Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PCRES 2002-071
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-455 LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25T" day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of LIDO EQUITY PARTNERS for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2002-087 and Tentative Tract 30521, located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: APN's: 604-032-009, -018, and -021 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 2002-455) and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan 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 Tentative Tract 30521, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigable impacts were identified. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, or animal community, reduce the number, or p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Planning Commission Resolution 2002-071 Environmental Assessment 2002455 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 Page 2 restrict the range of rare, or endangered plants, or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map do 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. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map 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 subdivision. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map 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. 6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate to address impacts to school facilities. The fees will be paid at time of issuance of building permits. 7. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5 (d)• 8. The Location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 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 the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Planning Commission Resolution 2002-071 Environmental Assessment 2002-455 Lido Equity Partners Adopted: June 25, 2002 Page 2 Department and attached hereto. 3. That the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City of La Quinta. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of June, 2002, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins ABSTAIN: None ABELS, Chairman Quinta, California ATTEST: Jerry rr ian.1 Com unity Development Director City o La uinta, C lifornia p:\stan\ea 2002-455.frm Planning Commission Resolution 2002-071 Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2002-455, General Plan Amendment 2002-087, Tentative Tract Map 30521 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lido Equity Partners. 111 West Ocean Boulevard, #1550 Long Beach, CA 91790 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Neighborhood Commercial and Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium 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.) The General Plan Amendment is required to allow single family residential lots in the Low Density Residential land use category. The Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide 43.81 acres into 147 residential lots and lettered lots for streets and retention basins. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Single Family Residential units South: Vacant, designated for Tourist Commercial West: Vacant land East: Single Family Residential units 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable RTC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.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. 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, because all potentially significant effects la) 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. ►� .:5DAVM Signature June 7. 2002 Date u a] P:\STAN\UdoEACk1st.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 PAPC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.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) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to 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 nonagricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) P:\PC Peso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X E 1' X X 1 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? (General Plan MEA, 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? (General Plan MEA, 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?(General Plan MEA, 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? (General Plan MEA, 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?(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) 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? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002) 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 Archaeological Associates, May 2002) X X X X X X 3 P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD 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? (Letter Archaeological Associates, May 2002) 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) 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) 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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) 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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD X 94 X X X X X X X X X X X 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? (Geocheck Report, EDR, April 2002) 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) Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) 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. III-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 6.6) RTC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD X X X X X X X 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.) 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? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Eilar & Associates, June 2002) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) X X X 0 X X X X X X PAPC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: XIII 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) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) 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 p. 22 ff.) U X X X X X X X FN X P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD 9 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 p. 22 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (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? (Application materials) 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.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: X X X X X X X X X X X X P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD 10 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? j"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. X X X X Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. 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. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD 11 General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Revised Acoustical Analysis Report, Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002 Geocheck Report, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., April 23, 2002 Archaeological Associates, Letter dated May 1, 2002 P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Cklst.WPD 12 Planning Commission Resolution 2002-071 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-455 I. d) The area in which the project will be built is generally developed in single family homes, and generates limited amounts of light. The Indian Wells Tennis Garden, located west and north of the project site, can generate considerable light when evening events occur there. There is sufficient distance, however, between the project site and this land use to lower the potential impacts to a less than significant level. The project itself will generate light, but as a single family subdivision, this impact will be less than significant. III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map will result in 147 single family homes at build out. These homes are likely to generate a total of 1,407 trips per day at build out'. Based on this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 36.34 1.4 7.45 -- 0.16 0.16 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 1,407 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, year 2005. " 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. III. c) The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has "Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on Single Family Detached (210) category. P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Addendum.WPD the potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM 10 concentrations in the Valley. 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 PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. Further, the SCAQMD has drafted a revision to the state Implementation Plan for PM10 which includes a number of potential mitigation measures. The adoption of this document is expected in June 2002. The potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the 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. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street and Miles Avenue, as well as the perimeter wall for this project, shall be installed with the first phase of development. 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. 10. Should construction begin after the adoption of the revised Implementation Plan for PM10, the measures included in that plan shall be implemented for this project. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout will not be significant P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Addendum.WPD IV. a) The proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed lizard. The project proponent will be required to pay the required fee prior to issuance of building permits. This payment will serve to mitigate the potential impacts to this species. V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed projectz. Both a records search and field survey were conducted. No cultural resources were found. The study recommends, however, that the following mitigation measure be required: 1. An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone IV 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 and the State'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. VIII. b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. All homes built on the project area 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 to groundwater. The proposed tract 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. d) The proposed project will result in homes, roads and driveways on a parcel which is currently vacant. The City Engineer will require that all phases of the tract 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. 2 Letter dated May 1, 2002, Archaeological Associates. P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Addendum.WPD XI. a) The proposed project occurs in an area of the City subject to high noise levels due to traffic. A noise analysis was completed for the proposed project3. The study found that without mitigation, 50% of the lots on the proposed site would be significantly impacted by noise. In order to mitigate the potential impacts, the study recommends the following mitigation measures, which will be implemented: 1. A 6 foot wall shall be built on all sides of the proposed project. In addition, the wall along the northern property line of lots 140 and 141 shall be constructed on top of a 4 foot high berm. 2. For all homes which face or have direct exposure to Washington Street or Miles Avenue an acoustical analysis shall be submitted with building permits which demonstrates that the interior noise levels in the homes will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The acoustical analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits for these lots. XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur adjacent to the project site on the north and east sides. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. 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 southeast corner of the site. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XIII. a) The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services. 3 "Revised Acoustical Analysis Report," prepared by Douglas Eilar & Associates, June 4, 2002. PAPC Reso & COA\lido EA Addendum.WPD The project proponent will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. P:\PC Reso & COA\lido EA Addendum.WPD j \� ; \U ( 4 u u )/ 7 $ § ! / Ix 9 { )/ \ 2 � {; § § \/ u= \ ® ) / ®4 / @ � \ \ cn u 'e \ 4�a \ U $� 2 m ej � \\ �\ j \ \ ! ©© e \ to ƒ � ƒ / / { / E E P. to to \v \ \ _ _ @ � ( ( / _ \ 2 �z w t / FO \ } / §\ 7 ( __ S , to ;_ . \/ \ /\ un \ CA / \ \ \ ■ .• o z k \ \ / j / � / \ \9z ; \U / a \ \ \ \ \ )f \ \ ( ) r {7 £ - u .§.\ .§.e&\ J \ \/\ \ {\ƒ / / / A. C.m P. z ± 3 k \ / 22 In. - ® ) k \ / » t \ \ z \ to 3 rto { u u u G u// / e \ \ § C m tc § ) \ ) a \ '\ A ± / E u s ƒ \ \