PCRES 2003-115PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-115
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31732
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492
APPLICANT: MICHAEL LA MELZA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 23rd day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-492 for Tentative Tract Map
31732, a subdivision of 43.8 acres into 197 residential lots located at the
southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60, more particularly described as:
APN's: 764-290-001 and 764-290-002
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment 2003-492 has complied
with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta
City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an
Initial Study (EA 2003-492) and has determined that although the proposed project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made
a part of the assessment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be certified; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify recommending certification
of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed 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-
492.
P:\stan\ttms\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-115
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 — MICHAEL LA MELZA
ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 2003
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 plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
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 mitigation measures are imposed on the project
that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. The proposed 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.
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.
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
are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-
492 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment 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).
\\CLQADMFSI\PLANNING\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-115
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-492 — MICHAEL LA MELZA
ADOPTED: DECEMBER 23, 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 recommend to the City Council, certification of
Environmental Assessment 2003-492 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan on file in the Community Development
Department and attached hereto (Exhibit "A").
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-492 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of December 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Daniels, Quill, Tyler and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
0
=RRY HERPMAN, Community Development Director
ity 01 La Quinta, California
, Chairman
Quinta, California
\\CLQADMFS 1 \PLAN N I NG\STAN\ttm's\ea 03-492 pc res tt 31732.doc 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-115
Adopted: December 23, 2003
Environmental Checklist Form — EA 2003-492
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 31732
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. APNs: 764-290-001 & -
002
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Michael LaMelza
74900 Highway 111
Indian Wells, CA 92210
6. General plan designation: Medium Density 7. Zoning: Medium High Density
Residential 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 subdivide 41.5 acres into 197 single family residential lots, street lots
and open space lots. The open space, which is also expected to serve as the site's retention
area for flood control purposes, runs from north to south in the center of the property. The
lots are proposed to range from approximately 5,100 square feet to about 8,400 square feet.
Other than the open space/retention area, a park of approximately 0.3 acre in size is proposed
in the western half of the property. Primary access will be taken from Monroe, with a
secondary access point on Avenue 60. Interior streets are proposed to be 32 feet, curb to curb.
The property is part of the eastern extension of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Avenue 60, Vacant Desert Lands
South: Vacant Desert Lands
West: Monroe Street, single family residential development within the Coral Mountain
Specific Plan.
East: Agriculture
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
Bureau of Reclamation (Laterals 123.45-2.3 and 123.45-2.3-1.0)
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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
Systems
Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning
Quality
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
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 IWACT 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
December 10, 2003
Date
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 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 FIR 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.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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
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 resources,
X
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)-d) The proposed project is not located on a General Plan Image Corridor. The approval of
the Tract Map will not result in aesthetic impacts, or impacts from light and glare. The
ultimate construction of homes on the site, which is flat and without significant physical
features, will have only limited impacts on viewsheds in the area, since the City limits
heights for residential structures to one and two stories. Since there are no significant
physical features in the area, and urban uses are being built immediately to the west,
impacts to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signifcantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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 currently in agriculture, and has not been for some time.
Agricultural land uses do occur to the east of the project site, and will remain unaffected
by development of the site. The site is part of a master planned community, in a rapidly
urbanizing area of the City. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject
property. Development of the site will not impact agricultural resources.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 PMIO 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 tract map could
result in 197 single family homes, which could generate up to 1,885 trips per day'. Based
on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions
can be expected to be generated from the project site.
1 "Trip Generation, 6a' Edition:' Institute of Transportation Engineers, Single Family Detached category.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip
Tota
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Length (miles)
miles/da
1,885
x 15
=
28,275
PM10
PM10
PM,
Pollutant ROC
CO NOX Exhaust
Tire Wear
Brake Wea
Grams at 50 mph 2,544.75
66,163.50 13,572.00
282.75
282.7
Pounds at 50 mnh 5.62
146.06 29.96
0.62
0.6
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 1,885 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EWAC7G 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 SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds. The project's potential impacts to air quality 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 1095.6 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 PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
PASTAN\nm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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.
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.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be -employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the
site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust
is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
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.
Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 60 and Monroe Street shall be
installed with the first phase of development on the site.
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
1 1. 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 PM10 Management Plan.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Ill. d) & e) The project will consist of single family homes and will not result in objectionable odors,
nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
P:\STAMttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
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
Exhibits 6.1-6.7)
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 Exhibits 6.1-6.7)
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 Exhibits 6.1-
6.7)
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 nprsery sites? (General Plan
Exhibits 6A -6.7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan Exhibits
6.1-6.7)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
habitat conservation plan? General Plan
Exhibits 6.1-6.7)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site has previously been in agriculture, but has been vacant for some
time. The boundaries of the subject property have been significantly impacted by roadway
improvements, particularly on the Monroe Street frontage. The site is not shown as habitat
for any species of concern in the General Plan. The project is outside the boundary of the
Fringe -toed Lizard Fee Area. Biological resources were previously analysed on the site
under The Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, certified by the County. Impacts of
development of the site to biological resources are expected to be less than significant.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signif icant 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'15064.5?
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..,"
CRM Tech, October 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ' 15064.5?
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..,"
CRM Tech, October 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ("Paleontological Resources
Assessment," CRM Tech, October 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey..," CRM Tech, October 2003)
V. a)-d) A cultural resource survey was completed for the project site as part of the Coral
Mountain Specific Plan EIR2. The survey identified and catalogued 2 sites, CA-RIV-
5211/H and CA-RIV-6115, on the project site. Although site 6115 was determined to be
of no historical significance, Phase I1 investigations were required of site 5211/1-1. These
have yet to be undertaken.
A Phase I1 site investigation will be undertaken and submitted to the Community
Development Department for review. No earth moving permit shall be issued on
this site until the Phase II report has been approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that any potential impacts to cultural
resources are mitigated to a less than significant level.
2 "Cultural Resources Report Coral Mountain Project," prepared by CRM Tech, September 1998,
P:\STAN\um's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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
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? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific
Plan FEIR, #218," September 1988)
Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
("Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, 4218,"
September 1988)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (`Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan FEIR, 4218," September 1988)
iv) Landslides? ("Rancho La Quinta Specific
X
Plan FEIR, #218." September 1988)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
X
loss of topsoil? (`Rancho La Quinta Specific
Plan FEIR, 4218," September 1988)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(`Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan FEIR, 4218:'
September 1988)
e) Have soils inciapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-e) Geotechnical analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EIR. The site
will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of a strong earthquake. The City
will, however, impose Uniform Building Code standards on the project when structures
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
are proposed. The site is located in a liquefaction hazard area. The City requires the
preparation of site -specific geologic analysis with the submittal of grading and building
plans. This analysis will be completed when structures are proposed for the site, and will
determine whether additional construction techniques will be required. The site is not
subject to landslides, and soils on the site are not expected to be expansive. Impacts
associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 physically
X
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 f )
P:\STAN\um's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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
wildlands7 (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 through its waste provider. These
regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project
itself, are less than significant. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
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 drainage
X
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? ("Hydrology Report Tentative
Tract 31732," Tetra Tech, October 2003)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
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 Tentative
Tract 31732," Tetra Tech, October 2003)
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? ("Hydrology
Report Tentative Tract 31732," Tetra Tech,
October 2003)
f) Place housing within a I00-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
delineation map? (Coachella Valley Water
District letter dated 10/20/2003)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The eventual development of the site will result in the need for domestic water
service for residential units and landscaping. The CVWD has prepared a Water
Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate
growth in its service area.
The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and
replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The
project proponent will also be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping
and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized
within the homes. The Coachella Valley Water District will impose conditions of approval
for the treatment of wastewater from the facilities constructed on the project site. The
applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that
potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will
assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant.
The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and CVWD have irrigation lines in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The site is bisected by Lateral No. 123.45-2.3-1.0 and by Tile Drainage
System No. 298. This line must be protected or relocated to ensure that on -site runoff
does not affect the water distributed by the lines. In order to assure that water quality is no
affected, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City
Engineer, the CVWD and the BOR that all appropriate clearances have been
secured and that the location of the irrigation lines have been protected through
appropriate easement(s).
VIII. c) & d) A hydrology study was completed for the proposed project°. 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 through the central
landscaped open space areas of the project. These City requirements are expected to lower
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The CVWD indicated in a letter dated October 20, 2003 that the property is located in an
area designated Flood Zone D by the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps5. This
designation indicates that insufficient data exists to determine the risk associated with
3 Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, CVWD Director of Engineering.
4 "Hydrology Report Tentative Tract 31732," prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., October 2003.
5 Letter dated October 20, 2003, signed Dan Farris, C V WD Director of Engineering.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.dOC
flooding on the property. In order to mitigate for this potential risk, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project site, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer and to CVWD that construction
of the proposed homes will not place these homes in a flooding hazard, and that a
Letter of Map Revision has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 Tract Map conforms to the General Plan and Zoning land use designations
assigned to the site. The development of housing on this property represents a
continuation of the urbanizing pattern experienced in this area of the City. The site is
outside the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Plan fee area.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 outside the boundaries of the Resource Study Area of the
California Department of Conservation, but is consistent with land within the MRZ-I
Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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? ("Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (`Rancho La
Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 218," Westec Services, September
1988)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec
Services, September 1988)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 218," Westec Services, September 1988)
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)
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
XI. a)-f) A noise analysis was conducted for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan EW, The study
found that the proposed project site occurs in an area where noise levels are expected to
exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the property line. The EIR requires that projects in areas where
the 65 dBA CNEL will be exceeded will be required to perform noise analyses to ensure
that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The City requires such analyses as
part of the application for building permits. Therefore, in order to assure that noise levels
are within City standards at the time that structures are constructed on the site, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit; for review and
approval, a noise analysis demonstrating that noise levels on the project site will
not exceed 65 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior, to both the Building
Department and the Community Development Department. Mitigation measures in
that report shall be shown on all building plans.
The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise
generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours. The site is
relatively isolated, and does not occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Impacts associated
with construction noise are therefore expected to be less than significant.
The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport.
6 "Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218," prepared by Westec Services,
September 1988.
P:\STAN\nm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the
property, and is in an area designated for low and medium density residential land uses.
The project will not induce growth or displace an existing community.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII1. 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, p.
X
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, as well as the costs of general government. The
project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits. The project includes considerable areas for open space, which will offset
the need for off -site recreational facilities within the City.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 on site landscaped open space areas which will provide
recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City
facilities.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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)?
(`Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 218," Westec
Services, September 1988))
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (`Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218,"
Westec Services, September 1988))
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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 31732)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31732)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31732)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
Xv. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the densities analysed in the Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 and the City General Plan EIR.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003,492 chklst.doc
Traffic levels in the area of the proposed project are expected to be at acceptable levels at
buildout of the General Plan. The applicant will be required to improve Avenue 60 and
Monroe Street to City standards to ensure adequate.traffic flow. Impacts associated with
the buildout of the project site are expected to be less than significant.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
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 MBA, 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 NJEA, p. 58 ff.)
P:\STAN\nm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity
and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect
connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The CVWD has
indicated that additional facilities may be necessary, and that the project proponent will be
responsible for providing them. The construction of the proposed project is expected to
have less than significant impacts on utility providers.
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?
b) 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)?
c) Does the prcj�ct 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 cultural resources. However, mitigation measures
proposed above will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a
variety of housing opportunities for City residents. The proposed project varies from the
standard subdivision often proposed in the City, and will broaden the City's housing stock.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts and is consistent with the
General Plan designation on the property.
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 PMIO, 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. Noise impacts have been mitigated above to less than
significant levels.
XVM. 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 EIR 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.
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 218 was used in this analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
P:\STAN\ttm's\ea 2003-492 chklst.doc
F
d
°
w
z
L
/
•D
h
(d
Imo.
1+
°
F
x
N
N
iF.
M
�
N
C
y
�
ao
oN
za
o
za
O�
z
9z
ow
. pCA)
a �
W U
aarA
W
W
O
O O
a
p
�TlVda�.ad
F
CO
Ow
G
z o
a
o�C7
O
�¢
a
�U
W
p
M
t-•
HM
CL
m
U
C,
a
z
P
>
Y
w
Cl
F
N
,G
H
z
3
o°¢z
O
W
W
A
U
w
d
w
x
F
w
F
d
A
w
Q
OV
U
0.Y
W
ti
•v
O
U
O
':,
C
O
',U �
O
C
0
C
0
y 0
�"'
�
L
,d •GdG
a
U
a
U
�
a
U
Q
v
�
� 0 0.
aN
_
.E
C
C
b
p
o
oq
o
.c
o
o
o
z�
��r^
'�
U
❑U❑
'3
W
F
o
cl
w
r.
bL'
E
U
o
U
L
^' �'�'
o
U
o
U
bA
DA
b0
U
.`"+ U
YN. �
bq
=
M
OA
C
tq
G
E
0.0.
0.
R. C. to
A
L1
L
Gl
OL.
a
=
M
Y
bq
OA
"
w
w
b
b
v
•a
•v
2s
E Q
U
U
U
0.1
U q
0.�1
b
o
ai
U
C
0
F
a
Ecl
tlCV
M
0 ?
A
U
N
U
O
tC
0 0
O
by X
C7
C
y
F
�
'c
•" w
O
�¢r
ppP.
�G
U
0
L U
0o
C
N
V]
C
'G
L vi
T
yC o^3
ycl
0.
�
j
O
rr
x
cC
a
id
Pa
N
a
4+ r0.,
S�
atC
�+ -o
y
=
w
O
n
�
as a`
\
(§
q;
luu
§
u
).
to
to
0
/
§
)
\\
(o
kk
�
2\
8
\
J6
§
q
\
�§\
\
\j)
�
=
/�7
)§
e
$
[
ƒ/
»
u§
\
;
\\
UC8
�±
/
�
ƒ
§
)�
\\
\
k§
\�
�
�
■'
)
§
/
g
E
c
\ un
u 21Cd
}
k
-
2
CA
\
(§
j;
u
3\
\
2
(
�
/
/
E
\\
(°
t
)\
{
/
$§
■
/
/
§
�
\£
kj
\)
�\
2
(
®
&§