PCRES 2002-101PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-101
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
(EA 2002-458) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-061,
PARCEL MAP 30586 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2002-071
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-458
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
22"d day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request
of Winchester Development to allow two residential lots to development on 4.06
acres located within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District by means of a Specific
Plan (SP 2002-061), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2002-071) and a Parcel Map (TPM
), collectively "the Project", generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment,
south of Quarry Lane, more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF A.P.N. 766-050-008
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the Project;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on October 22, 2002 did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on
October 12, 2002 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public
entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the
public hearing before the City Council on November 19,2002 ; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on October 12,
2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
P:\PC Reso & COA\October 2002\adopted PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-101
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2 The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-458.
SECTION 4: The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number,or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
P:\PC Reso & COA\October 2002\adopted PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-101
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
SECTION 7: The Project will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 9: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based is the La Quinta
City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order
to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial
evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code
of Regulations 753.5(d)•
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
for certification.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
P:\PC Reso & COA\October 2002\adopted PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-101
Environmental Assessment 2002-458
Winchester Development
Adopted October 22, 2002
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment
2002-458 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community
Development Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler
NOES: Commissioner Kirk
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
R CH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERAY- ERM, N,`Community Development Director
City of IJa Quinta, California
P:\PC Reso & COA\October 2002\adopted PC RESO EA 2002-458.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-061, Conditional Use Permit 2002-071,
and Tentative Parcel Map 30586, a portion of Quarry Ranch
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: South side of Tom Fazio Lane South, approximately 1,500
feet east of Jefferson Street
APN: 766-050-008
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Winchester Development
1 Quarry Lane
La Quinta, CA 92253
0
7
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Specific Plan is proposed to establish development standards and guidelines
for the development of two lots within the Quarry Ranch property. The total
land area proposed is 4 acres. The Specific Plan is proposed to allow
development in an area controlled by the City's hillside conservation regulations.
The Specific Plan will allow development in an area of more than 20 percent
slope.
The Conditional Use Permit is required by the hillside conservation regulations
for any project proposed above the toe of slope.
The Parcel map will divide 18.51 acres into two residential parcels and a
remainder parcel to be used for golf course development. Parcel 1 will be 1 .98
acres in size and Parcel 2 will be 2.08 acres in size.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACklst-458.wpd
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Existing single family residential and golf course (The Quarry)
South: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential
West: Existing single family residential (The Quarry), Low Density Residential
East: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACklst-458.wpd
2
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
Hazards and Hazardous
Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Recreation
Air Quality
Land Use Planning
Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
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
11
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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
INS
I-
FEW
I0I
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
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
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Site topography, Slope Study,Figure 5-4)
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, Property Owner)
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? (No ag. land in proximity to
project site)
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, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
a
M
1�
ON
0
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry
Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval,
Tentative Tract 30651)
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 Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions
of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, veinal 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 Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc.,
June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
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 Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc.,
June 2002, Final Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("General
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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 Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Final Conditions
of Approval, Tentative Tract 30651)
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? ("Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 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)?("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June
2002)
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? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith
Co., June 2002)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
04
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 6
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation..."
Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July
2002)
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? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July
2002)
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? ("Geotechnical
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd
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. 95 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)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Hydrology... and Drainage
Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
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 FIR 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? (Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and
Assoc., July 2002)
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? (Hydrology... and
Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Hydrology... and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July
2002)
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
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
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.
74 ff.)
X
X
X
K
X
9
X
X
M
X
E2
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 8
X.
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
XI.
MI.
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.)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan
land use map)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
X
M
rd
fi
X
G1
X
X
a
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1s1-458.wpd
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
ru
XVI.
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)
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?(General Plan EIR p. III-29 ff.)
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? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Tract Map
30651)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 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. 58 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.
58 ff.)
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACklst-458.wpd
10
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. 58 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. 58 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. 58 ff.)
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
km
VA
F.4
R
d1
M
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 2002-452 was used in this analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 11
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..., prepared by the Keith Companies, June, 2002.
Geotechnical Investigation..., Prepared by Sladden Engineering, July 2002
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study..., Prepared by Tettemer and Associates, July 2002
Personal communication, Patti Schwartz, engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, July and August,
2002
Specific Plan text, Specific Plan 2002-061
Section 9.140.040, HC, hillside conservation regulations of the La Quinta Municipal Code
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\QuarryEACk1st-458.wpd 12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-458
a) & c)
The proposed project is not located within a General Plan Image Corridor.
The two lots proposed for development would be graded at an elevation of
approximately 77 feet, and will be surrounded by open space and recreation
areas. The location of two residences will not constitute a significant impact
on the Coral Reef mountains at this location.
I. b) The project site consists of a rock outcropping, which would be graded, and
potentially significantly impacted. The City's hillside conservation regulations,
however, will be implemented with the proposed Specific Plan and
Conditional Use Permit. The hillside conservation regulations were designed
to restrict development in hillside areas with more than 20% slope. Both lots
contain this type of slope, with Parcel 2 including 70% of its surface in
slopes in excess of 20%, while Parcel 1 has 33% of its area in slopes of
more than 20%. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed
project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . The provisions of the hillside conservation regulations shall be applied
to the parcels contained in Tentative Parcel Map 30586.
I. d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light since only two units can
ultimately be built on the two parcels. The City's dark sky ordinance will be
applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed homes. These
requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties. The
potential impacts associated with light and glare for two homes are not
expected to be significant.
Il. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The
Tentative Parcel Map will result in the construction of 2 homes, which will
generate up to 19 average daily trips'. Based on this trip generation, the
proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
1"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on single family detached home category.
P:\FRED\Wash ParkEA-Add458.wpd
Running Exhaust Emissions
Table III -7
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout• _ (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
4 26.4 107.184
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 0.59 0.02 0.12 -- 0.00 0.00
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 19 trips/day and average trip length of 6 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. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality
violations, since buildout will generate only 2 homes.
III. c) & d)
The construction of the proposed project will have the potential to generate
dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley
is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller).
The proposed parcel map would result in the disturbance of 4.06 acres of land,
and the cutting of 21,864.79 cubic yards of dirt from the site. This has the
potential to generate the following amount of fugitive dust.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
Table III -?
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout• (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
4 26.4 107.184
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10.
These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed
project. The contractors of all homes on the site will be required to submit a
PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In
addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the
measures below.
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. Slope stabilizing landscaping shall be installed
immediately upon completion of grading of said slopes.
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.
P:\FREMW ashParkEA-Add458.wpd
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of 2 homes will not generate any objectionable odors.
IV) a)-f)
A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project as part of
the review of Tentative Tract Map 3065 12 . The assessment found that although
the project occurs in the potential habitat area for several species of concern,
the habitat on the project site has been degraded by off -road vehicle use and
illegal dumping, and these species are not expected to occur on the site.
During the City Council review of the previous Tentative Tract Map 30651, the
applicant for the proposed project accepted additional conditions of approval
relating to biological resources, which are to mitigate the potential impacts to
biological resources on the site. These conditions are listed below.
1 . The existing streambed located 300' west of lot 25 will not be altered in
any way without prior consent of the Department of Fish and Game, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City of La Quinta.
2. The applicant will provide to the City of La Quinta or its designee, 3 acres
(3:1 Ratio) of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate
agreed upon location or $1,500 for property acquisition related to
potential streambed alteration. The applicant will also provide 120 acres
(2:1 Ratio) of mitigation property in Martinez Canyon or an alternate
agreed upon location or a maximum of $60,000 related to possible loss
of potential bighorn habitat. Payment shall be made in the form of a
security bond as approved by California Department of Fish and Game
and be made prior to grading.
3. Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides
and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project
Site will not be harmful to wildlife.
4. A construction plan shall be prepared and demonstrate, to the extent
practicable, construction activities that emit excessive noise will be
avoided adjacent to the hillside. In addition, during grading and
construction activities any blasting or pile -driving near the hillside will not
occur during the period from Jan. 1 through June 3011h
.
2"General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by V BC, Inc., July 24, 2002.
P:\FRED\ W ashParkEA-Add458.wpd
5. The landscape plan shall include only plants that are non -toxic to wildlife.
All exotic plants such as tamarisk and fountain grass are prohibited.
Existing trees may remain.
6. If Bighorn Sheep enter onto the Project Site, an 8-foot fence (or the
functional equivalent) between the development and the hillside, if any,
shall be constructed. The gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or
less. If determined necessary, the developer shall construct temporary
fencing while permanent fencing is constructed. The fence shall not
contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. If the developer
transfer or disposes of any of the property adjacent to the hillside, the
developer shall reserve an easement sufficient for the construction of
fencing if needed in the future.
7. Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the project area, and shall
be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and
fencing, where applicable.
8. Access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the
use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as
part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.
9. The final design of the project shall insure that road and driveways are
designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.
10, In all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non -glare glass shall be used in new
construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside.
Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity
and aimed away from the hillside.
11. The developer shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement with the
Department of Fish and Game prior to grading if required under the
California Fish and Game Code.
Since the proposed project falls under the boundaries of the previous approval,
the conditions of approval listed above shall also apply to Tentative Parcel Map
30586, and will serve as mitigation for this project. Impacts to biological
resources are not expected to be significant.
V. a)-d)
A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project as
part of the review of Tentative Tract Map 3065 13 . The survey found no historic
structure on the site, but did identify a historic trash dump. The survey also
3"A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith Companies, June 12,
2002.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.vvpd
identified a prehistoric site, in the form of sherd scatter. The Phase I.study made
recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic
Preservation Commission, as follows:
1 . An archaeologist shall be present on and off 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..
2. A Phase II testing program for the historic and prehistoric sites identified
on the project shall be completed and submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to recordation of the final map.
VI. a) i), ii) & iv)
A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site as part of the review
of Tentative Tract Map 3065 14 . The project site lies in a Zone III groundshaking
zone. The site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study 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. These requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding
erosion, however. The project proponent will be required to secure approval
from the Coachella Valley Water District for all flood control plans on the site.
These plans will be required to include control of soil erosion. Please also see
hydrology discussion below.
VI.c)-e)
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive, and
that they will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The
geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are loose and that caving
occurred during borings. The soils on the site will not support foundation
designs unless the following mitigation measure is implemented:
1 . All building areas shall be watered and recompacted as described in the
geotechnical analysis, resulting in 90% relative compaction to a depth of
at least 2 feet below the existing grade or 3 feet below pad grade,
whichever is deeper.
4"Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry...,' prepared by Sladden
Engineering, July 31, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458. wpd
VII. a)-h)
The construction of 2 homes on the project site will not expose residents or
neighbors to hazards or hazardous materials. The site is not located within an
airport land use plan. The site is not located within a wildland fire area. All
emergency responses will be implemented in accordance with the City's
Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the County of Riverside.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows tributary to the Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris
were also identified as issues in this area, due to its proximity to the Coral Reef
Mountains. The proposed project will tie into the proposed improvements for
Tentative Tract Map 30651, which include an earthen ditch with flood wall at
the southwest corner of the adjacent tract, another along the southern boundary
of the site, and a trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street right of way.
CVWD required the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage study
for Tentative Tract Map 306515, to address flood control issues throughout the
site. CVWD is still reviewing the materials at this writing, but has indicated that
the proposed improvements, with some modifications, will reduce the impacts
associated with drainage and flood control on the site to less than significant
levels. In order to assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control
improvements from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth
moving activity at the site.
VIII. b)
Buildout of the site will result in the construction of 2 homes which will utilize
groundwater for domestic and landscaping. The Coachella Valley Water District
provides domestic water to the subject property. The 2 homes 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 project will also meet the requirements of the City's
water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
IX. a) & c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing
country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for the project site. The project will neither divide an
existing community, nor conflict with a habitat or natural community
conservation plan.
5^Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study for quarry Ranch....," prepared by Tettemer and
Associates, July 2002.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
IX. b) The proposed project is proposed for an area governed by the City's hillside
conservation regulations. These regulations explicitly limit the potential for
development within the City's hillsides. The regulations are designed to
specifically protect the valuable asset the City has identified in its hillsides. The
project proponent has completed the required Specific Plan and Conditional Use
Permit required under the regulations. As such, the potential impacts have been
mitigated, with the exception of the preparation of a Site Development Permit.
This standard will be imposed at the time that actual development is proposed
for parcels 1 and 2. This final standard will be the final mitigation of potential
impacts.
1. The proposed project shall conform to the hillside conservation
regulations pertaining to the preparation of Site Development Permits for
the two residential units.
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impacts to the City's
regulations relating to impacts on an environmental effect will be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI.a) The project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise
levels. The location of 2 homes on the site will not generate significant noise
levels. The impacts associated with noise are not expected to be significant.
XI.c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the north and west, of the site. 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 as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of only
2 residential units. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
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.
The 2 homes within the parcel map boundary 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 parcel map 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.
XIV. a) & b)
The construction of 2 homes will not impact recreational services, insofar as the
homes will be located within a country club with recreational amenities. The
generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that
standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development
occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than
significant level.
XV. a) & b)
The buildout of the proposed project will result in 19 average daily trips. The
proposed project falls well within the land use analysed in the General Plan EIR
traffic study, which found that surrounding roadways in the project area will
operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout. The impacts associated
with traffic are not expected to be significant.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the map does not create
any hazardous design features. The homes will be required to provide parking
according to City standards. The map provides for emergency access points.
Alternative transportation in the form of trails will be implemented throughout
the area based on General Plan policies and programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer and individual
homeowners will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of the
utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities. These
fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the site.
P:\FRED\WashParkEA-Add458.wpd
w
7-2
Q
a
PLO
Q
W
F
W
F
91
L1
U F�1
U0.1
a4
Q. V
V
U U
U U
U
ro
u
m
a
o R
R
ro
�
w0
Ur
O
ur
O
w0
O
U
O
O
�
�Ya
F
vOi
F
G
�
G
vOi
N
C
G
v
.v
Rv
v
o�
o�
o�000
b '
aR
a
aRw
aRaSoa.
c
�z
E
C)z
E
ro
ro
ro
G
YO
m
W
W
oGn
7
aFo
U fa
U
U
U
U a
N
M
�b
°
O
U
m
r�
F
G
O
�
LYy
G
y
U
y
cd
O
ro in
G
N
G
U
ti
x
G
X
ri
\
}
}
\
\�-
§d
\§
\(
/U
\�
\
u
}( }(
}
/to
to
\
to
E
to
0
/
/
/b
r.
\ }
\
\
[/
[/
\
[\
ƒ\
2
»® «#
2
6
2
{®
§2
{®
m
�
§\ ){
\
§\
§\
26 3/
\
)
)m
w/
\
§\
{} \
2\
*\
\
\
/
a
)
E
)\ )
2
\
)
0
\
/
}\
\
))
\�
(
j
j
\
E/
2
2
2
§
/
2
2
\
\
{
�b
}
;
p
±
a
=
/
�