CC Resolution 2000-060 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-066 TO REDUCE
THE RADIUS FROM 45' TO 38' FOR PRIVATE CUL-DE-SAC
STREETS PER TABLE 2-CIR OF THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29563 TO
ALLOW A 30-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE, 150-
FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-391
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6th day of June, 2000, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing as requested by Century-
Crowell Communities on the Environmental Analysis for General Plan Amendment
2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563, generally located on the north side of
Westward Ho Drive, approximately 150-feet west of Dune Palms Rdad, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 9th day of May, 2000, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing for General Plan
Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563, and on a vote of 4-0 adopted
Resolution 2000-027 recommended to the City Council certification, more particularly
described as:
Assessor's Parcel Number 604-061-01 9 (Portion); Portion of SE 1/4 of the SW
1/4 of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of Riverside, California
WHEREAS, said 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
amendment and subdivision 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 conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council did find the following facts to
justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2000-60
Environmental Assessment 99-391
June 6, 2000
Page 2
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element as the Fire Marshal
recommends the reduced size of the cul-de-sacs within the City. This action
will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the
implementation of mitigation measures, as the noise, geotechnical, hydrological,
and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any
significant impacts that could not be mitigated to levels of insignificance.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and 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, geotechnical,
hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this'project did not
identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and 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, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for
this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and 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 Environmental Assessment 99-391 for proposed General Plan
Amendment 2000-066 and Tentative Tract Map 29563.
Resolution No. 2000-60
Environmental Assessment 99-391
June 6, 2000
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: Council Member Perkins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH.~PER~~,~~
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
GR y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. ONEY~/I~LL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
EA 99-391
Appendix G
Environmental Checklist Form
l. Project Title: TTM 29563 and GPA 2000-066 - A!iso Dei Rey H
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Ca!ie Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand (760) 777-7125
· 4. Project Location: North side of Westward Ho Drive, 150 feet west of Dune Palms
Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Century Crowell
1535 South "D" Street, Suite 200
San Bernardino, CA 92408
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: 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 ff necessary.)
Subdivide 7.65 acres into 30 single family residential lots, other common lots, and
construct housing units ranging in size from 1,500 to 2,100 square feet. General Plan
Amendment 2000-066 proposes to modify Table 2 of the Circulation Element to
reduce the size of cul-de-sac bulbs for private streets from a radii of 45 feet to 38
feet.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North - single family residential
South - public high school campus
East - single family residential
West -. single family residential and vacant residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
None identified.
p:\CEQAch,cklistTI'M29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd = ] '
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The enVironmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics Hazards and H~Tardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
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 environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
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.
6b- Date ~ · '
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 EIK, or other CEQA
process., an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR 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
P:\CEQAeheeldistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd -3 -
Sample question:
potentially
Potentially Sipdficamt Less Than
Significant Unim Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I I
L AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scemc via? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 5-13 )
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scemc highway?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-13) X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agriculttffal 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 (Fannland) to on-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which. due to X
their location or nature, could individually or cumulativcly result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Site visit. aerial
photographs)
HL AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) X
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to X
an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd -4-
c) Result 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 qualiB.' standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)7 (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
{Master Environmental Assessment 544)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people? (Application Materials)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through X
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 Depaxtment of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessmere
5-5)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other X
sensitive natural commumty identified in local or regional plans.
policies. regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental
__ Assessment 5-5; site visit)
c) Adversely impact federally protected weftands (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? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; site visit)
d) Interfere substantially with the movemint of any resident or X
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife coredors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5: site visit)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) 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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the
' National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local regi. ster of historic resources? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 5-21; Archaeological Advisory Group,
Dec. 1999)
P:\CEQAchecklist'l'rM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd -5-
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique X
archaeological resources (i.e.. an artifacL 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)? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999)
c) Disturb or destro~v a unique paleontological resource or site? X
(Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Advisory Group, Dec. 1999)
VL 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 6-7: Sladden
Engineering, March 8, 2000)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental X
Assessment 6-7)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure. including liquefaction? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Application
Materials)
X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable. or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project. and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading. subsidence. liquefaction
or collapse? (Sladden Engineering, March 8, 2000)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the X
Uniform Building Cede (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Sladden Engineering, March 8. 2000)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks X
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
,~ project:
a) Create a significant haTard to the' public or the environment X
through the routine Wansport, use, or disposal of l~aTardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of haTardous materials into the
environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials. substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials) X
d)' Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Cede
Section 65962.5 and. as a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment? {Emma. Riverside County
FlaTardous Materials Division, April 24, 2000)
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 baTard for
people residing or working in the projea area? (General Plan land use
map)
-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map) X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X
emergency. response plan or emergency evacuation plan? {Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11 )
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death X
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
V~I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality X
standards or waste discharge requirements? {Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aqnifer 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? ( )
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? (Dudek & Associates, Nov. 17, 1999)
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd
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? (Dudek &
Associates. Nov. 17. 1999)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity X
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ?
(Dudek & Associates. Nov. 17. 1999)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain. as mapped on a federal X
Flood HaTard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
haTard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or I I [
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 2-11)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
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 5-29)
XL NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons W~ 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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-17, 6-19; Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22,
2000)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Gordon Bricken & Associates,
March 22, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Gordon Bricken & Associates, March 22, 2000)
-8-
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
-- a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public aiq~ort or
public use airporL would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master X
Environmental Assessment)
e) For a projectwithin the vicinity ofa pnvate airstrip, would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
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)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing. necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people. necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials; site visit)
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 Marshal letter. 12-16-99 & 4-10-00) X
Police protection? ( ) X
Schools? (DSUSD letter, 12-8-99) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
Other public facilities? (General Plan) X
.X1V. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the faciliW. would occur or be accelerated? X
(Application Materials)
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)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd -9-
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)?
(Application Materials; Master Environmental Assessment 3-7)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Master Environmental Assessment 3-
7; General Plan 3-13)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
d) Substantially increase haTards to a design feature (e.g.. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X
equlpmenO ? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials; X
Fire Marshal letter)
f) Result m inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials: X
Zomng Code-Parking)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus un'nouts, bicycle racks) ? (General Plan)
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board? ( )
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, Dec. 16, 1999)
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. Dec.
16, 1999)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
enti~ements needed? (CVWD letter. Dec. 16. 1999)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the X
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (CVWD letter, Dec. 16, 1999)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan)
XV~. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd l 0-
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 commumty.
reduce the nmnber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or arereal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
C, alfforma history or prehistory? ( )
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. to the X
disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? ( )
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but X
cumulatively considerable? CCnmulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? ( )
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dlrec~y or
indirectly? ( )
XVIH, 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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the
above checklist were within the scope of and adequately anal.vzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project..
See attached 'Addendum.
SOURCES
Gordon Bricken & Associates
Acoustical Analysis, Tract 29563. City of La Quinta. March 22, 2000.
Dudek & Associates
Aliso II - Tentative Tract 29563 Preliminary Drainage Study, La Quinta, CA., Nov. 17, 1999.
Sladden Engineering
P:\CEOAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd =l l-
Geotechnical Investigation: Aliso II - Hopkins Property, Tract 29563. La Quinta. CA.. March 8. 2000.
Master Environmental Assessment. City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, Ci.ty ofLa Quinta. 1992.
Paleontologieal Lakebed Delineation Map. City of La Quinta.
Archaeological Advisory Group
Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 29563. LA Quinta. Calffontia (Aliso 2 Project). December 1999.
Emma, Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division~ 4-24-2000, personal communication.
Fire Marshal letter, dated 4-11-00 & 12-16-99
CVWD letter dated 12-16-99
DSUSD letter, dated 12-8-99
City ofLa Quinta Municipal Code
P:\CEQAchecklistTTM29563GPA2000-066CenturyEA 99-391 .wpd -12-
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EA 99-391
IV. f. The project site is within an area designated as potential habitat for the
Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed
Lizard. The project site is a developed golf school that has been graded,
turfed, and in use for several years. There is no undisturbed or undeveloped
habitat within the project site. The site is within the Habitat Conservation
Plan mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While
there is no natural habitat left within the project boundaries, the mandated
$100 fee per acre of disturbed land will be required as mitigation. This
mitigation reduces impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance
(Source: Master Environmental Assessment, 5-5).
VI. a.ii. The project is located in a seismically active area. The proposed subdivision
is located within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within 3/4-mile of an
'inferred and inactive fault. The potential for seismic activity should 'be
considered in structure design. As a minimum, the Uniform Building Code
requirements for Seismic Zone 4 will be considered in design. The'
geotechnical report for the project provides seismic design criteria. This
mitigation measure will ensure that impacts from seismic activity will be
-- reduced to a less than significant level.
IX. b. The applicant proposes a 38-foot radius for a private street cul de sac. The
General Plan Circulation Element requires that cul-de-sac radii are at least
45-feet for private streets, resulting in the proposed project conflicting with
the City General Plan. The applicant proposes General Plan Amendment
2000-066 to modify Table 2 of the Circulation Element to reduce the size of
cul de sac bulbs for private streets from a radii of 45 feet to 38 feet. A letter
from the Riverside County Fire Department, dated April 10, 2000, indicates
that a 38' radius to face of curb is acceptable and is the standard used in the
unincorporated areas of the County. The 38' radius prohibits any curb side
parking as the entire cul-de-sac is required to properly turn fire department
vehicles. Mitigation for the proposed cul-de-sac reduction from 45' to 38'
shall be the adoption of GPA 2000-066, otherwise a 45' radius shall be
required.
IX. a. Single family residential communities are considered noise sensitive land
uses along with schools, hospitals, and churches. A noise study was
prepared for the proposed project by Gordon Bricken & Associates, March
22, 2000, wherein it was determined that noise mitigation is required. The
-- primary noise source in the project area is traffic noise from Westward Ho
Drive. Extedor backyard living areas adjacent to Westward Ho Drive will be
exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of over 60 CNEL at Lots 1 to 6, 29
and 30. The grading plan shows that the pads will be below the grade of the
P:~AddendumEA99-391 'l'FM29563.wpd
street, providing some shielding by the grade slope. To mitigate projected
noise impacts, a barrier at least 5-feet in height should be wrapped around
the sides of Lots 8, 1, 30 and 29 for a distance equal to the setback of the
house from the rear property line. The barrier should be constructed of solid
materials without any openings. Concrete block, slumpstone, earthen berm
or steel are acceptable materials.
.The City's interior noise standard for single family residential units is 45
CNEL. All homes throughout the project will meet the City's 45 CNEL interior
noise standard without building upgrades, with closed windows and
mechanical ventilation. The noise study showed that there is a potential for
temporary construction noise impacts.
To mitigate short-term construction noise impacts, construction shall comply
with the City's Municipal Code regarding construction activities near existing
residential development which are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction will
not be permitted on Sunday or Federal holidays. These mitigation measures
will ensure that identified impacts will be reduced to a level less than
significant.
P:~,ddendumEA99-391 TTM29563.wpd