PCRES 2002-066PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-066
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN AMENDED SUBDIVISION OF
349 LOTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
FRED WARING DRIVE AND JEFFERSON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 11`h day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
adoption of an addendum to Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Extension #1 of
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
151h day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined under
Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and Tentative
Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution
83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study, and
has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code 21 166
have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for SP 99-040 and TTM
29323, for Wade Ellis; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts
to justify certification of said Addendum:
The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-066
Addendum to EA 96-328
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: June 11, 2002
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air quality,
biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were addressed
as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new impacts being
identified with the Revised Project.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, as the addendum prepared for
this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination and recommend to the
City Council certification of an Addendum to EA 99-389 for Extension #1 of
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 11 " day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Abels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
allr ABELS, Chairmar
of a Quinta, California
ATTEST:
HERMN, Community Development Director
La Q inta, California
r
I
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-446
1 . Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Specific Plan 99-040
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1 /Extension #1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
4. Project Location: 117 acres on the Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #B-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (Low Density Residential)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Repeal of the approved Specific Plan design guidelines and development
standards to allow revision of an existing tentative map approval. The tentative
map is being extended, as a new map is not being filed in lieu of amending the
existing map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.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 & 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. EM
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
environment, 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, and nothing further is required. ❑
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Printed Name
May 21, 2002
Date
Community Development
Department
P:\Wally\CasedocskCurrent\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
2
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 account for 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 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
P: \ W ally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389. wpd
3
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General
Plan MEA)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
IL 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? ILQGP MEA)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEA)
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; MEA)
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?
ISCAQMD CEQA Handbook, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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/PM10 SIP)
X
P
X
X
X
M
M
K4
9
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitiaoted Impact Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
X
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, site
assessment)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, EIR)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ILa 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
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?
IEA 99-389)
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
5
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(EA 99-389)
1 X
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
X
vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General
Plan EIR)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could 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)
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 EIR)
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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
6
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project
assessment)
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? (Not
applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (EA 99-389; Site assessment)
Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkg rp\Casedocs\TT29323\ead o cs\eacklst389. wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Imoact Impact
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)
X
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
to control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
X
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA)
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
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)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
X
02
Q
X
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? (EIR,
EA 99-389) X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eackist389.wpd
8
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Imoact Mitioated Imoact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389)
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389)
X
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?
(Not applicable)
X
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? (Not applicable)
X
XII
an
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, Project assessment)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
X
X
21
e
e
e
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
9
Potentially
Issues land Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
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? (Project
assessment)
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)? IEA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
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? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, EA 96-328)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (CVWD).
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? ICVWD)
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
10
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Imnert I— a,
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? ICVWD)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
X
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? (CVWD comments)
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (MEA, page 4-28)
X
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce 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.
X
U
KI
3
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.
Not applicable.
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 Checklist Addendum.
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\TT29323\eadocs\eacktst389.wpd
11
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-446:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
ICEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
Presented to the Planning Commission for Recommendation
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
June 11, 2002
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389.wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment #99-389, certified on February 15, 2000, by the La Quinta City Council
for Wade Ellis.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals:
REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures
included in EA 99-389 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 349 lot single family subdivision proposal on Parcel
±117 acres, which would replace the existing approval for 379 lots. The current
approval includes a Specific Plan approval to allow reduced lot sizes and other
development standard variations. The City has determined that the Revised Project
will be consistent with the intensity of development and character of the adjacent
residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives
of the City's General Plan, as approved by the City in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any significant change to the land uses as
approved in Specific Plan 99-040. The Specific Plan currently allows for 379 lots
(3.24 units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) Repeal of the existing Specific Plan to allow changes to the site layout, lot
siting and design, and total unit count within the framework of the Zoning
Code as currently existing;
2) An extension of time for the existing tentative map approval;
3) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to the degree that the originally approved Specific Plan is no longer
required.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden 389, wpd
Water - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The Revised
Project will create drainage
impacts similar to those
identified for the original
proposal under EA 99-389. As
such, the map provides for
several smaller retention areas,
interconnected through a linear
facility traversing the site
northwest to southeast.
Biology - Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
development of the Revised
Project will result in a similar loss
of habitat for the Coachella
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). However, this site is in
an area approved for mitigation
under an existing 10A permit,
pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. A
focused survey for Giant Sand
Treader Cricket must be
undertaken.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
greater than previously analyzed
The project proponent shall
submit for review and approval ,
a comprehensive Phase II
archaeological investigation. An
archaeological monitor shall be
on site during any grubbing,
earth moving or excavation
activities.
Air Quality - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. The Coachella
Valley has in the past
been a non -attainment
area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10
microns or smaller), and
is currently in danger of
losing it's attainment
status. In order to
control PM10, the City
has imposed standards
and requirements on
development to control
dust. This project will
be required to comply
with the PM10 Fugitive
Dust Control Plan
(FDCP) currently
approved for the entire
project area.
Noise - Impacts no
greater than previously
analyzed. Development
of the site will create
construction noise
impacts of a short-term
nature. Long term
impacts relate to
roadway noise. A revised
acoustic study will be
required to address the
effects of such noise on
the Revised Project.
Geology & Soils -
Impacts no greater than
previously analyzed. The
site is not located in any
Earthquake Fault zones
as designated by the
State but is mapped in
Ground Shaking Zone IV
meaning seismic events
can cause damage to
building under certain
occurrences. Impacts
involving potential
seismic activity also
relate to possible risk
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
(i.e. fuels and auto -
related chemicals and
wastes) and potential for
upset/explosion/fire. The
project will be required
to adhere to seismic
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Transportation/Traffic
Impacts slightly less than
those previously analyzed.
Development of the
Revised Project reduces
overall unit count from
379 to 349 (8%). A
corresponding reduction
in generated traffic can be
anticipated.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public
Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve:
1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EA which would involve new
significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts;
2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken, which would involve new significant effects on the
environment not analyzed in the EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 has been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the complete EA
document is attached.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
• Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Sand Harbor Specific Plan (SP 99-040)
General Plan Amendment 99-064
Change of Zone 99-092
Tentative Tract 29323
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wade Ellis
41-865 Boardwalk, #212
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation: Riverside County: 2B, 2-5 units per acre
Proposed La Quinta: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Riverside County: R-1/9,000
Proposed La Quinta: RL, Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Pre -annexation application to establish General Plan designation, Specific Plan and
Tentative Tract Maps for vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Fred
Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan will establish standards for the
development of 379 dwelling units on 117 acres.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Lands to the north and west are developed single family residential neighborhoods.
The Bermuda Dunes Golf Course is also located to the north. Lands to the south
are vacant, and lands to the southwest are developed as single family dwellings.
Lands to the east are partially developed with a golf course and single family
residential.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
P:\CHRISTI\envirAhst sp 99-040.wpd
• 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
Population and Housing
X
Biological Resources
X
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Geological Problems
Energy and Mineral
Aesthetics
X
Water
Hazards
X
Cultural Resources
X
Air Quality
X
Noise
Recreation
Mandato Finds of
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
P:\CHPJSTI\envtr.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
• 0
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the
reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer
should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site
as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier 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 XVII at the
end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references
to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the
sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a.suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different
ones.
P:\CHRISTI\envir.ckhst sp 99-040.wpd
3
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is
a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (General
Plan Land Use Map)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General
Plan EIR, p. 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X
Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific
Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 2-32 ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1)
PACHRISThenviccklist sp 99-040.wpd
1]
1]
3V!l
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) 1 1 1 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) I X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page X
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) I I I I X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading, or fill? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Southland Geotechnical,
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
h) Expansive soils? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical
Investigation, June 24, 1999)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) 1 1 1 1 X
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X
amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 19 ff., Tract Map
29323)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
P:\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
e
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
unless Impact
Impact
( PP 9 ) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface X
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General X
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X
57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X
available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171
ff.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-171 ff.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
===Ml�
MMMM
d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan project description) X
P:\CHRISTRenvir,eklist sp 99-040.wpd
• 9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (RKJK & Assoc., X
Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (RKJK & Assoc., Traffic Impact Analysis,
November 23, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan,
p. 17)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific
Plan, p. 17)
MMM
MMM
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan
p. 17)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) I X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and
birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-
71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (General X
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
P:\CHRISTI\envirAIist sp 99-040.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
unless Impact
Impact
( PP 9 ) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit4.4-1, page 4-
69, and page 4-71 ff.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X
page 4-71 ff.)
Vill. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General I X I
Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not linnited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description)
P\CHR15Ti\cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
X.
XI.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant Impact
( PP 9 ) Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or X
trees? (Specific Plan Project Description)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Douglas Eilar &
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General
Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
mmmo
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 I I I I I
ff.) I
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
P\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
0. 0
W
XIV
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page X
4-20)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit X
CIR-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General
Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan p. 26)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Archaeological X
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
c) Affect historical resources? (Archaeological Associates, �X
Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
P:\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
• 9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Archaeological
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X
impact area? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological
Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan,
Exhibit PR-1)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
3
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to X
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 projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directory or indirectly?
X
P:\CHRISTI\cnvirAlis1 sp 99-040 wpd
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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.
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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
P:\CHRISUenvir.cklist sp 99-040wpd
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-389
I. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction. The County
General Plan designation, however, and that sought by the applicant as part of this
application, are consistent. Differences between the two general plans relating to
the intent of the land use designations are insignificant. Through the annexation
process, the project will be assigned a City designation, which is compatible with
existing development both under County and City jurisdiction.
II. a) The proposed project is not currently within the City's jurisdiction, nor was it
analyzed for future annexation in the existing General Plan. As such, the project
area, and the 948t people it will generate at buildout were not previously analyzed
by the City. However, the land use designation assigned this site by the County is
compatible with the proposed land use designation, and the additional population
would therefore have been analyzed under County plans. The project is not likely
to significantly impact population projections for the region.
Ill.a), b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed project is located in
a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site is not within a liquefaction hazard
area. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for
seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards.
A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project'. It
recommends specific foundation and soil compacting requirements which will
mitigate the impacts of seismic activity. These mitigation measures will ensure that
impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
I11.0, g) & h)
The project falls within a blowsand hazard zone, and is composed of potentially
unstable soils. Construction of the project will be subject to City Engineer review,
the preparation of dust control plans, and the mitigation measures contained in the
geotechnical study cited above. The recommendations contained in this study, and
continued City review of the project, will reduce the potential impact from erosion
of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be coordinated
to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV (Cultural
Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented.
IV.a) & b)
The construction of structures on currently vacant lands will reduce the amount of
land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to
increase surface runoff. The City will require the retention of the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site, and the Tentative Tract Map has been prepared to reflect the
"Geotechnical Investigation -Tentative Tract 29323 La Quinta, California, Southland Geotechnical,
June 24, 1999.
P:THRISTI\cnvirAlist sp 99-040.wpd
13
a 0
construction of a number of retention basins. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the project proponent shall submit hydrologic analysis to the City Engineer
for review and approval which will demonstrate that the planned retention basins are
sufficient to retain the 100 year storm. This will reduce the potential hazard
associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
V. a) The Coachella Valley is currently in a non -attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10
microns or less). The proposed project will result in 379 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.
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. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference
5. Construction of improvements on Fred Waring and Jefferson shall be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of
through -traffic lanes.
6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
P:\CHRISTI\envir.cK"Hst sp 99-040.wpd
14
• a
10. 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.
11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
13. 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.
14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
16. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
VI. a), b), d), & e)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plane. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic
volumes. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 3,627 daily trips,
of which 284 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 382 during the
evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project
implementation include the signalization of Jefferson Street at both Country Club
Drive and Miles Avenue, and the widening of Fred Waring and Jefferson to their
ultimate rights of way in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic impact
analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as
part of the development of the project site:
1. The project proponent shall improve both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring
Drive, along their entire property boundary, to their ultimate 120 right of way
(half width) in conjunction with the first phase of development.
2. Sight distances shall be reviewed to conform with City of La Quinta
standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping and street
improvement plans.
"Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 Traffic Impact Analysis (revised)," RKJK & Associates, November 23,
1999.
P:\CHRISTI\envir.ckhst sp 99-040.wpd
15
a
•
3. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned
improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all
project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant
impact on the circulation system.
The Specific Plan includes an interior trail system. The trail system interfaces with
the interior street system at a number of locations. In order to ensure that no
significant hazard occurs to pedestrians using the trail system, the project proponent
shall be required to install stop signs and crosswalks at all intersections between the
trail and a paved roadway. The stop signs shall be for pedestrian traffic.
VII. a), b) & c)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand
Treader Cricket in the General Plan. In conjunction with the first application for Site
Development Permit; the project proponent shall submit a focused survey for Giant
Sand Treader Cricket to the City for review and approval. The survey shall include
mitigation measures, if necessary, and a mitigation monitoring program. The project
also occurs in the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard.
The project proponent shall be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to this species. Should the project,
or any portion of the project, occur after implementation of the Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, any mitigation required by that plan shall be applied to the
project, or any portion of the project.
X.a)&b)
A noise analysis was prepared, and subsequently amended, for the proposed
project'. The project area lies in a currently impacted noise corridor. Residential
dwelling units are considered sensitive noise receptors. The City's General Plan
requires that exterior noise levels for any portion of a residential lot not exceed 60
dBA CNEL, and that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study
found that varying heights of walls were needed to mitigate exterior noise levels
along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The study also recommended the
elevation of certain pads to mitigate noise levels. Finally, the study requires the
preparation of additional analysis to recommend mitigation measures for interior
noise levels for any home to be constructed with a second story which has a full or
partial view of either Fred Waring or Jefferson. In order to ensure that noise levels
are mitigated to meet City standards, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
"Acoustical Analysis Report," Douglas Eilar & Associates, August 15 & November 29, 1999.
P:\CHRISTI\env1TXK1ist sp 99-040 wpd
16
0
In conjunction with Site Development Permit application for any phase of
development which includes homes with a partial or full view of Fred Waring
or Jefferson, a noise analysis based on final pad elevations shall be
prepared which demonstrates that both exterior and interior noise levels shall
meet or exceed City standards.
The design and location of the outer perimeter wall shall conform to the
recommendations of the November 29, 1999 amendment to the noise
analysis, and shall combine a six foot block or slumpstone wall, constructed
to City standard, with adequate berming to achieve the needed heights
shown on the table labeled " Barrier and Berm Heights at Perimeter Lots to
Achieve 60 CNEL."
XI. a) - e)
The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
public services. The residences within the project will impact the school system, and
such an impact must be mitigated through the imposition of school fees.
XII. a) - g)
The proposed project is served by local utilities and water and sewer districts. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall be required to
demonstrate, through "will serve" letters, that all services are available to the site.
No significant impact to service providers is expected from this project.
Xlll.a) The proposed project occurs along one of the City's Primary Image Corridors. The
General Plan requires a setback of 20 feet, which the project has proposed on its
map. The implementation of the setback requirement will lower the impact to scenic
resources to a less than significant level.
XIV. a)
The site occurs above the recorded shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as mapped
on City maps. No significant impact to paleontologic resources is expected from this
project.
XIV.b), c), & d)
A site specific Phase I cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed
project°. The study found a potentially significant sites within the project boundary.
Site CA-RIV-6349 was found to be potentially significant, and necessitate further
study. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented:
"An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323...," Archaeological Associates, August 31, 1999.
P:\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
17
0
1. In conjunction with the first Site Development Permit application for the
project, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the
City, a comprehensive Phase II archaeological investigation, performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include mitigation
measures, and a mitigation monitoring plan.
2. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving
or excavating activity. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or
she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the
resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with
the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified.
P:\CHRISTI\envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
18