CC Resolution 2002-095RESOLUTION NO. 2002-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30378
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-441
APPLICANT: ROD VANDENBOS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 18th day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-441 for Tentative Tract 30378 herein referred to as
the "Project" for Rod Vandenbos; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-441 for Tentative Tract 30378 herein referred to as
the "Project" for Rod Vandenbos; and,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for Environmental Assessment 2002-441 prepared for Tentative
Tract 30378 generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 51 and Madison
Street, more particularly described as:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:
772-270-01 1, 772-270-012, & 772-270-013; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on May
24, 2002, to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public entities
entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the public
hearing before the City Council on June 18, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on May
17, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk
in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and,
Resolution No. 2002-95
Environmental Assessment 2002-441
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on May 28, 2002, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June
18, 2002, on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, during which public
hearing testimony and other evidence was received.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Council.
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-441.
SECTION 4: The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Resolution No. 2002-95
Environmental Assessment 2002-441
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 3
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The Project will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
SECTION 9: The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Council.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6
in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
Resolution No. 2002-95
Environmental Assessment 2002-441
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 4
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby certified and
adopted.
SECTION 16: The Community Development Director shall cause to be
filed with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 18th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOHN[ A PEN/,, �►/layor
City Aka Qui , California
ATTEST:
JU GREEK, CMC, ity Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-95
Environmental Assessment 2002-441
Adopted: June 18,2002
Page 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KAT ERINE JEN , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30378
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Avenue 51 (extended) and Madison
Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rod Vandenbos
74785 Highway 1 1 1, Suite 100
Indian Wells, CA 92210
6. General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 9.16 acres into 8 lots ranging in size from
0.81 to 1.01 acres in size. The subdivision also includes a central cul-de-sac,
an access drive from the southern property boundary at Madison Street, and
lettered lots for the provision of open space areas along Madison Street. The
land is currently a citrus grove.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Very Low Density Residential (Polo Estates)
South: Vacant Very Low Density Residential lands now in agriculture
West: All American Canal, recently approved Specific Plan for low
density residential and golf course.
East: Polo Grounds
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
SACity C1erk\TT30378EACk1st.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
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Ignature
,G
Date
01
V
0
PAFRED\TT30378EACk1st. W PD
7
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 analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section
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
SACity C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
S:\City Clerk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, 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, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat
or other 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 p. 73 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not 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 p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.)
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? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by CRM
Tech, April 2002.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\TT30378EACklst.WPD
5
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique 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)? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by CRM
Tech, April 2002.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..."
prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002.)
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 recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR p. III-
61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by
Sladden Engineering, April 2002.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..."
prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.)
iv) Landslides? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract
No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2002.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378..." prepared by
Sladden Engineering, April 2002.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? ("Geotechnical Investigation Tentative
Tract No. 30378..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, April
2002.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
6
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the 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 conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project 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)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR
p. 111-87 ff.)
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 (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? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
S:\City Clerk\TT30378EACklst.WPD
7
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, 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? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract
No. 30378," Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002)
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 the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -site? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378," Daniel
Ferguson, PE, April 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? ('Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378," Daniel
Ferguson, PE, April 2002)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 73 ff.)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
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 use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
S:\City C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
8
/.1
KI
X
X
KI
X
X
X
X
X
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 of other agencies?
(General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
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 Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use 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)? (General Plan, P. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
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. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
S:\City C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
9
X
X
X
X
X
FN
X
X
Ir
X
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
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 trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, P. 46 ff.)
X
K4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
10
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
P. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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 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 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 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
R
X
91
r_1
1/
X
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
SACity C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
11
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 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378..., prepared by
CRM Tech, April 2002.
Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract No. 30378.... prepared by Sladden Engineering, April
2002.
Hydrology Tentative Tract No. 30378, prepared by Daniel Ferguson, PE, April 2002.
SACity C1erk\TT30378EACkIst.WPD
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-441
11. a) The site is currently a citrus grove. The proposed project site is surrounded by
lands which have been developed on the north, south and west. Citrus groves
occur to the south. The site is not mapped as locally significant farmland. The
loss of 9 acres of citrus will not represent a significant impact to agriculture in
the Valley. The impacts associates with agricultural resources are not expected
to be significant.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of
motor vehicles. The 8 single family homes which could be built upon the
proposed parcels could generate approximately 77 trips per day'. These 77 trips
could, at buildout generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 2.78 0.11 0.57 -- 0.01 0.01
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 77 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75*F. * Operational thresholds
provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an
EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
vehicular emissions are not expected to be significant.
111. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the
area. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition," for category 210, Single Family
Detached Housing.
S:\City Clerk\TT30378EA Adden.WPD
submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be
mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. The landscaped parkway on Madison Street,
the retention basins on the east side of the tract, and parkway
landscaping on the north and south boundaries of the project (within and
adjacent to the entry drive, and on the south side of Bonita Trail) shall be
landscaped immediately following issuance of the first grading permit for
the site.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds bxceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
V. b) A Phase I cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property2. The
2
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tentative Tract No. 30378...," prepared by CRM
Tech, April 2002.
SACity Clerk\TT30378EA Adden.WPD 2
Phase I study did not identify any resources at the site. The study does,
however, identify the potential for buried resources. In order to ensure that the
impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than significant level, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during any trenching shall be done
with a written report on the archaeological monitoring being prepared and
submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval prior to final
inspection for the first residence or approval of tract improvements,
whichever occurs first. Should any earth moving activity on the site
uncover a potential archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall
stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the
resource, and recommended mitigation measures.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The homes at the project site, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to
significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The homes will
be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include
Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will
require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with
the submittal of grading plans. These requirements will ensure that impacts
from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The subject property is subject to severe wind erosion hazards. The City
Engineer will require the preparation of PM10 Management Plan to control the
potential for blowing dust from the project site (please see mitigation measures
under Air Quality, above). These mitigation measures will lessen the potential
impacts of soil erosion to a less than significant level.
Vlll. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District from wells
in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. Each of the homes at the project site will be
required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing
fixtures -and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts
associated with groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the
requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These
standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Vill. c)&d)
The proposed subdivision is for lots of approximately one acre in size. The
homes to be placed on these lots will not represent a significant loss of
permeable land, since it is likely that the majority of each lot will be landscaped.
In addition, retention basins have been designed for the eastern end of the site,
the handle storm flows from the 4 eastern lots. The City Engineer will require
that these retention basins, and the 1 acre lots on the west half of the
S:\City Clerk\TT30378EA Adden.WPD 3
XI. a)
subdivision retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. The tract's drainage plan
will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated
with surface water to a less than significant level.
The proposed project occurs in an area with lower levels of traffic, which are
not expected to exceed the City's noise standards at buildout of the General
Plan. Further, the proposed houses will occur more than 100 feet west of
Madison Street, with the proposed retention area providing additional buffers.
A wall or walls will be constructed along the eastern property lines of the
eastern lots, providing further noise reduction. It is expected that impacts to the
residences from noise generated on Madison will be less than significant.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary high noise
levels from construction equipment. The project site is located in an area which
is either undeveloped, or developed in very large lots subdivisions. The distance
between the proposed tract and structures on surrounding lots should provide
sufficient buffer to result in less than significant impacts to the neighbors from
construction noise.
XIII. a)
The proposed homes will have a limited impact on public services. The homes
will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax, which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services.
The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as each home
is constructed. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the
impacts to schools.
The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
XIV. a)
The addition of 8 homes will have the potential to require additional recreational
space. However, the size of the proposed lots, between 0.8 and 1.01 acre
each, will allow each homeowner to construct on -site recreational amenities to
a higher degree than a standard subdivision. The impacts associated with the
subdivision of the proposed parcel into 8 lots will not have a significant impact
on recreation in the City.
S:\City Clerk\TT30378EA Adden.WPD 4
N
O
0
N
M
cd
i�
00
n
M
O
M
O
z
H
au
F-+
CA
v
0
a
N
O
0
N
o
zz
z
x
A
U
W
d
W
Q
G
U�
zA
dw
aU
� w
O�
U U
d
►a
`°
°C'
G
a
,a
o
bo
c a
o
c
0
F
U
c
c
U
Q
p,
�
L O.
a
cd
o in
yn
v)
to
to
to
o
c
C7
•°
•°
c
•°
•°
z
rA
L
L
..
F-
(A
c
ca
U
=
U
•=
-
° UEn
U
�O
C U
U
a
O
�
w
a
a�
c
a
o
•on
'on
'�
w
�
on
E
on
t..
on
U
U
U
U L1
C
cC
s
++
C
L
GQ7
a.
•7
N
t
o
� Wes/
�
•O
Q
'C
F
00
�
L
• V)
�
N
�1
i.
O
30
❑
O
.N
Cd
C*
LL
•L+
bA
°
cts
C
b
o
��
Cd
3
c
>
coa
I.~.4
'�
Qr
C/� N
w
Q
G
w >•
z A
Qw
ax
a U
gw
ox
UU
0
w
o
a
U
� �
C U
cd M
cn Q.
to
z
o
E
F
�
Cd
0
on
c
•L
0
a
z
w
J a
G.
o
Z
N
Q
O
a
t
�+
G
o N
U Ca
a.
0
O
Ugo
a7
-o
w o
a
cd
cd "O
cd
OR