PCRES 2003-033PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-
473) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-092, ZONE
CHANGE 2003-114, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31289 AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-769
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-473
APPLICANT: JIM HAYHOE FOR MIKE LANG
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a seven -lot single
family development on 2.33 acres, currently designated for commercial activities,
located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within Lake La Quinta,
more particularly described as:
APN: 643-200-009 to -011; Parcels 9-11 of Parcel Map 27892
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 City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code (PRC) § 21092 on May
15, 2003 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 Planning Commission on June 10, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun
newspaper on May 21, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment letters
on the Mitigated Negative Declaration from local public agencies. Community
Development Department personnel reviewed and considered these comments, and
prepared written responses to these comments which are contained in the staff report;
and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on June 10, 2003, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
G:Tr31289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-033
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 2
Negative Declaration for the Project; and
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 CEQA, 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 (MND), 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 2003-473.
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,
in that the site has been graded under prior development approvals and mitigation fees
were paid on November 20, 1989, to comply with the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
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.
G:T61289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-033
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 3
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.
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 received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 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", is hereby adopted pursuant to PRC § 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
G:Tr31289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-033
EA 2003-473 for Jim Hayhoe
Adopted: June 10, 2003
Page 4
of Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
to the City Council for final certification.
SECTION 16: The Community Development Director shall cause to be
filed with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a) once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 101" day of June, 2003, by the vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Ables, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RIC BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
HEffVfAN, Community Development Director
La Quinta, California
G:T61289folder/ResoPCEA473 Hayhoe.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003-092, Zone Change 2003-114, Tentative
Tract Map 31289 and Site Development Permit 2003-769
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta, Community Development
Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 (760-777-7125)
Project Location: Northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence (APN: 643-200-009,
-010 and -01 1)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Hayhoe, P. O. Box 4378, Palm Desert, CA
92261
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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Community Commercial to Low
Density Residential to allow for the construction of single family residential dwelling
units.
Tentative Tract Mao to subdivide 2.33 acres into seven single family residential lots.
Minimum lot size will be 12,938 square feet, with an average lot size of 14,518
square feet.
Site Development Permit to review and approve the design of homes greater than
3,000 square feet and parkway landscaping.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Bed and Breakfast Inn
South: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
West: Community Commercial lands, mostly vacant, with several approved
commercial projects
East: Lake La Quinta, Low Density Residential development
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) -
Coachella Valley Water District
AACEQAchecklistEA 03-473Final.wpd
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
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
El
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. 12
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.
EJ
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 FIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
/s/ Greg Trousdell Associate Planner May 14, 2003
❑
A:\CEQAchecklistEA 03-473Final.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 analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
A:\CFQAchecklistEA 03-473Final.wpd
3
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?
(Aerial photograph)
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, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
G/
X
IN
ft
0
0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
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 Biological Resources
Element, all exhibits)
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 Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
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 Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? (General Plan
Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
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? (General Plan
Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous Lake La Quinta investigations)
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)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous Lake La
Quinta investigations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, previous
Lake La Quinta investigations)
Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
it) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
in) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003)
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 letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
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 letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
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 letter Report,
Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003)
V1I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
I) 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'? (General Plan FIR, p. III-
187 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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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? (Project Preliminary
Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Project
Preliminary Grading Plan)
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)
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.
74 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? (General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Parking lot-- 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)
M
X
i7
X
km
M
X
X
X1l. 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 X
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)
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:
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
FIR, 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)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
X
X
X
X
X
►9
KI
M
M
X
X
ih
14
G:
XVI.
I) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project Description)
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.)
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.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IN
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None
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:
faster 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
Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May 2003
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-473
a)-d)
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map
and Site Development Permit will result in the construction of seven, one-story
single family homes on approximately 2.33 acres (three parcels). The potential
impacts associated with detached homes is considerably less than commercial
development. No impact is expected from buildout of the proposed project.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a), b) & d)
The construction of seven single family homes will result in fewer impacts than
that which could be caused by commercial development. The impacts to air
quality standards or existing plans is expected to be negligible.
The construction of the seven homes will result in the creation of dust during
construction operations. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area
for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 2.33 acres of
land. The site had previously been mass graded as part of the Lake La Quinta
master planning process. Although this mass grading will result in less grading
than might otherwise be expected, the project geologist still recommends that
remedial grading be undertaken. This has the potential to generate 61.5 pounds
per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. The site is also in a high
wind erosion hazard area. These factors will result in a potential impact without
mitigation. Mitigation measures have been included to address this issue.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10.
These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities:
Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation,
track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
The contractor 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.
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 ongoing 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. Landscaping of front yards shall be completed as soon as possible to
reduce the potential for dust generation.
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. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards
included in the 2002 SIP for PM10 in the Coachella Valley.
The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors.
IV. a)-f)
The project site has been previously graded, and contains little if any native
vegetation. Further, the site is isolated, and surrounded on all sides by other
developments or by previously graded lands. No significant biological resources
are expected to occur on the site, nor is any significant habitat in existence
there. The impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be
negligible.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
V. a)-d)
As previously stated, the site has been previously mass graded. The occurrence
of any cultural resources is highly unlikely. Since the City has previously been
a rich source of archaeological material, however, a mitigation measure is
proposed, should any significant resource be found during the grading process.
1 . Should any archaeological resource be uncovered during the site grading
process, all work in that area shall cease, and an archaeological monitor,
meeting the City's qualifications, shall be called to inspect the site. The
archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect 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 completion of the project.
VI. a) i)-iv)
A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project'. The geotechnical
analysis found that the site occurs 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. 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.
VI. b) The site is located in a high blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject
to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to
implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard
against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the
potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level.
VI. c►-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development
proposed by the project proponentz. The project geologist recommends the
implementation of remedial grading techniques to ensure the proper compaction
of the soils at the site. A number of recommendations were also made regarding
the footings and foundations at the site. The implementation of these
recommendations will lower the potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
I Letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May, 2003.
z Ibid.
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
VII. a)-h)
The construction of seven homes will not generate hazardous materials, or a risk
of upset associated with those materials. The City's household hazardous waste
requirements will be implemented. No impact associated with hazardous waste
is expected as a result of the proposed project.
Vlll.a)&b)
The construction of seven homes will not significantly impact water supply, nor
will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The construction of
commercial space on the site, which could accommodate up to 35,000 square
feet of retail, office or restaurant use under the current land use designation,
would likely have an equal or greater impact on water supply or water
standards.
Vlll.c)&d)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on- and off -site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all projects retain the 100-year storm on -
site, unless otherwise allowed under the Master Drainage Plan for Lake La
Quinta. The proposed project will be required to conform to these standards,
which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, the construction of homes is likely to result in less impermeable
surfaces on the site than would be expected with commercial or office
development, so that the potential for on -site percolation is greater with the
proposed project than would be expected with commercial development.
VIII. e)-g)
The construction of seven homes will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year
storm area.
IX. a)-c)
The project will not divide an existing community. On the contrary, the project
represents an extension of the residential land uses which currently occur east
and south of the site. The General Plan currently designates this property for
Community Commercial development. However, its location off the major
arterial (Washington), makes the site less desirable for commercial development.
The requested change in General Plan and Zoning designations will add to the
inventory of available residential land in the City, and only fractionally reduce
the amount of commercial land available. The impacts to land use and planning
associated with the proposed change in land use designation is expected to be
less than significant.
The site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan for which fees were paid in the amount of
$85,236.00 on November 20, 1989 (Tract 24230) for the entire Lake La Quinta
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
development of 142.06 acres. Payment of the mitigation fee ensure any
potential impacts are less than significant.
X. a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & b)
The construction of seven homes will have no significant effect on the noise
environment. The project will not generate either excessive noise levels or
ground borne vibration.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the south and east of the site but are
separated by roadways and a lake. The construction will be a sufficient distance
away that noise levels at the residential property lines should be well below City
maximum permitted standards.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The proposed project will result in seven housing units, which are likely to
generate about 15 residents. This increase in population is not significant. No
impacts are expected to population and housing.
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 offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be
required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The impacts on parks will be less than significant, since the
residents will have access to private recreational facilities at Lake La Quinta, and
park fees will be collected as required by Chapter 13.48 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
XIV. a) & b)
Recreational facilities in the City will not be impacted by the addition of about
15 residents. These residents will also have access to the private recreational
facilities available at Lake La Quinta and other citywide public facilities.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed project will generate approximately 67 trips on a daily basis. The
generation of trips from residential development is much less than that of
G:\Tr31289 Hayhoe2003\EA Addendum Hayhoe.wpd
LU
U
z
Q
J
Ca
C
O
U
Qa
z W
U
O ¢
d0
Q U.
J
LL Q
Occ
�O
U ¢
a
^ /
V
z
R
0
H
z
O
2
0
C
m
0
0
ai
O
0
O
0
N
(M
O
z
J
W
U
K
a
y
O
N
N
W
w
N
Q
L)7
O
0
N
M
T
m
W
H
Q
a)
U
C
a)
O
LL
m
c
m
T
CO
in
O
a)
m
U
O
a)
c
`o
U
N
m
a)
L
`0
M�
Q
i
Z
o E
00
C N a)
a
E m M
-O O a m
m0,2mE
c a E
m 0
Q L @
mUH
a C a)
cc
a) 0)y C ( j
C7 O H m O
O
z
W
N
Q
U
N
N
a)
U
O
a`
r_
W
H
Q
0
`a
O
cc
a
a
Q
(M
r-
M
O
O
N
O
z
S
W
Q
W
W
F
Q
LU
W
Z
0
w
F-
Q
O
W
2
H
S
H
z
0
U
W
z
Z
O
U
z
a
O
O
cc
a
a
z
72
Z
c0
C
Z
0
a
H LU
W
m
Ln 2
Y D
F Z
U w
En
Lu 2 U
F' w
0 2 0
L W Q
T
= LU
CL 2
E w~
S ¢
Z OLL
z
o_
Z O F
U J cc
a O J
a w U
Q ~ O
W
F
Q
U m
Z
a w
CL L)
av
E w
O =
U U
N
C:
C
m
c
m
y
a
a
'0
c
V)
m
N
0
D1
O
N
p
W
N
U
C
U
U
F
Va
❑
m
a
m
a
vai
❑ m
�Ua
a
p
c
O N T
Q
N
=
Q p N
U)
a- a-
(n
LpN>
C
r
C
O
C
O
0
O
0 0
z
U
a)
U
(1)
O
Z
`
U
C
N`
�'
U yN,,
C
O)
E
y
E
� E
�-
0
C_
V
U
rn
m
U
C) U
m
C
cm
'6
O
a
m 'o
=p
O —
C
'�
O
`o)
a
a`
a
a.. -
❑
a
N
Y
N
Y
'^
O
20
20
U
U
J
m O
.0
a
N
7
7
m
O
0mom
a)
a)
0
0
a
IL
c
O
m m
m m
00
W
U
m
0) E
O) E
>
> cm
w
m
C
W
C
W
U
c
T
T
° a
= CO
9=
U
U
U
m0
m0
CLco
a)
z
0
0 0
E rn
E
•
v
o y
❑❑c
7
O
N O
"C
C
cn
CTLL, N
N
N
N
d
f' ?
CO
CO
3
U
o
•N
C
cmO
W
D
CL
m
m
N
o
CC
7
Q
O
0
C
O) -C
"O
U
D
U
E
O
m
C O_
N
O
yS
c
"
a)
"
m
U
m
u�
O)
a)
m
a)m
"O
Q
C_
N
m
O. C
C
'5
co m
m
a
0 m
(n
0
o
0
a
at+
W
F—
Q
m
Q
Z
Q w
I Y
av
W
O=
U U
Q
LU
W
W
F
�
C
-p O m
U
C U
m O (0
Y
a 0.
cc
0
rn
Cz_
C C
23
�
C
N
E
00
W Z
CL
O
J
m 0 0
a�
CD
� F
N
❑
Z Z
O p
y C
a
a)
E
W
x
7
E
E a
O N
U ❑
N
C C
d N
Z
2
N
W
O)
uj
O .0
(7 uj
7
I CL
YO
tN
O a
V%LU
w
¢
O
E
Q
J
C
U O
G
O N
fp
J
U
N O
7
U
N O
t �
7
Q w
N