CC Resolution 2002-126RESOLUTION NO. 2002-126
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM
TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2001-
435) PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30331
AMENDMENT #1
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-435
APPLICANT: SANTA PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 6`h day of August, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-435 for Tentative Tract Map 30331
Amendment #1, located on the north side of Avenue 50, approximately 1,262 feet
west of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as follows:
APN's: 649-520-010, 649-520-012, 649-520-013
Portion of the East 1 /5 of the West '/2 of the SE '/4 of Section 32, T5S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23`d day of July, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-435 for Tentative Tract Map 30331
Amendment #1, and on a 4-0 vote, recommended certification by adoption of
Resolution 2002-081; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 181h day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-435 for Tentative Tract Map 30331 and, by a 5-0
vote, adopted Resolution 2001-163 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Addendum to EA 2001-435
and has determined that although the proposed Tentative Tract Map 30331 could have
a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the
prior assessment as certified by the City Council on December 18, 2001, by adoption
of Resolution 2001-163.
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Addendum was posted with
the Riverside County Recorder's office on June 19, 2002, by the Community
Development Department; and
Resolution No. 2002-126
EA Addendum for Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment #1
Santa Properties and Development LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun Newspaper on July 9, 2002, for the July 23, 2002
Planning Commission meeting and July 26, 2002, for the August 6, 2002 City Council
meeting as prescribed by Section 13.12.100 (Public Notice Procedure) of the
Subdivision Ordinance. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the tract map site. To date, no comments have been received from
adjacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
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 City Council.
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Addendum was prepared and
processed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation
procedures, and that mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been incorporated into the Project and that 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.
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.
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.
Resolution No. 2002-126
EA Addendum for Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment #1
Santa Properties and Development LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 3
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 City Council
Resolution 2001-163.
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
Addendum and the comments received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Addendum reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City 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: The adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is
attached hereto pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure
compliance during Project implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Addendum 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.
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).
Resolution No. 2002-126
EA Addendum for Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment #1
Santa Properties and Development LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 4
SECTION 15: The Addendum to EA 2001-435 is hereby certified by the
City Council.
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) once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 6th day of August, 2002, by the vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH�J. PE1 A, Mayor
City La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
2".� - -, -ij
JU REEK, CMC, CI y erk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-126
EA Addendum for Tentative Tract Map 30331 Amendment #1
Santa Properties and Development LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
M. KATHERI E JENSON, Clty Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30331, AMENDMENT #1
SUBDIVIDING 5.16 ACRES INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#2SantaEAadd.wpd 1 Resolution No. 2002-126
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 2001-435 (EA) that the City adopted December 18, 2001.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document the change in the map from 7 to 12
lots, to be secured through approval of:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30331, AMENDMENT #1
This is referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in EA
2001-435 are incorporated into this document by this reference.
The Revised Project consists of 5.16 acres located on the north side of Avenue 50,
west of Jefferson Street. The Revised Project will result in the creation of 12
residential lots and lettered lots for street and retention basin uses. The City has
determined that the proposed residential development will be consistent with the
density and character of the adjacent residential development, and will be consistent
with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan.
The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land uses proposed in the
original map, only the addition of 5 lots.
The City has compared the impacts of the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed
in the Environmental Assessment and finds as follows:
Air Quality
The original project would have created 7 single family homes on 5.1 acres. Seven
residential units would have generated 67 daily trips. The Revised project will create
12 lots, and result in 12 single family homes, which will generate 115 vehicle trips per
day. The impacts to air quality from these trips will be only fractionally higher than
those originally analyzed, as shown in the Table below.
50 mph
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
2.97 0.11 0.61 -- 0.01 0.01
Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 115 trips/day and average trip length of 5 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.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#2Santa EAadd.wpd 2 Resolution No. 2002-126
Impacts to air quality will be substantially the same as those previously analyzed.
Cultural Resources
The impacts of the Revised Project will be identical to those previously analyzed. The
addition of lots will not alter the need to grade the entire site. Potential impacts to
cultural resources had been previously mitigated and approved by the City's Historic
Preservation Commission.
Geology and Soils
Impacts associated with seismic hazards and soils will be no greater than those
previously analyzed. The addition of five lots on the site will not change any of the
City's requirements for geotechnical analysis, and for construction methods to mitigate
potential impacts.
Water Resources
Impacts to water resources will be only marginally greater with the implementation of
the Revised Project. There will be an additional 5 homes on the land, which will utilize
domestic water. The City will impose the same standards and requirements as would
have been imposed on the 7 lot subdivision. Retention facilities are proposed in the
same location at the south end of the tract as with the original tract.
Noise
Impacts will be no greater than previously analyzed. The mitigation measures included
in the previous tract will apply to the Revised Project, and the distance from the right
of way to the first houses on the Revised Project will be slightly increased.
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative
Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section
21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve:
1. Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Environmental Assessment
and Mitigated Negative Declaration which would involve new significant effects
on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
impacts;
2. Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the
environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated
Negative Declaration; or
3. New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the Environmental Assessment and
Mitigated Negative Declaration which substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#2SantaEAadd.wpd 3 Resolution No. 2002-126
Environmental Checklist Form
City Council Resolution 2001-163
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30331
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 50, West of Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Properties
49105 Casa del Oro
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: 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 5.1 acres into 7 single family lots, two
street lots and two landscaping or retention lots.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Low Density Residential
South: Avenue 50, Low Density Residential
West: Low Density Residential
East: Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EACkIstTT30331.WPD
1
Environmental Factors Antially 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.
Si
o/
0
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EACkIstTT30331.WPD
2
•
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
•
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as. operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier 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 15O63(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
significance b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EACkIstTT30331.WPD
•
•
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 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)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
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)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following 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)
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:
Potentially
Potentially'
Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Signircant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impac
X
X
X
X
4
•
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, Exhibit 5-1)
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. 5-2 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. 5-2 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. 5-2 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 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 30331," Archaeological
Advisory Group, September 2001)
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)? ("Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 30331,"
Archaeological Advisory Group, September 2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative
Tract 30331," Archaeological Advisory Group, September 2001)
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:
R.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
•
•
VII.
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, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed 7 Lot Residential Subdivision...," Sladden Engineering,
August 2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential
Subdivision...," Sladden Engineering, August 2001)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
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 Proposed 7 Lot Residential
Subdivision...," Sladden Engineering, August 2001)
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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
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)
0
�J
•
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
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)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
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, page 4-57 ff.)
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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
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? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
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 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan 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? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
X
1/
F1
X
X
F.
X
F:�
01
M
W
LJ
•
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 5-29)
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 5-29)
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? ("Noise Study for Construction
and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 30331...,"
October 2001)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Noise Study for Construction
and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 30331...,'9
October 2001)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?("Noise
Study for Construction and Operation of Residential Land Uses on
Tentative Tract 30331...," October 2001)
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 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, page 2-14)
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, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
X
F�
X
M
X
KI
KI
X
C
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 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, page 4-126 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, page 4-126 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, page 4-126 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, page 4-126 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, page 4-24
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, page 4-24 )
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,
page 4-27)
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, page 4-20)
9
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
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.
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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this 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.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
10
• 0
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 30331, Archaeological Advisory Group,
September & October, 2001.
Noise Study for Construction and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 30331
in the City of La Quinta, CA, Synectecology, October, 2001.
Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential Subdivision Avenue 50 West of Jefferson
Street, Sladden Engineering, August 2001.
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-435
III. c) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation
of motor vehicles. The 7 single family residential units will generate
approximately 67 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at
buildout will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 1.73 0.07 0.35 -- 0.01 0.01
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 67 trips/day and average trip length of 5 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.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
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
submit such a 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. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM 10 Management Plan.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for single family
residential, at 9.57 trips per day.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EAAddTT30331.WPD 1
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
V. b) A cultural resource survey and resource recovery were conducted for the
subject property2. The assessment recommended the completion of trenching
on the site, to quantify resources below ground. The trenching was completed,
and results submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and
approval. The resulting report found that all potential impacts had been
2
" Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 30331,"" Archaeology Advisory Group,
September 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EAAddTT30331 .WPD 2
•
0
mitigated, and that no further mitigation measures were required. The impacts
to cultural resources from development of the proposed property will be less
than significant.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site 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 (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will
implement requirements for a PM 10 management plan, which will control this
hazard (please see Air Quality, above). These requirements will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The development of the project site will require domestic water. The project
proponent 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.
VIII. c)-e)
The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour
storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during
a storm. The park's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The creation of areas which
are mostly sod will encourage percolation of water into the soil. The design of
the park includes depressions where the fields are located, to assure adequate
detention of storm water. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood
control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
G:IWPDOCS1Env Asses\EAAddTT30331.WPD 3
XI. a) & c)
A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed park project'. The study found
that the existing noise environment generates noise levels at a distance of 50
feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 were 68.5 dBA CNEL. At buildout of the
General Plan, this same noise level will reach 73.3 dBA CNEL without
mitigation. The City's standard for useable back yard areas on residential lots
is 60 dBA CNEL. Several designs for front entry walls were further discussed
with the noise engineer following completion of the noise study'. In order to
mitigate the potential impacts associated with traffic noise, the following
mitigation measures will be implemented.
1. A 6 foot wall on top of a one foot berm shall be constructed on the
southern property line of lot 1. This wall will extend along the eastern
property line of lot 1 northerly, to intersect with the entry gates for the
proposed project. Said entry gates shall be made of a solid material.
2. On the east side of the entry drive, the project proponent shall place a 6
foot wall on a one foot berm from the entry gate northerly to the
northernmost point of Lot D, and extend the wall easterly to the eastern
property line, to connect with the wall required in mitigation measure ##3,
below.
3. A 6 foot wall on a 1 foot berm shall be constructed along the eastern and
western property lines, from the walls on the southern frontage of the
property northerly to the northern property boundary.
The study also found that the project's construction could impact residential
units located adjacent to the subject property. In order to mitigate these
potential impacts, the study imposes the following mitigation measures:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
existing occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating
mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located as far as practical from adjacent, occupied residential units.
These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with noise at
the subject property to a less than significant level.
3
a
"Noise Study for Construction and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 30331..."
Synectecology, October, 2001.
Personal communication, Todd Brody, November 15, 2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EAAddTT30331.WPD 4
V)
rn
a�
U
O
L
aw
c
rr
t�
h
U
a.
0
a
C13
o
i
o
z
d
z
Q
a
�
a
�
J
a
G
U
W
d
w
a
r
w�
U C�
Z C
r
�C. U
G �
r
U
U
a
r
q
q
m
m
Z
o
0
0
0
=
En
0
0
0
cn
=
L4
U
CO
tD
b0
Cp
Oz
w_
Q0
c
y
o
w
v
2
c
O
O
o
a�
3
L ° >'
.,
Fcz
R
c,
y
C:6
0
vcz
O
CZ 6
�C7
3
E
to
CU
o
o—cav
w
�_
�G
E�E
�
2
Cc