CC Resolution 2000-096 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29623 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF 10.09 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO PUBLIC STREET LOTS, AND
THREE LANDSCAPING LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE
PALMS ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-392
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 1 ~t day of August, 2000, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing as requested by World
Development on the Environmental AnalVsis for Tentative Tract Map 29623, located
at the northeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 11th day of July, 2000, hold 'a duly-noticed Public Hearing on the
Environmental Analysis for Tentative Tract Map 29623, and. adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2000-043, recommending to the City Council certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment comiClies 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 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:
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
Resolution No. 2000-96
Environmental Assessment 2000-392 for TTM 29623
August 1, 2000
Page 2
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 a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors by the' Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2000-
392 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
8. EA 2000-392 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
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;
Resolution No. 2000-96
Environmental Assessment 2000-392 for TTM 29623
August 1, 2000
Page 3
2. That it does hereby certify the environmental determination and mitigation
measures of Environmental Assessment 2000-392 for proposed Tentative Tract
Map 29623.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
CitV Council held on this 1 st day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
J~J.P~,~a~or
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
J RE
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C'~ty of La Qu~nta, CahfornB Attorney
EA 2000-392
Append~ G
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title~ TTM 29623 - Sunflower
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 (760) 777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road
(APN: 604-453-001)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: World Development
74-333 Hwy. 111, Ste. #103
Palm Desert, CA 92260
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 li~itited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets ff necessary.)
Subdivide 10.09 gross acres into 35 single family residential lots, retention basin lots,
two public street lots, and landscaping lots, for the purpose of constructing
previously approved (SDP 99-656) housing units ranging in size from 2,078 (Plan 2)
to 2,511 (Plan 4) liveable square feet, with garages ranging from 640 to 718 square
feet, that are being built in the Wildflower development to the east of the project
site.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North - single family residential
South -public school site in the City of Indio
East - single family residential
West - single family residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District, lID, SCG, DSUSD, GTE, Time Warnet, SunLine
Transit, Waste Management of the Desert
S:\City Clerk~Resolutions~EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.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 Hazardous 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. S
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 th~ 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
EIK including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
-2-
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
S:\City ClerkXResolutionsXEA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -3-
Sample question:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 5 - 13; General Plan EIR 4-89)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-13) X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X
site and its surroundings7 (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area7 (Application
materials)
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 on-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-3 2, 2-11; General Plan EIR 4-15) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X
Act contract? (Zoning Map; General Plan EIR 4-15)
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? (Site visit, aerial
photographs, MEA 2-11)
III. 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
detenmnations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (MEA
5.8; General Plan Air Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA ]
Handbook Table 6-2; General Plan EIR 4-174) X
s :\city ClerkXResolutionsXEA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -4-
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation? (MEA 5.8.2; General Plan
Air Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Table 6-2;
General Plan EIR 4.10)
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 quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (MEA 5.8;
General Plan Air Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
(Master Environmental Assessment 544, 5.8; General Plan Air
Quality Element; Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
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 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5;
Cornett, 3-23-00)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian 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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5; Cornett, 3-23-00; US Fish & Wildlife letter, 2-10-00)
c) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; Cornett, 3-23-00)
d) 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5; Cornett, 3-23-00)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Cba 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:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -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 register of historic resources? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 5°21; Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00;
City of La Quinta Historic Survey, 1996; General Plan EIR 4-81)
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)? (Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? X
(Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? (Archaeological Associates, 6-9-00)
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 Fatfit 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; Southland
Geotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000; General Plan EIR 4-39)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental X
Assessment 6-7; Southland Geotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000; General
Plan EIR 4-39)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 6-7; General Plan EIR 4-39)
iv) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; General Plan X
EIR 4-33)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Application
Materials; General Plan 4-35)
X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a restfit of the project, and potentially restfit
in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; General Plan
EIR 4-35)
-6-
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; Southland Geotechnical, Inc., Feb., 2000)
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)
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 Mateddais)
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 mateddais 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? (Riverside County Hazardous Waste
Division)
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? (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)
VIH. 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; McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially X
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer 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, 2-1-00; General Plan EIR 4-55)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -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, 2-1-00; General
Plan EIR 4-55)
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? (McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00; General Plan EIR 4-53)
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? (McGee
Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00; General Plan EIR 4-53)
e) Create or contribute rtmoff water which would exceed the capacity X
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control ?
(McGee Surveying, Inc., 4-19-00)
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 6-13;
General Plan EIR 4-53)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13; CVWD, I [ X [
2-1-00 General Plan EIR 4-53)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Master X
Environmental Assessment 2-11; Application materials; General Plan
Eft(4-7)
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 coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11, 5-
5; General Plan EIR 4-7)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5; General Plan 4-69)
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; General Plan EIR 4-35)
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;
General Plan EIR 4-35)
-8-
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Mestre Greve Associates,
June 5, 2000)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Mestre Greve Associates, June 5, 2000)
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 airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master X
Environmental Assessment)
e) 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? (General Plan map)
XII. 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)
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 Marshal letter, 1-28-00; General Plan EIR 4- X
111)
Police protection? (Sheriffs Dept letter, 2-1-00; General Plan EIR 4- X
111)
Schools? (DSUSD letter, 1-24-00; General Plan E1R 4-111) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan; General X
Plan EIR 4-111)
Other public facilities? (General Plan EIR 4-111) X
XIV. RECREATION:
S:\City Cterk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -9-
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan; General X
Plan EIR 4 - 111 )
Other public facilities? (General Plan EIR 4-111) X
XIV. 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 facility would occur or be accelerated? X
(Application Materials; City of La Quinta Parks & Recreation Master
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; City of La Quinta Parks & Recreation Master Plan)
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)?
(Application Materials; Master Environmental Assessment 3-7;
General Plan EIR 4-145)
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, General Plan EIR 4-135)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffm levels or a change in location that results in
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) ? (Application Materials) X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (TTM 29623 Application X
Materials; Fire Marshal letter, 1-28-00)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TTM 29623 Application X
Materials; Zoning Code-Parking)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (General Plan EIR 4-141)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 2-1-00;
General Plan EIR 4-99)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -I 0-
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X
existing enti~ements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? ( CVWD letter, 2-1-00 )
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, 2-1-00)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with suffmient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (PCP,, May
19, 2000; General Plan EIR 4-106)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related X
to solid waste? (PCR, May 19, 2000; General Plan EIR 4-106)
XVH. 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? ( )
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the X
' disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (General Plan EIR 8-
1)
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)? ( )
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ( )
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) Ea~ier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where
they are available for review.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -11-
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 analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
Draft SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, May 1992.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
Riverside County Hazardous Materials Division.
Fire Marshal letter, dated 1-28-00
CVWD letter, dated 2-1-00
DSUSD letter, dated 1-24-00
Riverside County Sheriff's Dept letter, dated 2-1-00
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
PCR
Draft EIR - Villa La Quinta,
Iv. I. 4 Solid Waste, May 19, 2000, Pgs. 233-241.
McGee Surveying, Inc., Kurt M. Saxon
Alternate Drainage Study for Tentative Tract 29623, 6-13-00.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -12-
Cornett, James W., Ecological Consultants
Giant Sand Treader Cricket Survey and Habitat Analysis for TTM 29623.
March 23, 2000
U.S. Dept. Of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated 2-10-00.
Southland Geotechnical, Inc.
Preliminary Soils Investigation TTM 29623, NEC Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, California.
Feb. 2000
City of Indio
General Plan 2020, Vol. II
October 1993
Archaeological Associates, Robert S. and Laurie White
A Cultural Resources Assessment of TT 29623 a 10+ Acre Parcel Located Immediately Northeast of the Intersection of Miles
Avenue and Dune Palms Road.
June 9, 2000
Mestre Greve Associates, Fred Greve and Keith Utsler
Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 29623, City of La Quinta.
June 5, 2000.
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-392
-- I. a) Miles Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial and a Secondary Image Corridor in the City's
General Plan, and Dune Palms Road is designated as a Secondary Arterial. Verbena Drive is
designated as a local street. These designations ensure that particular setback standards and
landscaping are included in project development. The proposed subdivision exhibit shows that the
City's standards for both landscaping and setbacks will be met, thereby reducing the potential
impacts to a level of insignificance.
b), c), d)
The project site is currently vacant desert land. The construction of the proposed subdivision will
have less than significant impacts, as this project is surrounded by existing residential
neighborhoods. The Site Development Permit allows for the construction ~pf one story single family
homes on individual lots that will result in a cumulative impact upon scenic views in the immediate
vicinity. Exterior security and landscape lighting is customary for residential of development and
is to be expected in this case. All such lighting is required to conform to the outdoor lighting
requirements of the Zoning Code, which will mitigate any significant impact from light and glare.
~. a), b), c)
The proposed project site is not used for agricultural purposes, and has never been designated
for agricultural land uses. The archaeological study prepared for this project did not observe any
evidence of previous agricultural activities.
~. a), b), c), d), e)
The proposed project consists of 35 single family residential lots for development. The Draft
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (May 1992) indicates, in Table 6-2, that projects with fewer than 170
single family housing units do not result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Although 35
additional units will results in a cumulative impact, there is no mitigation required for this project.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -]3-
IV. a), b), c), d), e), f)
The City received a letter from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Feb. 10, 2000) requesting a
biology study for this project. City staff reviewed the Master Environmen{al Assessment prepared
for the City's General Plan and determined that the study need only determine the absence or
presence of the Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket within the boundaries of the project. ,a
biological resource study was prepared by James W. Cornett, of Ecological Consultants (Marcl-
23, 2000). A habitat evaluation and intensive survey of the rare Coachella Giant Sand Treader
Cricket was conducted with no evidence of the crickets found. The site is considered very poor
habitat for the cricket because of human-caused disturbances, severe aridity, and sand
stabilization. The report concluded that development of the site is not expected to have significant
adverse impacts upon populations of the cricket.
The proposed project lies within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan. As such, the project proponent shall be required to contribute $100 per acre
of disturbed land to the appropriate agency for the purchase of off-site habitat.
v. a), b), c), d)
A Phase I cultural resource investigation was conducted for the project site on February 4, 2000,
by Archaeological Associates. The results of the records search indicted that no archaeological
prehistoric or historic sites have been recorded within the boundaries of the project. The results
of the field survey were negative as no archaeological finds of any kind were made. The results
of previous archaeological monitoring programs conducted on propertie& immediately to the east
and west of the project site were negative. Thus, it is highly unlikely that buried historic or
prehistoric resources exist on the subject property. The study concludes that archaeological
monitoring of the brushing/grubbing element of the rough grading phase of the project is no'
warranted. However, the Historic Preservation Commission recommends monitoring of al
trenching activities.
The project site is outside of the boundaries of concern for paleontological resources as indicated
by the Paleontology Lakebed Map housed in the Community Development Department at the City
of La Quinta. Thus, there are no anticipated adverse impacts on paleontological resources.
vl. a)i)
The proposed project site does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies hazard area. No known
active earthquake faults occur within several miles of the proposed project. The potential impact
for fault rupture is not expected to be significant. The closest inferred fault trace is over a half-mile
to the southwest. This fault trace has not exhibited any evidence of Holocene movement (within
the last 11,000 years) and is not considered active.
VI. a)ii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The City has adopted the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the project
site will conform to these standards, which will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant
level.
VI. a)iii)
The proposed project site does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The depth to groundwate.
in the project area is estimated to be greater than 100 feet according to the Preliminary Soils
Investigation prepared for the project, by Southland Geotechnical, Inc.(Feb. 2000). The soils on
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -1_4-
the site consist of loose to medium dense, dry to slightly moist sand and silty sand, which has a
potential to shift in a seismic event. The soils report recommends over-excavation and
recompaction in any area where structures are proposed. The findings of the report are preliminary
and not based on construction plans. The City's standards for site preparation and geologic
analysis will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
VI. a)iv)
The proposed project is over a mile northeast from the local foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains
and not likely to experience impacts from landslides or rockfall.
VI. b), c), d), e)
As indicated above the soils on the project site are loose to medium dense sand. As such, unstable
soil conditions can occur from improper grading or excavation. The City's standards for site
preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts of
unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant
shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed site specific soil study,
which shall include recommendations designed for the proposed single family development.
VII. e)
The project is located within a two mile radius of the Bermuda Dune Airport, a public use airport.
This airport is relatively small and experiences light air traffic on a daily basis. There is no
anticipated increase in safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area from air
traffic.
VIII. a), c), d), e)
A drainage study was prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, by McGee Surveying, Inc.
The project includes onsite retention basins designed to contain the modeled project 100 year
stormwater runoff. Storm water from the project site is delivered to the retention basins through
proposed catch basins in Lot C and in Verbena Drive. The project is designed to contain 100 year
runoff onsite, thus reducing any potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b), f), g)
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVVVD) responded to this project with a letter dated February
1, 2000, in which the district states that it will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to the
project provided the developer installs the water and sewer pipelines. The district also notes that
the project is within Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps and within the Bermuda Dunes
Drainage Study area, and that flood water issues for this project is limited to local drainage.
XI. a), b), c), d)
A noise impact analysis was performed for the proposed project by Mestre Greve Associates. The
City of La Quinta has adopted an exterior noise standard of 60 dB CNEL for a five foot observer
located five feet within the property line or at the worst case location within the property line. Indoor
noise is limited to 45 CNEL. The study determined that exterior living areas will be exposed to
worst case traffic noise levels of 70.4 CNEL at "Lot 9". Therefore, in order to meet the 60 CNEL
exterior noise standard, a noise barrier will be required for exterior living areas adjacent to Miles
Avenue and Dune Palms Road. The barrier (6' to 7.5') shall not have any gaps or openings, and
may consist of a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. All homes within the project will comply
S: \City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96. wpd - ] 5 -
with indoor noise standards without building upgrades.
XII. a), b), c)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as any City's amenities influence
home buyer's decision to purchase. The project site is a vacant desert parcel. Thus, no existing.
homes will be lost or people displaced from the proposed project.
XIII. a)
All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services, many of which are paid for
by application fees, inspection fees, etc. The project will be required to participate in the City's
Impact Fee program which helps to offset regional roadway improvements. The proposed project
is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XIV. a), b)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth by adding 35 new single family housing units
within the City. Recreation amenities and opportunities may influence a home buyer's decision to
purchase. No recreation amenities are proposed for this project, however, the developer is required
to pay per the Quimby Act an in-lieu mitigation fee for park land. Payment of this fee will reduce
any cumulative adverse impacts on existing recreation amenities and assist in the provision of
future amenities.
XV. a), b)
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune
Palms Road. Access to the project is proposed on Verbena Drive from Miles Avenue and is
restricted to right-in/right-out traffic movements. Verbena Drive is located approximately 663.42 fee'
east of Dune Palms Road. The access design was approved by the City Council for Tract 25691
in 1999. The tract is an expansion of the Wildflower project currently under construction to the east
by the applicant. Two internal streets accessed from Verbena Drive are proposed that will
terminate in cul de sac bulbs. The project will generate additional vehicular traffic for the area as
a cumulative impact to local traffic congestion. No significant traffic impacts are anticipated from
the proposed subdivision. Mitigation for identified impacts has been incorporated into the design
of the subdivision by controlling traffic by restricting turning movements into the project from Miles
Avenue.
XV. c)
The proposed project is within a two-mile radius of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. No changes to
established air traffic patterns or levels are anticipated to result from the proposed project.
XV. d), e), f), g)
The proposed project consists of the continuation of an established residential circulation pattern
from which there are no anticipated hazards. Access into the subdivision from Miles Avenue will
be restricted to a right-in/right-out turning movement to control for potential hazards along Miles
Avenue. No additional mitigation for traffic hazards is needed. The Fire Marshal has determined
that there is adequate emergency access as the proposed project complies with the access
requirements of the Fire Code. The proposed width of the two internal streets will accommodate
on-street parking to supplement off-street parking for each residential unit. Therefore, no additiona
parking is necessary. No conflicts with adopted policies for alternative transportation have beer
identified within the proposed project.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -16-
xw. b), c), d), e)
Potential impacts to water, waste water treatment, and storm drainage have been reviewed by the
Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service,
provided that the applicant installs additional pipelines to service all parcels, and provides for
annexation to Improvement District Nos. 58 and 81 of the District for sanitation service.
XVI. f)
The proposed 35 new single family residential units will result in cumulative adverse impacts to the
environment from solid waste disposal issues. Solid waste collected within the City of La Quinta
is currently taken to the Edom Hill Landfill, the nearest landfill to the project. The landfill has a
remaining capacity of 1,900,097 tons as of May, 2000. The estimated closure date for the Edom
Hill Landfill is 2004. According to the Riverside County Waste Management Department, the
Coachella Valley will not have local waste disposal capacity with the closure of Edom Hill Landfill.
Future landfills are being considered by the Department. The proposed project will be subject to
the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Plan mandated by Assembly Bill
939. The proposed project has the potential to result in a cumulative, long-term, adverse impact
by on-going generation of solid waste from the 35 proposed new homes as related to landfill
capacity (PCR, May 2000, Pgs. 235-241). Mitigation for this project consists of resident
participation in solid waste collection and recycling services and programs offered by Waste
Management of the Desert and the City of La Quinta. During site preparation and construction,
contractors shall facilitate construction waste recycling through separation of materials into
separate bins and the arrangement of the transportation of recyclable materials to appropriate
_ facilities.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EA 2000-392-Coa 2000-96.wpd -]?~