PCRES 2002-045PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2002-444 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2002-069 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2002-732.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-444
APPLICANT: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRESBYTERIAN HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 14T" day of May, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-444 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-069 and Site
Development Permit 2002-732 to allow an 81 unit senior apartment complex,
generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 47 and Adams Street, more
particularly described as follows:
APN: 643-090-014,
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 2002-444)
and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
included in the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 2002-069 and Site
Development Permit 2002-732, and therefore, 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
make the following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project 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 2002-444.
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
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC Reso EA 02-444.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-045
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-444
ADOPTED: MAY 14, 2002
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 in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
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 have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project 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 project 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 in that mitigation measures are
imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-444
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement 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 753.51d►.
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, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC Reso EA 02-444.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-045
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-444
ADOPTED: MAY 14, 2002
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-444 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 and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-444 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 141h day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk
ABSTAIN:
J.UVABELS, Chairman
of a Quinta, California
W
Im. E1:1:1LrArnk,
fnunity Development Director
of La Quinta, California
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC Reso EA 02-444.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-069, Site Development
Permit 2002-732; La Quinta Senior Housing.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magana, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Adams Street and Avenue 47.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of La Quinta Southern California Presbyterian Homes
78-495 Calle Tampico 516 Burchett Street
La Quinta, CA 92253 Glendale, Ca 91203
6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning: High 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.)
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction
of 81 senior -restricted multiple family dwelling units on 10.17 acres. The
project proposes single story units, a central community room, a manager's unit
and ancillary facilities including parking.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant desert lands
South: Low Density Residential
West: Low Density Residential
East: Vacant desert lands
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
PAMar in\SCPH\EACklst.wpd
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial
evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
u
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
FOR
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
z-
Signature V Date
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst. wpd
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"
answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites
in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including
off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
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.
P:\Marfin\SCPH\EACk1st.wpd
3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 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?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
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
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
3
X
X
7
X
X
P:\Martin\SCPH\EAC kist.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
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. 73 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. 73 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. 73 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.
73 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. 73 ff.)
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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? ("A Phase I Archaeological Study for a Proposed
Senior Housing Project...," prepared by HEART, May 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)? (Letter dated April 5, 2002, Pacific West
Archaeology, Inc.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
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 p. III-
61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. III-61
ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
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 MEA p. 96
ff)
potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
x
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst. wpd
Issues land Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
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?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
vll. 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? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff)
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR x
p. III-87 ff.)
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACkIst.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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 p. 111-87 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? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff.)
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 p. III-87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
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 Exhibit 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
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 coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
L
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst.wpd 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 MEA p. 110 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
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)
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, p. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
7
91
K1
0
X
09
FA
X
*4
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst. wpd 9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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, p. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 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)
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. III-29 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. III-29 ff.)
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst.wpd 10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
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. III-29 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)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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, p. 46 ff.)
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, p. 46 ff.)
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, p. 46 ff.)
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,
p. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst.wpd 11
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (Cont.):
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 ANALYSIS.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
0
1:
X
EI
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.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACklst. wpd 12
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for a Proposed Senior Housing Project Located on the Southwest Corner of 47th
Street (sic) and Adams Street," prepared by Historical, Environmental, Archaeological Research Team, May, 2001.
Letter dated April 5, 2002, Pacific West Archaeology.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EACkl st.wpd 13
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-444
I. d) The proposed project proposes single story buildings with parking around the
buildings. The project is also designed to include recreational open space and
retention basins on the western and southern property lines, which will
provide separation between the parking lot and driveways and the single
family residential units to the west and south. The separation results in a
minimum distance of approximately 40 feet between the nearest parking
area and the southern property line. Parking lots and driveways will be lit as
required by the Development Code. The applicant will be required to meet
the City's standards, which require that no light spill onto adjacent
properties. These standards, and the project design, will lower potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation
of motor vehicles. The 81 apartment units could generate approximately 282
trips per day'. (Senior housing generates a lower trip rate than family
housing.) Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate
the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO
ROC
NOx
Exhaust Brakes
Tires
50 mph 7.28
0.28
1.49
-- 0.03
0.03
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 282 trips/day and average trip length of 5 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition," for category 253, Elderly Housing -
Attached.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EAAdden.WPD
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the
area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be
mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. 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.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on 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. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. The recreational open space landscaping on
the west and south side of the property, as well as the perimeter
landscaping on Avenue 47 and Adams Street, shall be installed with the
construction of the first building(s) on the site.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of .
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EAAdden.WPD 2
V. b) Phase I and Phase II cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject
property'. The Phase I study identified potentially significant archaeological sites
on the subject property. The Phase 11 analysis, however, determined that the
loci found at the site were not significant. All test pits were properly excavated
and documented, and reports prepared for review and approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking
are reduced to a less than significant level.
f me
The subject property is subject to severe wind erosion hazards. The City
Engineer will require the preparation of PM10 Management Plan to control the
potential for blowing dust from the project site. In addition, the mitigation
measures listed under Air Quality, above, will mitigate the potential impacts of
soil erosion to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District from wells
in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -
site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated with
groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's
water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)&d)
The construction of buildings and parking lots will result in less land being
available for the percolation of water into the ground. The project has been
designed to include two retention basins within the southern section of the
Z "A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for a Proposed Senior Housing Project Located on the Southwest Comer of
47th Street (sic) and Adams Street," prepared by Historical, Environmental, Archaeological Research Team,
May, 2001.
Letter dated April 5, 2002, Pacific West Archaeology.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EAAdden. W PD 3
recreational open space on the site. The City Engineer will require that these
retention basins retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the
amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage
plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated
with surface water to a less than significant level.
XI. a) The proposed project occurs in an area with lower levels of traffic, which are
not expected to exceed the City's noise standards at buildout of the General
Plan. Further, the project will be surrounded by a wall, which will reduce interior
noise levels. Finally, the buildings proposed within the project site are a
minimum of 70 feet from the wall. This distance will provide further noise
attenuation.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary high noise
levels which could impact residential development to the south and west. In
order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located in the northeast corner of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XIII. a)
The proposed apartments will have an impact on public services and will be
served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Site
development will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added
police and fire services.
The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site development is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
P:\Martin\SCPH\EAAdden.WPD 4
N
0
O
N
A
V.
w
d
A
a
a
IS
F
O
c
z
z
x
d
A
U A
aWUW
0U
U
b
yay
a
to a
a
CY
o
G
C
m
G
°
;d
b
�
p
pp
C
U
U
Q U
U
o,U
o
ov
a
aaa
aaGnC:19
w
w0
w�
E
a
o �
z�
E
z
91.
A a
C
G
C4
7 G
G
W
W
Z"
pp0
U
U
U
m
m m
N
z
o
°
m
a
� Q
N
C
U
aI
itl
'O�+
rA
d
c
N
3
5
a
a 5
a .d
cn
\
\�
//
\(
§
§
§
/
u
5
/
\
\
_
!
!
!
)
\
\
)
�
(
(
(
/
/
/
3
/
3
EE
�(
\
/
/
&
&
//
6
3
/
]m
\
/
/
/
(
(
a
�
\
2
/
\�
t)
2\
)
4
§
&�
2
§
-
a
42
(
\
\
«
i
&
�
�
\
ƒ
\
)
(
�
} %
\
Q
2
c