CC Resolution 2000-044 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-44
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 2.44 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE STREET LOT,
AND THREE LANDSCAPING LOTS, LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH OF MILES
AVENUE
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 18th day of April, 2000, 2"d day of May, and the 16th day of May, 2000 hold
duly-noticed Public Hearings as requested by World Development on the Subsequent
Environmental Assessment for Tentative Tract Map 29624, located on the east side
of Adams Street, approximately 360 feet north of Miles Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28"~ day of March, and the 11th day of April, 2000, hold a duly-noticed
Public Hearing as requested by World Development on the Subsequent Environmental
Analysis for Tentative Tract Map 29624, and did recommend certification by Planning
Commission Resolution 2000-013; and,
WHEREAS, said Subsequent Environmental Assessment complies with
the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director
has conducted an Initial Study and has determined that although the proposed
subdivision and residential units could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case beca.use appropriate
mitigation measures were made conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-382, by Resolution No. 99-074, prepared for CUP 99-044, SDP 99-
655, and TPM 29288, for the First School of the Desert, to be developed on Parcel
1 of TPM 29288; and,
Resolution No. 2000-44
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - Final
World Development
May 16, 2000
Page 2
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council did find the following facts to
justify certification of said Subsequent Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed tentative tract map will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures, as
the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies
prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts that could not
be reasonably mitigated to levels of insignificance.
2. The proposed tentative tract map will not have the potential to achieve short
term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful
implementation of mitigation, as the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological,
and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any
significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The proposed tentative tract map will not have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as the noise, biology, geotechnical,
hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not
identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
4. The proposed tentative tract map will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of
mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical, and hydrological studies prepared for this
project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
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 in this case;
2. That it does hereby certify the environmental determination and mitigation
measures of Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382 for proposed
Tentative Tract Map 29624.
Resolution No. 2000-44
Tentative Tract Map 29624 - Final
World Development
May 16, 2000
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 16th day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
jO(~.~pE~(r~,~a~or
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN , e
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City of La Quinta, California
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Res 2000-44.wpd
SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 99-382
1. Project Title: TTM 29624 & SDP 2000-675
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
760-777-7068
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: World Development
74-333 Hwy. 111, Suite #103
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL)
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 ff necessary.)
Subdivision of 2.44 gross acres into 10 single family residential lots, one street lot, and
three landscape lots on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288. On Parcel 1 (1.42 acres) a 7,065 square
foot preschool building with parking area and play yard (approved under SDP 99-655,
CUP 99-044, & TPM 29288) are approved for development. The Planning Commission
certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 99-382),
which included the entire map area with the exception of issues relating to the proposed
tract units. The applicant also requests approval of architectural, landscaping, and
site/grading plans for four prototype single family residential plans.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Btiefly describe the project's surroundings.
North= Single family residences
East = Single family residences
South = Approved preschool campus
West = Church, Single family residences across Miles Avenue
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
-- agreement.)
-1-
None identified.
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 Hazards and Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
X Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings
X Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred 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 environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the applicant. A SUBSEQUENT 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" on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
-2-
LESLIE MOURIQUAND CITY OF LA QUINTA
Printed Name For
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ElK or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-3-
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Sig!fificant Ullless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master X
Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13; EA 99-382; architectural and
landscaping exhibits)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Master Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13; Love and Tang, 1999; X
EA 99-382)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X
site and its surroundings? (lEA 99-382; Architectural and landscaping
exhibits)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (TTM 29624)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California
Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 2-23; EA 99-382) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X
Act contract? (City Zoning Map; EA 99-382)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 2-23; EA 99-382)
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-33 to 5-47; EA 99-382) X
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to X
an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, Fig. 5-1, Table 6-2; EA 99-382)
c) Restfit in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the X
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, pg. 6-1, Table 6-2; EA 99-382)
d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "h0t,.I~pot~ (primarily X
carbon monoxide)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table 9-5-M; EA
99-382)
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4; EA 99-382)
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4; EA 99-382)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, X
any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title
50, Code of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? (Cornett,
1999; Fish & Wildlife Service letter; Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat X
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? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental
-- Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any ripman habitat or other X
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? (Cornett, 1999; Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382)
d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not X
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5;
EA 99-382)
e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or X
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA
99-382)
f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382)
g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation X
' Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Cornett, 1999; Master
Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
-5-
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Love and X
Tang, 1999; EA 99-382)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique X
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Love and Tang, 1999; EA 99-382)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? X
(Paleonotological Lakebed Determination Map; EA 99-382)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? (Love and Tang, 1999; EA 99-382)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most X
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? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-
382)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental X
Assessment, pg. 6-7; Sladden Engineering, 1999; Anderson, 2-29-
2000)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master X
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382; Anderson, 2-29-
2000)
iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Master X
Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382)
v) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99- X
382)
vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-13; EA 99-382)
X
vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X
urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99; USGS Topo map, LA Quinta, 7.5'; EA 99-
382)
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-12; de la Torre, 9-
2-1999- hydrology report; EA 99-382)
-6-
d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would X
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsistence, liquefaction or
collapse? (Anderson, 2-29-2000; EA 99-382)
e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to
life or property? (Sladden Engineering, 1999; EA 99-382)
f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is X
the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems? (Sladden Engineering, 1999; CVWD
letter, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through X
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application materials; Ea 99-382)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through X
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application materials; EA 99-382)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials; EA 99-382) X
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (EA 99-382)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such X
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? (USGS topo map, LA
Quinta 7.5'; EA 99-382)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (USGS topo map, La Quinta 7.5'; EA 99-382) X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death X
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbamzed areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99; EA 99-382)
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality X
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Application Materials;
EA 99-382)
-7-
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aquffer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (i. e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted? (CVWD letter 2-16-2000;
Ea 99-382)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, X
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? (De la Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99; EA 99-382)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, X
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? (De la Torre,
Hydrology report 9-2-99; EA 99-382)
e) Creme or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity X
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ? (de la
Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99; Ea 99-382)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal X
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment, 6-7; EA
99-382)
g) Hace within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; I X I
Application Materials; EA 99-382)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (General Plan, pg. 2- X
17; Ea 99-382)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (General Plan, pg. 2-17; EA 99-382)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
communities conservation plan? (CV Fringe-toed Habitat
Conservation Plan; EA 99-382)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
classified IvlRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment, pg. 5-29; EA 99-382)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-29;
Ea 99-382)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
-8-
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
~._ applicable standards of other agencies? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Greve and
Utsler, 2-29-2000)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Riverside X
County comprehensive General Plan; Ea 99-382)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; EA
99-382)
XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
-- example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? X
(Application materials; EA 99-382)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere ? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
XHI. 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? (Fire Dept. Letter, 2-15-2000) X
Police protection? (Riv. Co. Sheriffs Dept. Letter, 6-18-99; Ea 99- X
382)
Schools? (DSUSD letter, 2-4-2000) X
Parks? (EA 99-382) X
Other public facilities? (EA 99-382) X
-9-
RECREATION:
XIV.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X
(Application materials; EA 99-382)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
materials; EA 99-382)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
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
Study 9-8-99; EA 99-382)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Traffic study 9-8-99; EA 99-382) X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Master Environmental Assessment; EA 99-
382) X
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) ? (application materials; EA 99-382) X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application materials; EA X
99-382)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Zoning Ordinance; X
Application materials; EA 99-382)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (Zoning Ordinance; EA 99-382)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 2-26-2000, EA
99-382)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater X
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD
letter, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage X
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, 2-16-
2000; Ea 99-382)
-10-
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serV6s or' may serve X
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
~ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with suffmient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project' s solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan 7-4; EA 99-382)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
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? 0EA 99-382)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the X
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (EA 99-382)
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? (EA 99-382)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
' substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? (EA 99-382)
XVHI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIK 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.
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 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.
(REFERENCES CITED ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Res EA 2000-44.wpd -I l-
REFERENCES CITED
SCAQMD
Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1992.
Love, Bruce and Tom Tang
Cultural Resources Report: First School of the Desert, Febmary 5, 1999,
CRM TECH.
Cornett, James W.
Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis of the proposed Hastings Nursery School Site, July 26, 1999.
Riverside County Fire Department Letter dated 2-15-2000.
Coachella Valley Water District
Letter dated 2-16-2000.
Sladden Engineering
Geotechnical Investigation: First School of the Desert, NE corner Adams Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California.
August 23, 1999.
Greve, Fred and Keith Utsler
Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 29624. Feb. 29,2000.
Mestre Greve Associates
Riverside County
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
De La Torre, Julian
First School of the Desen/La Quinta
Preliminary Hydrology Report. Sept. 2, 1999,
Mainiero Smith & Associates.
First School of the Desert/La Quinta
Traffic Analysis Report. Sept. 8, 1999,
Mainiero Smith & Associates.
City of La Quinta
General Plan, 1992.
City of La Quinta
Master Environmental Assessment, 1992.
Anderson, Brett L.
Geotechnical Addendum: Tract 29624.
Feb. 29,2000
Sladden Engineering
Architectural and landscaping exhibits
S:\City Clerk\ Resol utions\Res EA 2000-44. wpd - ] 2-