PCRES 2003-095PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-095
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487 PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-792.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-487
APPLICANT: WHITECO RESIDENTIAL, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 251h day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by Whiteco Residential, LLC, for approval of development plans to allow a
224 unit apartment complex and ancillary facilities on a 14.54 acre site, generally
located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive, more
particularly described as follows:
APN: 609-051-010
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-487) and has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the Assessment and included in the
Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit 2003-792, and therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment:
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels.
2. The proposed 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
PC Reso EA 03-487.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-095
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory, in that the project has been conditioned to
mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant
levels.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any
wildlife resources on the site.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
the proposed project supports the long-term goals of the General Plan by
providing a variety of housing for City residents. The project is consistent with
the General Plan and will round out the housing available in the City.
5. The proposed 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 proposed project in that the site will be developed
under the appropriate density under the General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures have
been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-487
and said Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
P:\PC Reso & COA\November 25, 2003\PC Reso EA 03-487.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-095
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-487 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.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-487 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25' day of November 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ZKIRK, Chairriian
of La Quinta, California
P:\PC Reso & COA\November 25, 2003\PC Reso EA 03-487.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-095
Environmental Assessment 2003-487
Whiteco Residential, LLC
November 25, 2003
ATTEST:
X !/ 4
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\PC Reso & COA\November 25, 2003\PC Reso EA 03-487.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Site Development Permit 2003-792, Monte Vista Apartments
2. Lead agency name and address:
L�
0
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
Project location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive
Project sponsor's name and address: WhiteCo. Residential, LLC
350 N. La Salle St,. Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60610
General Plan Designation: High Density
Residential
Zoning: High 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 Site Development Permit will allow the construction of 224 apartments on a 14.54 acre
site. Apartments will be distributed through 18 two-story buildings. Units will be upper and
lower, with some units located above garages. Apartments will range in size between 755
and 1,344 square feet, and will include one and two bedroom units.
Parking is to be provided by garages, carports and open spaces. Parking spaces total 456
spaces, of which 84 are garages, 234 are carports, and 138 are open parking spaces.
A 4,173 square foot clubhouse, to include leasing offices, an exercise room, a club room,
restrooms, a pool and spa, will be located near the entry point off of Washington Street.
Another pool and spa will be located in the eastern portion of the project site with restroom
facilities.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant desert land (County of Riverside)
South: Vacant desert land, future school site (City of La Quinta)
West: Washington Street, Single and Multi -family Residential beyond (City of Palm Desert)
East: Single Family residential and Landscaping Nurseries (City of La Quinta)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
F -1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X 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 project proponent. 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" impact 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
November 3, 2003
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
-2-
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant
Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures 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.
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.
-3-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic
X
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The proposed Site Development Permit includes two story buildings which could
potentially block views to the west of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The potential
impacts would be to single family homes to the east of the site. The project design,
however, mitigates the potential impacts associated with the building height, insofar
as there is a distance of at least 65 feet from the project boundary, and the buildings
are generally angled away from the houses. The potential impacts are therefore
reduced since the bulk of the building will not face the existing homes. The site
design and distance to existing single family homes, therefore, mitigate the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light, insofar as the City's dark sky
ordinance will be implemented for all lighting plans. These requirements do not allow
lighting to spill over to other properties. The potential impacts associated with light
and glare are not expected to be significant.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The proposed project is not in agriculture, nor is there agricultural uses in the
vicinity. The project site is surrounded by urban development, and is not in a rural
portion of the City.
M
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project will
result in the construction of 224 apartments. The traffic study for the previous project
on the site estimated trip generation for the apartments at 5.86 average daily trips
(ADT) per unit, resulting in total ADT of 1,313 for the currently proposed project'.
Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following
emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site.
"Traffic Impact Study — Dutch Parent Entitlement," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(bounds ber dav)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/day
1,313
x 10
=
13,130
PM10
PMio
PM10
Pollutant ROC
CO NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 1,181.70
30,724.20 6,302.40
131.30
131.30
Pounds at 50 mph 2.61
67.82 13.91
0.29
0.29
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 12,895 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of the SCAQMD's
threshold criteria for pollutants generated by vehicle trips. Impacts are therefore
expected to be less than significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10
(Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much
stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and
during project operations. These measures will be integrated into conditions of
approval for the proposed project. 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
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 384 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. 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 PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
In
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.
Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
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.
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.
Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall
be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix
hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street, Palm Royale
Drive and Darby Road shall be installed immediately following mass grading
of the site. The retention areas and interior recreational areas shall also be
landscaped or chemically stabilized immediately following mass grading.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end
of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in
the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with PM 10
are expected to be less than significant.
III. d) & e) The development of 224 apartments will not subject people to significant pollutant
concentrations, nor will it create objectionable odors.
0
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means (General Plan .
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p.
73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
-10-
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and shall be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at
the time development occurs. This mitigation measure shall reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5 (Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological
Advisory Group, March, 2002. Phase II
Historical Study, Archaeological Advisory
Group, June, 2002.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
(Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment,
Archaeological Advisory Group, March, 2002.
Phase II Historical Study, Archaeological
Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment, Archaeological Advisory Group,
March, 2002. Phase II Historical Study,
Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 2002.)
V. a), b) & d) Phase I and II cultural resource surveys were completed for the entire site. The Phase
I investigation recommended the completion of a Phase II study, based on the
potential historic resources identified on the site. The Phase II study made
recommendations for mitigation measures which were confirmed by the Historic
Preservation Commission, as follows:
An archaeologist shall be present on site during all grubbing and earth moving
activities. 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 occupancy of the first building on
the site.
2. Commemorative plaques honoring Iona Mackenzie and Raymond Darby shall
be placed within the proposed project.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological Advisory Group, March, 2002. Phase II Historical
Study, Archaeological Advisory Group, June, 2002.
12-
3. The main drive through the project shall be renamed from Palm Royale Drive
to Mackenzie Drive.
-V. e) The site is outside the historic lakebed for ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not
expected to contain resources.
-13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
X
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
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? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. i), iii), iv),
b)-d) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to landslides or liquefaction. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would
support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic
hazards.
VI. a) ii) The project site lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest
of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major
-14-
earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's and the State's
standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for
seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than
significant level.
15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled 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
X
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
X
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
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 170
T12
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The construction of residential uses on the proposed project site will not result in
significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the
standards of the Household Hazardous Waste programs in place through its waste
provider. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or
within the project itself, are less than significant.
17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
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 (e.g., 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-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (Preliminary
Grading Plan)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
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?
(Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (Preliminary
Grading Plan)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
M
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master
Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
X
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property.
The proposed apartment project will generate 224 apartments. All units will be
required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures
and landscaping, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater.
These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and
has been designed to include retention areas within the project. The City Engineer
requires that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site, and this will be
accomplished in the landscaped areas of the project. These City requirements are
expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of the proposed project 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.
za
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
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 purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site, and
is located in an area where other apartments occur, particularly to the north on
Washington Street. The implementation of the Site Development Permit is not
expected to have any impact on land use and planning.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource 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
X
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.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered
to have potential for mineral resources.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a), b), d)-f) Portions of the project site adjacent to Washington Street are subject to high
noise levels due to traffic, and will need to be studied prior to construction of the
apartment buildings. In order to mitigate the potential impacts, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Project specific noise analysis shall be completed for any residential structures
within 300 feet of Washington Street.
-22-
XI. c) The construction of the apartment project will generate noise from construction
equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the east 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:
All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall
be located in the northwestern portion of the site.
Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
'
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
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
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will provide 224 housing units in the area, and is therefore a
beneficial impact to the housing market, adding to the variety of housing stock in the
City.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
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 project will also be required to pay the City's traffic impact fee, which helps to
offset costs for regional circulation improvements.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
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
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes pools, spas, a clubhouse and open space recreation
which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential
impacts to City facilities.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
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)?
("Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog &
Crabill, Inc., June 2002.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? ("Traffic Impact Study,"
prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
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 due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
I) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) A traffic analysis was prepared for the previously proposed project on this site3. This
analysis included lands to the south to Fred Waring Drive which are not part of the
current proposal. However, the potential impacts of buildout of the area remain, since
"Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., June 2002.
-27-
the General Plan designations on the adjacent properties could generate both office
and retail development. The previous analysis found that the potential impacts
associated with traffic would be slightly lower than those analysed in the General
Plan. The study found that mitigation measures will be required, however, to assure
that project and surrounding roadways operate within an acceptable level of service:
When the area reaches buildout, or when traffic warrants are met, whichever
occurs first, a traffic signal shall be installed at Fred Waring Drive and Palm
Royale Drive.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
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
X
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) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project 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) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-29-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land uses considered in the General Plan
were identical to those proposed, and these were found to result in adequate levels of
service. It is therefore expected that development of the proposed project will lower
potential impacts to utility providers for the project site.
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
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
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been identified as having significant cultural resources. However,
mitigation measures included above will assure that these potential resources are
protected, and that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing for City residents. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan and will round out the housing available in the City
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and is consistent with
those impacts identified in the General Plan FIR for this area of the City, or the City
as a whole.
-31-
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for
PM10, and the site will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause
negative health effects, Section III., above, includes a number of mitigation measures
to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. The impacts are not expected to be any
more than those identified in the General Plan EIR, which included analysis of more
intense development at the project site. Noise impacts are those associated with
construction, and have been mitigated above to less than significant levels.
-32-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 2002-454, and studies prepared for this document, were used extensively
in this document.
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.
Not applicable.
-33-