CC Resolution 2011-073RESOLUTION 2011 - 073
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(MMP) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36279
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2010-608
APPLICANT: PEDCOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 2nd
day of August, 2011, conduct a duly -noticed public hearing to consider certification of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and associated Mitigation Monitoring ,Program
(MMP), for Environmental Assessment 2010-608, prepared for Tentative Tract Map
36279, a request to subdivide ±9.14 acres into eleven single-family residential lots
and several lettered lots, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and
Avenue 51 (Vista Bonita Trail), more particularly described as:
BEING PARCELS 1, 2, A PORTION OF PARCEL 3,
AND PORTIONS OF LOTS B, C, AND D OF PM 16457,
MAP BOOK 100, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IVERSIDE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 121h day of July, 2011, conduct a duly -noticed public hearing to consider adoption
of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2010-608 and did, in fact,
recommend certification of said Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated MMP;
and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Planning Director has conducted
an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2010-608) and has determined that,
although the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential
impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a City Council public hearing
notice for this request in The Desert Sun newspaper on July 22, 2011, as prescribed
by the La Quinta Municipal Code, with public hearing notices also having been mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council
Resolution No. 2011-073
Environmental Assessment 2010.808
Pedcor Commercial Development, Tract Map 36279
Adopted: August 2, 2011
Page 2 of 4
did make the following findings to justify their certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed
in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City
standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed.
2. Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to substantially reduce or
cause the habitat or of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The site has
been identified as having the potential for paleontological resources. However,
mitigation measures have been incorporated which will reduce these potential
impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the site may be suitable
habitat for the burrowing owl, and a pre -construction survey for the species has
been required.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed Tentative Tract Map
36279 will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat on which the wildlife depends. A pre -construction survey for the
burrowing owl species will be completed to determine if any members of that
species exists on the site, with appropriate mitigation to be identified and
carried out prior to any construction.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to achieve
short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant environmental effects have been identified by the Environmental
Assessment. The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General
Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents.
5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in
the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process.
Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures
proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development
patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
The development of eleven residential lots will not have any significant
cumulative impact and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have environmental effects
that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are.substantially, similar to those already assessed
Resolution No. 2011-073
Environmental Assessment 2010-608
Pedcor Commercial Development, Tract Map 36279
Adopted: August 2, 2011
Page 3 of 4
under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that Tentative Tract
Map 36279 may have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2010-608 and
determined that it reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared, associated with
Environmental Assessment 2010-608.
10. 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).
11. The location and custodian of City records relating to this project is the La
Quinta Planning Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California.
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 constitute the findings of the City
Council in this case; and
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2010-608 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached as Exhibit
A hereto, and on file in the Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 2ntl day of August, 2011, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
n �r�
DON AD PH, ayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2011-073
Environmental Assessment 2010-608
Pedcor Commercial Development, Tract Map 36279
Adopted: August 2, 2011
Page 4 of 4
A
VERONICA JNTECINO, CMC, City Clerk
City of -La Ouffita, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-Z ?- - /-� --
M. ATHERINE JENtdN, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Tentative Tract Map 36279, EA 2010-608
Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7125
Project location: The project site occurs at the southwest corner of Vista Bonita Trail and Madison
Street. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 777-030-001, -002, and a portion of parcel 777-030-003.
Project sponsor's name and address: Mr. Andrew Held
Pedcor Commercial Development
770 3`d Avenue, S.W.
Carmel, IN 46023
General Plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential
Residential
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of
the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
The Tentative Tract Map (TTM) proposes of the subdivision of 9.14 gross acres into 11 single
family home lots as well as landscaped areas, a retention basin and private street. Lots will range in
size from 24,305 to 29,423 square feet. All access to project site will be via Beth Circle, which
connects to Madison Street approximately 550 feet south of Vista Bonita Trail. The site was
partially developed under the previously approved but now expired TTM 30378 (The Orchard).
Beth Circle, accessing the proposed lots from Madison Street; and Evangeline Way, providing
internal access to all the proposed lots, were constructed without City permits or inspections. Both
streets will be private and will also provide access to an existing approved tentative map to the
south (TTM 33085). Both developers would like to retain these streets as built, to be privately
maintained and gated. With implementation of the proposed project, curbs on both streets will be
modified. An existing wall surrounds the property on the north, east, west, and portions of the
south property lines, and is intended to remain as part of the proposed project. Existing interior
walls located on the project site, which were used to delineate lots on TTM 30378, will be
removed. Infrastructure improvements, including sewer, water, electricity, and gas were installed
throughout the project site, and will remain to the extent that they are acceptable.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vista Bonita Trail, single family homes
South: Lands in agriculture, single family home
East: Polo facilities (El Dorado Polo Club)
West: Large single family homes/lots
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmentalfactors 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 Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water
Land Use /Planning
Materials Quality
Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities / Service Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems
DETERMINA"LION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
-2-
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites ' in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an FIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
-3-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit
X
3.6 "Image Corridors")
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
X
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Aerial photograph; Site Inspection)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
X
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the 2002 General Plan.
The purpose of the Agrarian Image Corridor is to provide landscaped parkways which
are consistent with the agricultural history of the area. The design of landscaping on
Madison Street is required to include plantings such as citrus trees. This requirement
will assure that views from the street are not impacted.
Surrounding properties to the east of the project site generally enjoy views of the
Santa Rosa Mountains located to the west and southwest of the project site. The
proposed project will result in the development of residential structures, however these
residential structures will be screened by an existing wall and landscaping along
Madison Street. These existing features already disturb views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains along the immediate eastern boundary of the project site, however views of
the mountains are still visible on the eastern side of Madison Street. Lands to the north
and south have views primarily to the west. These views will not be impacted by the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant
impact on scenic vistas.
b) The proposed project is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway.
There are no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historical
buildings located onsite. Therefore, there will be no impact on scenic resources.
c) The area surrounding the project site can be characterized as semi -rural with large
polo facilities located east of the project site, and large estate residential land uses
located north, south.and west of the proposed project site. The homes built on the
proposed TTM will be similar in style and size to that developed in the area. The
proposed project is consistent with the mass and density requirements of the La Quinta
-a-
Zoning Code for this area. The proposed project site is located within the Very Low
Density Residential zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
Tentative Tract Map 36279 proposes lots no smaller than 24,305 square feet, which is
larger than required by the zoning code. The proposed project, therefore, will have a
less than significant impact on the visual character of the area.
d) The proposed project will result in the creation of 11 new lots designated Very Low
Density Residential. Lighting associated with the project will occur as a result of
residential uses, including lighting from buildings, landscaping, and automobile
traffic. The proposed project site is located near existing development and Madison
Street, which produce sources of light and glare, and will produce similar amounts of
light and glare. A landscape and lighting plan has been prepared and submitted by the
applicant.
The proposed project will be required to abide by the City of La Quinta lighting
ordinance, which requires proper shielding from light sources, and prohibits light
spillage on adjacent properties. Therefore, the small scale of the project, existing
screening measures, and compliance with City standards will assure that impacts
associated with lighting will be less than significant.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (Riverside County Important
Farmland 2008, Ca dept of.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
X
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection)
Il. a) The project site is located on Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the
California Resources Agency. The property was at one time a citrus grove, however
agriculture production has ceased on the project site, and the property has been
partially developed for residential uses, consistent with the land use designation on the
site. The site has been designated for residential development for some time, and its
loss to agricultural activities will not be significant, due to the small size of the parcel.
b) There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property, or on properties in the
immediate vicinity.
c) The proposed project site is located near agricultural uses, however no agricultural
production is occurring onsite. The agricultural activities occurring to the south of the
site will not be impacted by the eventual development of 11 homes. The orchard to the
south can maintain its operations with or without the proposed project; however the
south property is less than 5 acres and is approved for a residential development of 7
lots (TT 33085), so any production from this property will likely cease and, in any
event, is insignificant due to the parcel's size. Impacts associated with the conversion
of farmland are therefore expected to be less than significant.
IQ
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
X
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
(Project Description, Aerial Photo)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Project
X
Description, Aerial Photo)
0 Generate greenhouse gas emissions
either directly or indirectly, that may
X
have a significant impact on the
environment? (Project description)
g) Conflict with an applicable plan,
X
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? (Project description)
III. a) The proposed project is within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is governed by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is
responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and management policies
for the SSAB. All development within the Salton Sea Air Basin, such as the proposed
project, is subject to the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the
2003 Coachella Valley PM,o State Implementation Plan (2003 CVPM,o SIP).
Historically, the Coachella Valley, including the proposed project area, has been
classified as being in non -attainment for PM10. In order to achieve attainment in the
region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan was adopted, which
-7-
established strict standards for dust management for development proposals. The
California Air Resource Board approved the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan on February 25, 2010, re -designating the region from
"non -attainment" to "attainment" based on the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. Federal re -designation is currently pending. The proposed project is
consistent with the land use designation for the property. This land use designation
was the basis of SCAQMD planning for the area. Therefore, the project is consistent
with regional management plans.
b) & c) Construction and operation of the proposed project will result in air emissions. A
breakdown of air emissions caused by these two phases of the proposed project is
provided below. Table 1 shows the construction related emissions, and Table 2 shows
the emissions caused by operation of the project.
Table 1
Construction- Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
CO NO, ROG S02 PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Emissions 12.515 19.3 5.665 0.005 23.92 5.79
SCAQMD 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Thresholds
Source: Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
As shown in Table 1, construction phase emissions will not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds of significance. Impacts to air quality for all criteria pollutants will be less
than significant.
OOverational Emissions
Operational emissions associated with the proposed project include emissions created
by electric and gas demand, area source emissions, and moving source emissions.
Table 2 below provides a summary of each operation related emission caused by the
project. As shown on the table, the majority of operational emissions caused by the
project will be from moving sources. Moving source emissions was based on 1,429
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) created by the development of eleven residential units.
The VMT calculation was provided by the URBEMIS 2007 software, and was based
on the 141 daily trips calculated by the Traffic Assessment Report for the eleven
single-family detached units. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that
construction would begin in March of 2011 and be completed in February of 2012.
-8-
Table 2
Operation -Related Emissions at Buildout (pounds per day)
Stationary
Source Emissions Area
Source
Power Nat. Gas Emissions
Plants Consumption
Moving Total
Source Anticipated
Emissions Emissions
(Ibs./day)
SCAQMD
Threshold
Criteria*
(Ibs./day)
Carbon
Monoxide 0.13 0.10 2.62
13.53
16.38 550.0
Nitrogen Oxides 0.20 0.23 0.04
1.9
2.37 100.0
Reactive
Organic Gases 0.01 0.02 1.5
1.17
2.7 75.0
Sulfur Oxides 0.12 0.000002 0.01
0.02
0.15 150.0
PM10 0.09 0.00043 0.37
2.49
2.95 150
PM2.5 0 0.00043 0.36 1
0.50
0.86 55
* Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining
the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"
prepared by South Coast Air
Quality Management District, April 1993, Revised October 2006; Clean Air and Climate Protection Software
Version 1.1; and URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4.
As shown in the Table, emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of
significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant.
d) The closest sensitive receptor is Mountain Vista Elementary School (49750 Hjorth
St.), located about % of a mile northeast of the project site. The development of 11
homes will not result in the concentration of any pollutants. Impacts associated with
exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, therefore, are
expected to be less than significant.
e) The project will result in the ultimate development of 11 homes, and is not expected to
create objectionable odors.
f & g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions both during the
construction phase and during operation at build out. Based on the URBEMIS model,
construction emissions will generate approximately 218 pounds of CO2 over the
construction period. Construction related greenhouse gas production will be temporary
and will end once the project is completed. Operation of the proposed project will
create on -going greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural
gas, moving sources, and the transport and pumping of water for domestic use. Table 3
provides the annual GHG generation at buildout.
-9-
Table 3
Annual Operational GHG Summary at Buildout
CO2 Equivalent
Emission
CO2 Equivalent
Million Metric
Pounds Per
Source
Metric Tons
Tons
Day
Electricity
34.00
0.00003
205.39
Natural Gas
48.00
0.00005
289.94
Moving Source
272.32
0.00027
1,644.82
Water Transport
16.80
0.00002
101.50.62
Total
371.13
0.0004
2,241.64
There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. However, State legislation,
including AB32, calls for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.
The GHGs generated by the project will be reduced by new statewide programs and
standards, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of
renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. The
proposed project will also be required to implement the CalGreen Building Code being
implemented by the City at the time that building permits are issued. This includes
energy efficiency standards which are much more stringent than they have been in the
past. Therefore, the greenhouse gases generated by the proposed project will have a
less than significant impact on the environment and will not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation.
10-
P
Less Than
Less Than7Noficant
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
X
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
X
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
X
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
X
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
X
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
I) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
X
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
IV. a) The proposed project site is currently partially developed as a result of the previously
approved TTM 30378, which resulted in the construction (albeit without permits) of
-11-
roadways, walls and similar structures on the site. As a result of this construction, the
proposed project site does not contain native vegetation, and has been significantly
disturbed. There are no species of concern identified on the proposed project site. The
project site is surrounded on all sides by existing development, including very low
density residential uses, polo fields, as well as agricultural land. Therefore, the
proposed project will have no impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species.
b-c) The proposed project site is not located on or near areas of riparian habitat or
wetlands. The project site is located in a developed region of La Quinta, including
areas used for residential uses, agricultural production and equestrian uses. Therefore,
the proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or
other sensitive natural community.
d) The proposed project site is partially developed and is surrounded by development.
The site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains Conservation Area, which is an area that serves as a wildlife corridor for
species such as the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and the Desert Tortoise. The
development of the subject property will have no impact on any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e & f) The City of La Quinta has adopted the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan. As a result, the City of La Quinta is required to implement a Local
Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) within the CVMSHCP plan area. The proposed
project site is not within a conservation area, as defined in the Plan. The proposed
project will be required to pay LDMF. These fees are designed to offset potential
impacts of cumulative projects on covered species, and assure that impacts are reduced
throughout the Valley and City to less than significant levels.
The City's General Plan requires burrowing owl surveys to be conducted over
agricultural lands. Due to the previous history of agricultural uses in this area, a
protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey shall be conducted for this site, prior to any
grading or other land disturbance activities.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in'] 5064.5? (Addendum to
X
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5? (Addendum to
X
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature? (Paleontological Sensitivity
Assessment, CRM Tech, 1990)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Addendum to
X
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010)
V.a-b) The project site has been heavily disturbed due to initial construction activities
conducted as a result of the approval of the previous TTM 30378. Cultural resource
surveys have been conducted on the project site, including a field survey and records
search, have determined that no "historical resources" or "archaeological resources",
as defined by CEQA, are located within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore,
approval of the project will have no impact on historical or archaeological resources.
c) Field surveys have discovered specimens, such as freshwater mollusks and shells, on
the project site2. The project area contains sediments deposited by the Holocene Lake
Cahuilla, which are known to contain significant paleontological resources.
Undisturbed lakebed sediments are considered highly sensitive for significant
paleontological resources, including Holocene -age invertebrate fossils. These highly
sensitive sediments are mostly likely to occur below the surface. The surface soils
within the project site have been disturbed in the past from agricultural operations, and
the construction activities associated with the previously approved TTM 30378. As a
result of recent disturbances, these surface soils within the project site are considered
low in sensitivity for paleontological resources. Future excavation and grading will
result in deeper excavation of the site, which will therefore require monitoring and
"spot-checking" to determine whether paleontological resources occur at depth. The
destruction of these resources during grading would represent a potentially significant
Letter report, prepared by CRM Tech, June 2010.
2 Paleontological Sensitivity Assessment, CRM Tech, 1990
-13-
impact, which requires mitigation. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
1. Excavation, trenching and grading shall be monitored by a qualified
paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage
fossils, if unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but shall have power to stop
construction to remove large or abundant specimens.
2. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with
permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the
future.
3. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of
recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, shall be prepared.
The report and inventory shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the
completion of earth moving activities on the site.
d) No known cemetery or burial site occurs on the project site. State law requires a
coroner be contacted and all activities cease when human remains are discovered, to
assure proper disposal. The proposed project will abide by these requirements, and
will therefore have a less than significant impact on human remains.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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 recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
X
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
6.2, "Geotechnical Investigation', Sladden
Engineering)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA
X
Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
X
6.4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA
X
Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
X
substantial risks to life or property
("Geotechnical Investigation', Sladden
Engineering, April 15, 2002)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (TTM 36279)
VI. a)i. The proposed project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone. The site is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Andreas Fault
Zone, and 20 miles northeast of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Due to the lack of known
earthquake faults on the project site, there will be no impacts associated with fault
rupture on the project site.
15-
a)ii. The project site is located in a seismically active area, between the San Andreas and
San Jacinto Fault Zones. These faults are known to produce large earthquakes. The
project site will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake, and
accelerations from strong ground shaking should be considered in the design of new
residential units. All construction on the site will be required to abide by the Uniform
Building Code for Seismic Zone 4, thereby reducing impacts related to strong ground
shaking to less than significant levels.
a)iii. The General Plan shows the project site to be in an area of potential liquefaction
hazard, due to young sediments and ground water 30 feet below the surface.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation performed, however, several factors
required for liquefaction to occur are absent at the project site 3. Groundwater was not
found during boring samples conducted at 50 feet below the surface. Due to the depth
of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. Additionally,
the project will be required to submit detailed geotechnical analysis with the building
plans for the homes on the site. This analysis will further analyze site soils to assure
that foundation design is adequate to support the structures, based on the site -specific
conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction are less than significant.
a)iv. The proposed project site is flat and not located near hillsides that have the potential to
create landslides. Therefore, there will be no impact on the project site in regards to
landslides.
b) The project site is located within a Very Severe Wind Erosion Hazard zone as
identified in the General Plan. The project area is susceptible to high winds that can
cause wind erosion and soil displacement and accumulation. As described in the Air
Quality section, above, the project will be required to implement a dust control and
management plan as part of the grading permit process. In addition, existing and
additional proposed walls and landscaping around the perimeter of the project area
will help alleviate soil erosion caused by high winds. Therefore, impacts associated
with soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant.
c) Based on the Geotechnical Investigation, the surface soils within the upper 5 feet of
the project site consist primarily of silty sands. Expansion testing found the surface
sandy silts to be non -expansive and classified as "very low" expansion category soils
in accordance with Table 18-1-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Therefore,
impacts caused by soil expansion are considered less than significant.
d) The proposed project will be required to connect to the 8" existing sewer line in
Evangeline Way. This 8" sewer line connects to a 2 1 " sewer main in Madison Street.
Therefore, no septic systems will occur on the site.
3 "Geotechnical Investigation", Sladden Engineering, April 15, 2002
16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
X
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
(General Plan Exhibit 4.1, Public Facilities)
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
X
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
(www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/)
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
X
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
X
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 tI)
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
-17-
wildlands? (Wildfire Susceptibility, Riverside
County RCIP)
VII, a-c) The proposed project will result in 11 new homes. This residential development will
not create a significant hazard to the public related to the transporting of hazardous
materials. Individual homeowners'may store and transport small amounts of chemicals
for household cleaning and other uses, however they will be minimal and cause similar
risk as those associated with existing residential uses in the area. The closest school to
the project site is Mountain Vista Elementary School in the City of Indio,
approximately three-quarters of a mile northeast of the project site. The project site is
located approximately two miles south of Hwy 111, and four miles south of Interstate
10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, on which hazardous materials may be transported
through the region. The proposed project, therefore, will have a less than significant
effect on the transporting of hazardous materials or release of hazardous waste into the
environment, and near a school.
d) The project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e-f) The project site is located approximately 5 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes airport,
and approximately 6 miles west of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. The
distance from these facilities indicates no hazards associated with aviation at the
project site.
g) The proposed project will not affect the roadway networks, or interfere with
implementation of an emergency response plan. The proposed project will have access
to the City's existing street grid for emergency purposes. No impacts are expected.
h) The proposed project is located in the developed flatland region of La Quinta. The site
is located approximately two miles east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
There will be no impacts associated with wildland fires at the project site.
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (TTM 36279)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
X
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? (CVUWMP Update, December
2010)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
X
result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off -site? (Hydrology Report, CVE, March
31,2010.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
X
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -site? (Hydrology Report, CVE, March
31,2010.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Hydrology Report, CVE,
March 31,2010.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
X
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? (
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
19-
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. The proposed project will be required to implement National
Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows through the
preparation and implementation of SWPPP and WQMP as required. The homes
eventually developed on the site will connect to the existing 8" sewer line in
Evangeline Way and Beth Circle. Household wastewater will be transported and
processed by CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4), located in
Thermal. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality
standards. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impact on
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) The proposed project will provide a permanent onsite retention basin, which will allow
runoff from the project site to accumulate and provide for groundwater recharge.
Domestic water demand from the proposed eleven residential lots will be supplied by
CVWD. CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, which
is a long-term planning document that will help CVWD to reliably meet current and
future water demands. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can
supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed project. Therefore impacts on
groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less than significant.
o-g) A Hydrology /Drainage Report has been prepared for the project, and highlights
impacts associated with storm runoffs. The Report shows that runoff from the project
site, and along Madison Street, will flow and be contained by onsite retention basins,
which will be designed per the requirements of the City of La Quinta. Water runoff
from the proposed project, and from offsite sources, is expected to accumulate in these
basins. The proposed retention storage from these basins is adequate to accommodate
the site's storm water flows. Therefore impacts associated with storm runoff are
expected to be less than significant.
4 "Hydrology/Drainage Report for Tract 36279, prepared by CVE, March 31, 2010.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? (Aerial photo; project plans)
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit
2.1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
X
conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74
ff.)
IX. a-b) The proposed project will include I I new residential lots on 9.14 gross acres, ranging
from 0.58 acres to 0.68 acres in size. The homes to be built on the site will be designed
to conform to the Very Low Density Residential zone requirements. The surrounding
area includes both open and gated communities, and therefore the development of this
proposed gated community will fit in with the surrounding community. There are no
existing homes on the site, and the project will therefore not divide an existing
community. The project's conformance to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will
eliminate any potential impact with any applicable land use policy, plan or regulation.
c) The project site is not within any conservation area as identified in the CVMSHCP.
The City is required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for
implementation of the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to
pay fees for the CVMSHCP. No impacts are expected from any conflict with the
CVMSHCP.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
x
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological
Survey)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
X
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological
Survey
X.a & b) The proposed project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which
indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a
result of the proposed project.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
X
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. I I I
ff.; Noise Impact Analysis, Coachella Valley
Engineers, April 30, 2010)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (General Plan
X
MEA p. I I I ff.; Noise Impact Analysis,
Coachella Valley Engineers, April 30, 2010; La
Quinta Municipal Code)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
X
project? (General Plan MEA p. III ff.; La
Quinta Municipal Code)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
X
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
1 I I ff.; Google Earth)
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,
X
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Google Earth)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
X
area to excessive noise levels? (Google
Earth)
XLa) The La Quinta General Plan provides for Community and Noise Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines for residential projects. These guidelines consider exterior
noise levels over 65 decibels (dB) CNEL as unacceptable for residential development.
Interior noise levels for residential development cannot exceed 45 dB CNEL. The
proposed project will border Madison Street, just south of Vista Bonita Trail. Noise
associated with traffic along Madison Street will be the most significant noise
generator, particularly on the five lots that border Madison Street. Build out of the
-23-
General Plan is expected to increase noise levels to 73.5 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the
centerline of Madison Street.
A noise impact report was prepared for the proposed projects. The noise analysis
considered the siting of the proposed lots, and the impact of the traffic generated on
Madison Street in the future. The property lines of lots 7 through l l are expected to be
75 feet from the Madison Street centerline. The unmitigated noise levels in the rear
yards of these lots is expected to be 71.2 dB CNEL, which is +6.2 dB over the
acceptable 65 dB CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact, which
requires mitigation. Construction of a six-foot wall will reduce noise levels to 64.91
dB CNEL, in conformance to the City's standard.
In regards to interior noise levels, enhanced structural features, such as double paned
windows and stucco construction, will reduce noise levels by 25-30 dB. These
enhanced structural features, along with a 6-foot wall, will help create acceptable
interior noise levels. In order to assure that impacts associated with on -site noise levels
are reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. A 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the eastern project
perimeter for lots abutting Madison Street.
2. Any proposed second story rooms in residential units that abut Madison Street
will require dual paned windows and other enhanced structural features
capable of reducing noise levels by -25 dB CNEL to meet the interior noise
level standards of 45 dB CNEL.
3. All perimeter homes adjacent to Madison Street shall have central air
conditioning as a standard feature, and should be equipped to provide 60 CFM
of supplemental ventilation in any rooms directly facing Madison Street.
b) Future construction will include demolition of interior walls and grading of lots, which
could generate ground vibration. The nearest residential units to the project site are
located on the north side of Vista Bonita Trail. These homes are located approximately
100 feet away from the project property line. An existing wall and vegetation currently
surrounds the project site, including along the northern property line. Construction
activity on the proposed project site will be required to abide by construction time
limits highlighted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Existing noise attenuation and
adherence to the La Quinta Municipal Code will reduce exposure of excessive
groundbome vibration to less than significant levels.
c) The proposed project will result in the development of 11 very low density residential
units, and will marginally increase permanent ambient noise levels. These ambient
noise levels will be associated with typical residential activities, including the use of
automobiles, power equipment, appliances, and human activity, however. Therefore,
the proposed project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity.
d) Construction of the proposed project may create a temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
5 Noise Impact Analysis, Coachella Valley Engineers, April 30, 2010.
-24-
Construction activity associated with project will include minimal grading, demolition
of interior walls, and construction of housing. These construction activities, however,
will be temporary and be required to comply with noise standards and hours required
by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels,
therefore, will be less than significant.
e-f) The proposed project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip. No impacts
will occur.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact.
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
X
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere?
(Application materials)
XII, a-c) Tentative Tract Map 36279 proposes 11 residential lots. The project site is currently
vacant, and will not displace people or housing. According to the 2010 Federal
Census, the 2010 household size in La Quinta was 2.546 persons per household. Based
on this factor, the project would add approximately 28 additional persons to the City's
population. The project, therefore, would not induce substantial population growth to
the area. The project also includes two private streets that are currently developed, and
will not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other
infrastructure. The site is currently vacant, and will not displace any existing residents.
No impacts to population or housing are expected.
6 Table DP-l; 2010 US Census, United States Bureau of the Census.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Impact
Significant w/
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57,
Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection
X
Letter, October 12, 2010)
Police protection? (La Quinta Police Letter)
X
Schools? (Coachella Valley Unified School
District Letter)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
Master Plan, TTM 36279)
X
Other public facilities? (SunLine Agency
Letter, Time Warner Cable Letter, CV WD Letter,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Fire protection for the proposed project is provided for by the County of
Riverside Fire Department. The closest fire station is located south of the project site,
near the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. This station includes one City
Paramedic Assessment Engine and one County Brush Engine. Riverside County Fire
Department requires specific fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
the City of La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department Fire
Protection Standards when building plans are reviewed. The eleven proposed lots will
create a marginal increase in fire protection demand. The required fire protection
measures, marginal increase in protection demand, and close proximity to a local fire
station, are indicative of a less than significant impact on fire protection resources.
The addition of 11 homes and 28 persons is not expected to significantly impact police
services. The City contracts with the County Sheriff for police services. The area is
currently patrolled, and would continue to be patrolled after build out of the proposed
project. The 1 I homes will minimally increase the demand for service. Therefore, the
proposed project will have a less than significant impact on police services.
The proposed project is located within the Coachella Valley Unified School District,
and will be required to pay the State mandated developer fee to help address and offset
-27-
the potential impacts to local schools. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less
than significant impact on schools.
The proposed project will increase population by 28 persons, and create minimal
demand on parks and recreation services. The Municipal Code establishes criteria for
dedicating land, or payment of in lieu fees, for construction of new parks for
residential subdivisions above five parcels. The project will be required to pay a park
development fee. The proposed project, therefore, is expected to create a less than
significant impact on parks.
6d:W
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
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
X
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(TTM 36279, LQ Code 13.48)
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
X
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (TTM 36279)
XIV. a & b) The proposed project will include the development of 11 new residential units. As
stated above, it will be required to participate in future parks through the payment of a
parks fee based on the Municipal Code requirements. The addition of 28 persons will
not impact the City's recreational facilities. The proposed project, therefore, will have
no impact on recreation.
-29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
X
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(Traffic Assessment for Tract No. 36279, George
Dunn Engineering.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
X
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (Traffic Assessment for Tract
No. 36279, George Dunn Engineering.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
X
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM36279)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (TTM 36279)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(TTM 36279)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (TTM 36279, Sardine Transit Agency)
XV. a-b) Tentative Tract Map 36279 will result in 11 very low density residential lots on 9.14
gross acres. A traffic impact memorandum was prepared for the proposed project, and
shows future traffic created by the project will total 141 trips per day, with 27 trips
during AM peak hour and 11 trips during PM peak hour 7.
7 "Traffic Assessment for Tract No.36279, La Quints, CA", prepared by George Dunn Engineering, November, 17, 2010.
-30-
Pursuant to the City's requirements for traffic impact analysis, the study considered
project impacts at two intersections: Beth Circle at Madison Street, and Vista Bonita
Trail at Madison Street.8 Future traffic counts were based on a project completion date
of 2014, and accounted for a 5% increase in traffic during tourist season (Jan -April),
and a 1 % per year ambient growth rate.
The existing LOS B (Level of Service) conditions found during AM and PM peak
hours at the intersections of Madison Street and Beth Circle, and at Madison Street
and Vista Bonita Trail, are expected to continue with build out of the proposed project
in 2014. Overall, the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on area traffic
conditions, due to the low trip generations. Therefore, the proposed project will create
only negligible increases in traffic, and in level of service.
c) The 11 lots created by the proposed project are not expected to have any impact on
operations at either Bermuda Dunes Airport or Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport.
The project is located outside areas affected by the land use plan for both airports.
d) The proposed project site will include eleven subdivided lots alongside two existing
private streets, Beth Circle and Evangeline Way. Intersections have been designed
consistent with City standards, and access to Madison Street will be Stop -sign
controlled. The project proposes single family homes which will not be incompatible
with existing uses. No impacts associated with hazards are expected.
e) Emergency access onto the project site will be from Beth Circle. A private gate is
proposed at Beth Circle, which will be required to be Knox Box controlled, consistent
with Fire Department standards. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with
emergency access.
f) The proposed residential lots will provide required amount of parking consistent with
the City's Zoning Ordinance. No impacts associated with the sufficiency of parking
are expected.
g) SunLine Transit Agency currently does not provide transit services along Madison
Street near the project site. However the Agency will monitor on going developments
in the area, and may consider future services, if warranted. As such, the proposed
project will have no impact on alternative transportation.
8 "Traffic Assessment for Tract No.36279, La Quinta, CA", prepared by George Dunn Engineering, November, 17, 2010.
-31-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
X
Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD,
December 2010)
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(CVWD, December 2010)
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (TTM
36279)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
X
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ti:)
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
X
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
X
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a-b,
d-e) The I lots proposed under TTM 36279 fall under the jurisdiction of the Coachella
Valley Water District for wastewater treatment. An 8-inch sewer line lies beneath the
existing streets. Wastewater produced by the proposed project will be processed by the
-32-
CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4), located in Thermal. As of
December 2010, the Mid -Valley plant had capacity of just under 10 million gallons
per day (mgd), and processes approximately 5 mgd9. The plant, therefore, has more
than sufficient capacity to serve the project The development of 11 additional lots will
have no impact on wastewater treatment facilities.
CVWD will also provide domestic water to the site. As discussed under Hydrology
and Water Quality, above, the District has sufficient water supplies to serve build out
of the City. The addition of 11 homes will only nominally increase CVWD's current
water pumping. The project will also be required to implement water conservation
programs, including drought tolerant landscaping and the CalGreen Building Code,
which requires that high efficiency fixtures be used. No impact is expected.
c) The project is proposing an onsite retention basin, capable of handling 62,861 cubic
feet of runoff, to be located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Evangeline
Way and Beth Circle. This retention basin will also capture runoff traveling along the
west side of Madison Street through a new drainage pipe along the curb just north of
the Beth Circle/Madison Street intersects. These facilities will be self contained, and
will have no impact on regional drainage facilities.
f& g) The project site will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash
generated by the project will be hauled to the transfer station located in Cathedral City,
west of the City, and from there transported to one of four regional landfills. All four
landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project.
Burrtec is required to meet all local, regional, State and federal standards for solid
waste disposal. They will assure that no impact occurs.
9 Personal communication, Kim Halsey, CV WD WRP-4, December 14, 2010.
-33-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
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 disadvantage
X
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
X
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
X
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) The proposed project site is not located within an area known to contain significant
habitat or threatened or endangered species. The project site has been previously
disturbed and partially developed. No significant biological impacts are anticipated.
There are no cultural resources on the project site. However, the project site may
contain paleontological resources below the surface. Mitigation measures included in
this Initial Study will assure that impacts to these resources are reduced to less than
significant levels.
b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, and
as such meets both short and long term goals.
c) The proposed project will not cumulatively impact environmental resources. The
General Plan build out levels will not be affected by addition/development of 11
residential lots for single family use.
-34-
d) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project will have the potential to
impact the residents of lots 7 through 11, due to high noise levels. The mitigation
measures included in this Initial Study, however, assure that these impacts are reduced
to less than significant levels.
-35-
XVIII. 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.
General Plan EIR, 2002.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-36-
vm
\
;
\�
�
\\
§
{
§
\
/
�
\
(2
kB
2
(/
)f
��
■'
)/
E
�(
E
\�
§/
!
\\�\
�
k/(
&}}
(
0
\�
�
\\
!
w �
§
d
\ \
/
ƒ ƒ
} }
/ )
!
�\
2 ƒ
z2 }/
;
9a \f
Eo so
[
A\d
0
;.
q
�
$\
\>
/§k\\
wee
ee
�f)
_
§
§\r
to
-
}
\�
�
\\
§
k
/
\
�
\
§o
£2
j
� k
■
ƒ
)/ )
2t
[
b2
) !
2-
i -$
E0
)
u
w))
\—
k
a E0o
/£ X