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site. The proposed
amendment to the project will increase water usage over that previously
analyzed.
Stormwater generated by development will be retained on -site which will
encourage percolation and groundwater recharge. The proposed alteration to the
project does not change the City's requirements for on -site retention.
Additionally, City Ordinances require water conserving plumbing fixtures and
landscaping. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
Site development of buildings and parking areas will create impermeable
surfaces creating drainage pattern changes. The project site is located in a C
Flood Zone. The project is required to meet the City's standards for retention
of the 100-year storm on -site. The revised drainage plan, prepared by Hacker
Engineering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with
Section 1 3.24.120 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Tract conditions
are recommended to ensure compliance assuring the flood control system is
less than significant.
XI. a) The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are
not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will
continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include
landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area as
required by Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Associates dated
April 4, 2001. Amendment of the application will not change the potential
impacts associated with noise. The impacts from noise are therefore not
expected to be significant.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Ass es\eanonRevAdd.WPD 4
0 0
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services.
The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development
occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to
schools.
The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax from these
residents' disposable income, will generate revenues to the City to offset the
added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. Builders within
the project area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. The amendment of the
application will not significantly change the impacts to public services. Increases
in population resulting from the increased number of lots will be offset by
increased revenues in property and sales tax. Site development is not expected
to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XV. a)
The Village of the Palms project determined traffic impacts for development
would be less than significant". Under EA 2001-408 (City Council Resolution
No. 2001-34) it was determined that a traffic study would not be required,
provided the sites were developed to comply with the LDR General Plan
designation and Impact Mitigation Fees were paid. The amendment of the
application will add only 330 trips per day to the regional road system. The
application, as amended, still falls within the Low Density Residential land use
category. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the
potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
XVI. a)-f)
The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall
impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these
suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements
to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at
construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track n98-39;
TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ Bari onRevAdd.WPD 5
/
\
7
k
j
\
§
f
[
§
\
§
j
�
\
64 /
§
\
/
u
a
/
\
§
{
\
2
()
§w
§�
�
§}
�
�k\
\
i;14
§
§
k
/\)
w
j
\�
§b
�
SE
�
\
\
g
4
f
§
u
i
E
§
z
/
\
U
/)\)/
2
)
/
\
)
)
.)
.j
\)/
/
+E±
Cl.
0.t4
�&&\
\\
/E
k
\
\
z
m
`
\ $
�
{
3±/
j
C
3)
3/
[
4
\
\En
m§
\
@ $
t
2
\
\
a
<
]-
B
\
)
/
F
F
F
A
G
A
Up
U�c1
um
4W
dW
d�WC
ca.0
aa,U
a`.,U
UU
UU
UU
T
7
(i
y id T
a
>F_>
'b L
N
F
m 'U G
.O O A
F
U
�0
F
O C
� O U
U
N
U
,`
v
94
,`
v
CL
cy
h
.7
o f
u 'U ,m
C
c
A
O d
etl
O
CJ
G
'>
U G
V T WO
y
0o
O on
G
o to o o y
G
C
O O
O. O O
Q
a b-L
b
G
O
O G
O
O
C7
F N
m G
on
G
Gs.
��
wz
ar
wz
wz
F
v C]
v)
zz
L1
zz
cc
z'z
0
oAV
O
G G
F A y N
a
a 3
a
w
z
E
A
wto
� o
U a'
y
UG1
7 0
U W ua
0
O
°
O
°
O
G
Ln
a
c a
d o
a
A
dLn
Ln
V V
F
A
F
O�
°�
A
z�
�"
Cd bD
G
�W
a
o�
�
h
j
ato
°� �
(n
(
c
\\
/U
uu
§
\
$
k
�
]
/)
/E
§/
))
�
{
(\
§2
±
_
/
§
>1
f
<2
u
ƒ
k
)
k
/
�
)§
\�
�
a
(
)\\
3
//\
2
k
2
w
-
\
\
\/
E
§/
-
{%
}
�®
§®
_
� §
(/
uo
§
\
�\
0
k