PCRES 2003-048PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-048
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 2002-
465) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30138
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-465
APPLICANT: DAN JEWITT
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for the above -cited applications to develop a 47-lot single family
development on 14.69 acres, located on the north side of Avenue 52, approximately
0.5 miles east of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
APN: 772-270-009
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
June 10, 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 July 8, 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 June 16, 2003, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk on June 16, 2003, 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 July 8, 2003, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project; and
G:Tr31289 fo Ider/ResoPCEAJew itt. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-048
EA 2002-465 for Dan Jewitt
Adopted: July 8, 2003
Page 2
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 2002-465.
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 and is being used for a commercial nursery.
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
G: Tr31289 folder/ResoPCEAJewitt.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-048
EA 2002-465 for Dan Jewitt
Adopted: July 8, 2003
Page 3
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
of Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
-- to the City Council for final certification.
G: Tr31289folder/ResoPCEAJewitt. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-048
EA 2002-465 for Dan Jewitt
Adopted: July 8, 2003
Page 4
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 81h day of July, 2003, by the vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
T KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
PEWAN, Community Development Director
La Quinta, California
G: Tr3 l 289folder/ResoPCEAJewitt. wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30138 (Revised)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location:
North side of Avenue 52, approximately 2,000 feet west of Madison
Street.
APN: 772-270-009
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Dan Jewett, 49810 Little Big Horn, Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. 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.)
Tentative Tract Map to allow the subdivision of a 14.69 acre parcel into 47
residential lots, interior streets and lettered lots for parkway and retention
purposes. Lot sizes will range from 9,000 square feet to just over 20,000
square feet. The site is currently a commercial plant nursery.
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA 2003-089, ZC 2003-1 10)
were approved by the City Council for this property on May 6, 2003. At that
time, the land use and zoning designations were changed from Very Low
Density Residential to Low Density Residential.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: All American Canal, Golf Course
South: Golf Course
West: Commercial plant nursery, All American Canal
East: Vacant desert lands approved for 60 lots subdivision in May 2003
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local public agencies (e.g., Coachella Valley Water District, etc.)
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fold er\Checklst465.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
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
[a
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.
105
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
El
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.
❑�
/s/ Greg Trousdell
Signature
Tune 26, 2003
Date
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fold er\Checklst465.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
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1st465.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan 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)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (Project description
aerial photo)
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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
FN
X
►:1
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Folder\Checklst465.wpd
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
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? (Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation,
McKenna, January 2003)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\PC Reso & COMJuly 8, 2003 Fo1der\Checklst465.wpd
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 Investigation,
McKenna, January 2003)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, McKenna, January
2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation, McKenna, January 2003)
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, March 2003)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March
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
Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March 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 Investigation, Sladden
Engineering, March 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 Investigation, Sladden Engineering, March
2003)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1st465.wpd
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? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 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)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR,
p. III-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? (Hydrology Report, Essi
Shahandeh, P.E., May 2003)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
PAPC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1s1465.wpd
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 Report, Essi Shahandeh, P.E., May
2003)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Hydrology Report, Essi Shahandeh, P.E., May
2003)
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. 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?
(Acoustic Analysis, Impact Sciences, May 2003)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Acoustic
Analysis, Impact Sciences, May 2003)
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
ft
X
a
a
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Folder\Check1st465.wpd
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Acoustic Analysis, Impact Sciences,
May 2003)
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)
XII. 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)
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:
X
F4
7
FA
PQ
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1st465.wpd
9
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
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)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
Description)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 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.)
�t
I•_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
R.
91
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1st465.wpd
10
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?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
X
M
X
X
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 2003-468, prepared for GPA 2003-089, Zone Change 2003-110 and TTM
31123, was used in preparation of this document.
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1deACheck1st465.wpd
11
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002,
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract Map 30138..." prepared by
McKenna et al., January, 2003.
"Avenue 52 Acoustic Analysis," prepared by Impact Sciences, May, 2003.
"Tentative Tract 30138 Hydrology Report," prepared by Essi Shahandeh, Civil Engineer, May,
2003.
"Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 30138," prepared by Sladden Engineering, March,
2003.
P:\PC Reso & COA\July 8, 2003 Fo1der\Check1st465.wpd
12
0
0
0
N
N
r-
m
M
O
M
M
o
H
N
V
N
a
d
U
C
O
N
w
F
Q
O
z
w
H
a
U m
�Q
au
a
OU
U
T
°
Q
'b
b
C
°
id
ro
O
N
U
0
Fw.
ti
y
v
U
o
0
ao
G
�
v
U
C
00
bA
a. U
5q
on
U
O y
U
O
N O
toto
C
OA
bD
O
L
a�
L
pp L
G
C
r
a
a as
w
aw
ro C
onq
7
q
?
q
Wz
s
to
to
t4
r
a
aGo
m
ro b
b
b
U
U
U
0.7
U q
>T
N
3
� �
z
°
y
CL
Cl)
Fo
30
oC
N
��.
a
3 oq
U
Q
ro
tQ
vn
w
>
q
°
W
°G
tl
morA
d
U
•
C
c
Q
to
�
�
aro+
N
U
iC
.d
N
U
� •-•
N
O Q,
p
60 H
G.
(
;
\cz
\U
§
�
(
\\
/
\
2
;
\
\E
k§
3
.
/
uo
2\
§
\\
\
\
2
\ 3
))\
/
\�
■
\u
§
2
r
o
! !
k
� }
`
r (
to bb
\ /
Ei
)/
r.
E )
\
&
`
to
j j
/
[
\�
M�
2\to
®e
/mob\
/
¥
/ \
§
z
)
/\ \