CC Resolution 2000-012 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064, ZONE CHANGE 99-
092, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29323 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
99-040
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
APPLICANT: WADE ELLIS/WARNER ENGINEERING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 15th day of February, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
Environmental Assessment prepared for General Plan Amendment 99-064, Zone
Change 99-062, Tentative Tract Map 29323 and Specific Plan 99-040, ("the proposed
project") generally located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 14th day of December, 1999, the 25th day of January, 2000, and 8t~ day
of February, 2000, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider an Environmental
Assessment prepared for General Plan Amendment 99-064, Zone Change 99-062,
Tentative Tract Map 29323 and Specific Plan 99-040, ("the proposed project")
generally located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street,
more particularly described as follows:
APNs 609-380-022 and 609-380-023
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 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 99-389)
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 Specific Plan 99-040, and 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 City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying of said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2000-12
EA 99-389/Wade Ellis/Warner Engineering
Adopted: February 15, 2000
Page 2
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 99-389.
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. 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.
4. 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 subdivision.
5. 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.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the proposed project
as proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at
time of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 99-389 for the reasons
Resolution No. 2000-12
EA 99-389/VVade Ellis/VVarner Engineering
Adopted: February 15, 2000
Page 3
set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment
Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 15th day of February, 2000, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
EEN, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. HONEYV~YELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
.Environmental Checklist Form
__ 1. Project Title: Sand Harbor Specific Plan (SP 99-040)
General Plan Amendment 99-064
Change of Zone 99-092
Tentative Tract 29323
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:. Christine di Iorio
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
5, Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wade Ellis
41-885 Boardwalk, #212
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation: Riverside County: 2B, 2-5 units per acre
Proposed La Quinta: Low Density Residential
__ 7. Zoning: Riverside County: R-1/9,000
Proposed La Quinta: RL, Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Pre-annexation application to establish General Plan designation, Specific Plan and
Tentative Tract Maps for vacant lands located at the northwest corner of Fred
Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan will establish standards for the
development of 379 dwelling units on 117 acres.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Bdefly describe the project's surroundings.
Lands to the north and west are developed single family residential neighborhoods.
The Bermuda Dunes Golf Course is also located to the north. Lands to the south
are vacant, and land~ to the southwest are developed as single family dwellings.
Lands to the east are partially developed with a golf course and single family
residential.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
P:\CHRISTl~nvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
1
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.
Land Use and Plannin~l X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housin~l X Biological Resources Xi Utilities and Service Systems
X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Aesthetics
X Water Hazards X Cultural Resources
X Air Quali~ )~ Noise Recr~_tion
Mandatory Finds of
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.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a
potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
P:\CHRISTl~cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
Evaluation of Environmmltal Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A 'No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site
as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entdes
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 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 descdbe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVII at the
end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references
to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the
sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a.suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different
ones.
P:~CHRIS'IT~nvir. cklist sp 99-040.wpd
3
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potenti~ll~ Significant ~ Titan
Significant Ufllooo Significant No
Impact MIUgatod Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that I is the general plan, and 6 is
a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further
explanation.)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Plana) C°nflict with general plan designati°n °r z°ning? (General I I I XILand Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General
Plan EIR, p. 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General
Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific
Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a Iow-income or minodty community)?
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of .Specific Plan)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 2-32 ff.)
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1)
P:\CHRJSTl~envir. cklist sp 99-040.wpd
Potentially
Potm'~elly Significant Leu Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Impact Mitigat~d Impact
(Aerial Photograph, Exhibit A of Specific Plan)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) I I IX
I
I
I
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) IX I I
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions I X
from excavation, grading, or fill? (Southland Geotechnical,
I
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
Geotechnical Investigation, June 24, 1999)
h) Expansive soils? (Southland Geotechnical, Geotechnical
Investigation, June 24, 1999)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 19 ff., Tract Map
.... 29323)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
P:~HRiSTl~envir. cklist sp 99.-040.wpd
· Potentially
Potentially Significant be~. Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless S~gnlficant No
Impact Mitigated Im~na_ct Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
(Specific Plan document, p. 19 ff.)
(Generalm°vements?e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of waterplan EIR, page 4-51 fi.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct I X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General X
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X
57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the arhount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplie, s? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171
ff.)
b) Exp°se sensitive recept°rs t° p°llutants? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-171 ff.)
c) Alter air m°vement' m°isture' °r temperature' °r cause any I
change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan project description)
P:\CHRISTl~envir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
-- - Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unleu Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Traffic Impact Analysis, November 23, 1999)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (RKJK & Assoc., Traffic Impact Analysis,
November 23, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
P.d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Specific Plan, 17)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan
p. 17)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) I I IX
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and
birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-
71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species (e;g., heritage trees)? (GeneralI X
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
P:\CHRlSTl~nvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
Pot~nUally
Potentially Significant I..e~. Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Slgnlar, ant Unleel Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Irnp.3~
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-
69, and page 4-71 ff.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vemal pool)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
page 4-71 ff.)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General
Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
· b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous I X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Descdptio~t)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or I I X
emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
I
I
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health I I X
hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description)
P:\Cl'lR]ST~envit.¢klist sp 99-040.wpd
- -- Potentially
Potentially Significant Le.~ Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unlm Significant No
Impact Mltigat~d Impact Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or
trees? (Specific Plan Project DeScription)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Douglas Eilar & I X
Associates, Acoustical Analysis, August 5, 1999)
I
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a neecl for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
X
I
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9) X
d) Maintenance °f public facilities' including r°ads? (GeneralIPlan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) r X
e) Other g°vemmental services? (General Plan MEA' page 4'14! Ix
ff.)
Xll. UTILmES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) X
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) X
P:\CHRJSTl~¢nvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
Pot~nUally
Potentially Significant Le~s Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) J J X
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page J X
4-20)
I
XlII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit X
C~R-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General
Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan p. 26) I
XlV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb pale°nt°l°gical res°urces? (Pale°nt°l°gical Lakebed I I X I
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Archaeological X I I
Associates, Archaeological Assessment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
c) Affect hist°rical res°urces? (Archae°l°gical Ass°ciates,
Archaeological Assessment of TI' 29323, August 31, 1999)
P:\CHRISTl\¢nvir. cklisl sp 99-040.wpd
Potentially
Pot~nUally Slgnlflr. ant LN$ Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): $1gnifi;ant Unlm $1gnifi;ant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural val~Jes? (Archaeological
Associates, Archaeological Asse. ssment of TT 29323, August 31,
1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X
impact area? (Archaeological Associates, Archaeological
Assessment of TT 29323, August 31, 1999)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan,
Exhibit PR-l)
XVl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 restdct the range of a rare to
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to I X
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
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.)
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directory or indirectly?
P:\CHP, JSTl~cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
XVIL EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng,
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.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an eadier 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 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.
P:\CHRlSTl\cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
AddendUm to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-389
I. a) The proposed project is not currentJy within the City's jurisdiction. The County
General Plan designation, however, and that sought by the applicant as part of this
application, are consistent. Differences between the two general plans relating to
the intent of the land use designations are insignificant. Through the annexation
process, the project will be assigned a City designation, which is compatible with
existing development both under County and City jurisdiction.
I1. a) The proposed projeL't is not currently within the City's jurisdiction, nor was it
analyzed for future annexation in the existing General Plan. As such, the project
area, and the 948± people it will generate at buildout were not previously analyzed
by the City. However, the land use designation assigned this site by the County is
compatible with the proposed land use designation, and the additional population
would therefore have been analyzed under County plans. The project is not likely
to significantly impact population projections for the region.
III.a), b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed project is located in
a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The project site is not within a liquefaction hazard
area. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for
seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards.
A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project~, It
recommends specific foundation and soil compacting requirements which will
mitigate the impacts of seismic activity. These mitigation measures will ensure that
impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
111.0, g) & h)
The project falls witl~in a blowsand hazard zone, and is composed of potentially
unstable soils. Construction of the project will be subject to City Engineer review,
the preparation of dust control plans, and the mitigation measures contained in the
geotechnical study cited above, The recommendations contained in this study, and
continued City review of the project, will reduce the potential impact from erosion
of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be coordinated
to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV (Cultural
Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented.
~V.a) & b)
The construction of structures on currently vacant lands will reduce the amount of
land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to
increase surface runoff. The City will require the retention of the 100 year 24 hour
storm on-site, and the Tentative Tract Map has been prepared to reflect the
'Geotechnical Investigation.Tentative Tract 29323 La Quinta, California, Southland Geotechnical,
June 24, 1999.
P:\CHRJSTl~cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
13
construction of a number of retention basins. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the project proponent shall submit hydrologic analysis to the City Engineer
for review and approval which will demonstrate that the planned retention basins are
sufficient to retain the 100 year storm. This will reduce the potential hazard
associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
V. a) The Coachella Valley is currently in a non-attainment area for PM10 (particles of 10
microns or less). The proposed project will result in 379 single family dwelling units.
The primary long term air quality impact caused by these units will be from the
operation of automobiles; short term impacts are also likely from construction
activities. The proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures
to mitigate impacts to air quality.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on-site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference.
5. Construction of improvements on Fred Waring and Jefferson shall be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of
through-traffic lanes.
6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
7. The project shall submit a PM10 Plan to the City which includes adequate '
provisions for fugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and after
grading operations. The PM10 Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site.
8. 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.
9. Watering of th~ 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.
P:\CHRJSTl~envir. cklis[ sp 99-040.wpd
14
10. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction-related dirt on approach routes to the site.
13. Construction roads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as
soon as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day. All
unpaved roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit.
14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in T'~le
24 of the California Administrative Code.
16. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
VI. a), b), d), & e)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan=. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts., and future traffic
volumes. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 3,627 daily trips,
of which 284 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 382 during the
evening peak hou?. The improvements required with or without project
implementation include the signalization of Jefferson Street at both Country Club
Drive and Miles Avenue, and the widening of Fred Wadng and Jefferson to their
ultimate rights of way in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic impact
analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as
part of the development of the project site:
1. The project proponent shall improve both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring
Drive, along their entire property boundary, to their ultimate 120 right of way
(half width) in conjunction with the first phase of development.
2. Sight distances shall be reviewed to conform with City of La Quinta
standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscaping and street
improvement plans.
2
Tentative Tract Map No. 29323 Traffic Impact Analysis (revised)," RKJK & Associates, November 23,
1999.
P:\CHIUSTl~cnvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
15
3. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned
improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all
project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant
impact on the circulation system.
The Specific Plan includes an interior trail system. The trail system interfaces with
the interior street system at a number of locations. In order to ensure that no
significant hazard occurs to pedestrians using the trail system, the project proponent
shall be required to install stop signs and crosswalks at all intersections between the
trail and a paved roadway. The stop signs shall be for pedestrian traffic.
VII. a), b) & c)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand
Treader Cricket in the General Plan. In conjunction with the first application for Site
Development Permit,. the project proponent shall submit a focused survey for Giant
Sand Treader Cricket to the City for review and approval. The survey shall include
mitigation measures, if necessary, and a mitigation monitoring program. The project
also occurs in the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard.
The project proponent shall be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of
issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to this species. Should the project,
or any portion of the project, occur after implementation of the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, any mitigation required by that plan shall be applied to the
project, or any portion of the project.
X. a) & b)
A noise analysis was prepared, and subsequently amended, for the proposed
project3. The project area lies in a currently impacted noise corridor. Residential
dwelling units are considered sensitive noise receptors. The City's General Plan
requires that exterior noise levels for any portion of a residential lot not exceed 60
dBA CNEL, and that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The study
found that varying heights of walls were needed to mitigate exterior noise levels
along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The study also recommended the
elevation of certain pads to mitigate noise levels. Finally, the study requires the
preparation of additibnal analysis to recommend mitigation measures for interior
noise levels for any home to be constructed with a second story which has a full or
partial view of either Fred Waring or Jefferson. In order to ensure that noise levels
are mitigated to meet City standards, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
"Acoustical Analysis Report," Douglas Eilar &Associatcs, August 15 & November 29, 1999.
P:\CHRJSTI~¢nvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
16
1. In conjunction with Site Development Permit application for any phase of
development which includes homes with a partial or full view of Fred Waring
· or Jefferson, a noise analysis based on final pad elevations shall be
prepared which demonstrates that both extedor and interior noise levels shall
meet or exceed City standards.
2. The design and location of the outer perimeter wall shall conform to the
recommendations of the November 29, 1999 amendment to the noise
analysis, and shall combine a six foot block or slumpstone wall, constructed
to City standsrd, with adequate berming to achieve the needed heights
shown on the table labeled" Barrier and Berm Heights at Perimeter Lots to
Achieve 60 CNEL."
xL a)- e)
The proposed project is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
public services. The residences within the project will impact the school system, and
such an impact must be mitigated through the imposition of school fees.
Xll. a) - g)
The proposed project is served by local utilities and water and sewer districts. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall be required to
demonstrate, through "will serve" letters, that all services are available to the site.
No significant impact to service providers is expected from this project.
XIIl.a) The proposed, project occurs along one of the City's Primary Image Corridors. The
General Plan requires a setback of 20 feet, which the project has proposed on its
map. The implementation of the setback requirement will lower the impact to scenic
resources to a less than significant level.
XIV. a) .
The site occurs abov~ the recorded shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as mapped
on City maps. No significant impact to paleontologic resources is expected from this
project.
XlV.b), c), & d)
A site specific Phase I cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed
project~. The study found a potentially significant sites within the project boundary.
Site CA-RIV-6349 was found to be potentially significant, and necessitate further
study. The following mitigation measure shall therefore be implemented:
4
"An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323...," Archaeological Associates, August 31, 1999·
P:\CHRlSTAenvir.cklist sp 99-040.wpd
17
1. In conjunction with the first Site Development Permit application for the
project, the project proponent shall submit, for review and approval by the
City, a compri~hensive Phase II archaeological investigation, performed in
conformance with City standards. The Phase II study shall include mitigation
measures, and a mitigation monitoring plan.
2. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during any grubbing, earth moving
or excavating activity. Should a resource be identified by the monitor, he or
she shall be empowered to halt or redirect grading activities while the
resource is properly identified and studied. The monitor shall file a report with
the City of his or her findings, including disposition of any resource identified.
P:\CHPJSTBenvir. cklist sp 99-040.wpd
18