CC Resolution 2002-128RESOLUTION NO. 2002-128
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2002-442) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
30487
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for a 33-lot single family development on 9.78 ± acres located
on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately 1,620 feet west of Madison Street in
a RL Zoning District (collectively "the Project"), more particularly described as
APN: 762-240-013 (FORMERLY 761-090-01 1)
SW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 21, T6S, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on July 9, 2002, recommended
certification of the environmental assessment by adoption of Resolution 2002-075;
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 June
12, 2002, and July 10, 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 Planning Commission on July 9, 2002, and City
Council on August 6, 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 June
17, 2002, and July 15, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the
Riverside County Clerk on June 19, 2002, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received comment letters
on the Mitigated Negative Declaration from local public agencies. Community
Development Department personnel reviewed and considered these comments, and
prepared written responses to these comments which are contained in the staff report;
and
Resolution No. 2002-128
EA 2002-442 for TTM 30487
Santa Rosa Dev., LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council on August 6, 2002, did consider
the Project and recommended certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 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 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 2002-442.
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.
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.
Resolution No. 2002-128
EA 2002-442 for TTM 30487
Santa Rosa Dev., LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 3
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 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: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, 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.
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 for the Project is
hereby certified.
Resolution No. 2002-128
EA 2002-442 for TTM 30487
Santa Rosa Dev., LLC
Adopted: August 6, 2002
Page 4
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) after the August 6, 2002 City Council meeting.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 6tn day of August, 2002, by the vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pelia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
lit
JOH . PE , Mayor
City dWLa QLWnta, California
ATTEST:
JUNtj:'GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSONL,-ICi
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30487
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 58, about 1,620 feet west of
Madison Street (APN: 762-240-013)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Rosa Development, LLC
P. 0. Box 11335
Palm Desert, CA 92255
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL)
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.)
Subdivision of 10.04 gross acres into 33 residential lots, and additional
lettered lots for streets and retention basins.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: PGA West County Club
South: Avenue 58, Vacant, Low Density Residential
West: Vacant and Residential, Low Density Residential
East: Vacant, Date Palm Grove, Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAchkit. wpd
1
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.
1 ❑
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
E , c nding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
n further is required.
� r
1.-2%_C
Date —
PAGreg T\SantaRosaEACklst.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 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
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAcWt. wpd
3
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 nonagricultural 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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K9
X
X
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\PH #3Santa Rosa EAchklt.wpd
4
IV
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
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? (General Plan MEA, 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? (General Plan MEA, 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?(General Plan MEA,
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? (General Plan MEA, 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?(General Plan MEA, 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, CRM Tech, April, 2002)
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, CRM Tech, April, 2002)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FN
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAchklt.wpd
5
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Paleontological Resources Assessment, CRM Tech, April,
2002)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report, 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? (Geotechnical
Feasibility Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Geotechnical Feasibility
Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Earth Systems Southwest,
November 2001)
iv) Landslides? (Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Earth Systems
Southwest, November 2001)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 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 Feasibility
Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November 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? (Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Earth
Systems Southwest, November 2001)
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?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
X
FN
E4
X
X
X
X
X
X
a1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X
materials? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\PH #3SantaRosa EAchklt.wpd
6
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? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Phase I & II Investigations, Earth Systems
Southwest, December 2001)
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? (Phase I &
II Investigations, Earth Systems Southwest, December 2001)
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. III-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.)
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 p. III-87
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 p. III-87 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
09
91
X
C:\Mydata\WPDO CS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa RosaEAchklt.wpd
7
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 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 Exhibit 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
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.)
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 Impact Analysis, P. A. Penardi, April 2002)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Noise
Impact Analysis, P. A. Penardi, April 2002)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.)
X
X
X
U
FN
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAchkit.wpd
8
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (Application materials)
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.)
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:
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\PH #3SantaRosaEAchklt.wpd
9
X
X
X
X
X
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 p. 22 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 p. 22 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)? (Application materials)
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.)
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.)
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAchkit. wpd
10
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a1 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
X
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.
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.
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa Rosa EAchklt.wpd
11
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002
Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by P. A. Penardi, April 4, 2002
Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
December 6, 2001
Report of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
December 6, 2001
Geotechnical Feasibility Report, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 16, 2001
C:\Mydata\WPD0MResolutions\PH#3SantaRosaEAchk1t.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-442
I. d) The area in which the project is located is generally undeveloped. The proposed
project will result in the construction of 33 homes. These homes will generate
a minimal amount of light, insofar as the plans for the homes will be required
to meet the City's dark sky ordinance. These requirements do not allow lighting
to spill over to other properties. The potential impacts associated with light and
glare are not expected to be significant.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The Tentative
Tract Map will result in 33 single family homes at build out. These homes are
likely to generate a total of 316 trips per day at build out'. Based on this trip
generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 11.4 0.44 2.34 -- 0.05 0.05
3
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 316 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
0
autos at 75 F, year 2005. * 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
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter of 10 microns or smaller). The Valley has recently adopted stricter
measures for the control of PM10. These measures will be integrated into
conditions of approval for all future projects. The construction of the proposed
project will generate dust. The applicant will be required to submit a PM10
Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. The
"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on Single Family Detached
(210) category.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa RosaEAadd.wpd 1
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the 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 ongoing 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. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 58, as well
as the perimeter wall for this project, shall be installed with the first
phase of development.
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 exceed 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 cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. Both a
records search and field survey were conducted. The study found that the
proposed project site is surrounded by a number of recorded sites, and the
likelihood of buried resources is high. The study, and the Historic Preservation
Commission recommend that the following mitigation measure be required:
1. The Phase II archaeological testing and evaluation report shall be
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech, April 5, 2002.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa Rosa EAadd.wpd 2
submitted to the Community Development Department for HPC approval
prior to recordation of the final tract map for the property. The property
shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor during on -site
and related off -site grubbing, grading, trenching, and excavation. The
final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of the first building permit.
The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities on the site should
resources be located.
V. c) A paleontologic resource survey was completed for the proposed project site.
The study found that the likelihood of occurrence of Holocene invertebrate
fossils is high. The study, and the Historic Preservation Commission recommend
that the following mitigation measure be implemented:
1. A qualified paleontologic monitor shall be present on site during all
grubbing, earth moving and excavation activities both on and off -site.
The monitor shall be empowered to redirect activities on the site should
resources be located. A final report shall be submitted to the City on any
resources identified at the site.
VI. a) i) & ii)
A geotechnical Feasibility Report was prepared for the proposed project site3.
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 and the State'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. This requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. The proposed project will generate 33 single family homes. All homes
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 to groundwater. The proposed tract 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. d)
The proposed project has been designed to include on -site retention basins. The
City Engineer will require that these basins be designed to hold the 100 year
3 Geotechnical Feasibility Report, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 16, 2001.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa Rosa EAadd.wpd 3
storm. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a
storm. The project'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.
XIII. a)
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax
which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The project proponent will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees
to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\PH#3Santa Rosa EAadd.wpd 4
H
0.0
co
w
_M
O
O
N
N
r
00
0
M �
U a)
cz Q
H as
> O
c,3
HCIA V)
O
O
z
d
Z
x
E-
d
p
U m
Z p
d�
aU
oz
U U
d
co
N
O
to
C O
0
N
cz
ca
U
U
dq
�
O
O
�^
O
4
U O
O
Z
U
O
Q)
V
O
a)
C
aS U
U
_
_
F
t+
o
rA
m
0
0
0
U
—
U
—
- a`j
QU
U
O
O
.O
LO
E .O
LO
LOLE .v
.0
a`
c a. a`
_
zF
c
cz
co
t a Ca
G1
cz
to
_
= E
s..
c
W
>,
W
>,
°
E
E c.
o
U
�'
U
'•'
U
•
U
c�
z
W-WO
_
O
Wp
aEn
On
-o
aA'
bD
bl�
•
'fl.
_
�QI
Q
n
L
cz0
x
=
cz
Co
Q
i
N
=
cC
czI
> co
n E
2
5
W
►~ter
A•r
at
uo N
w
F
d
°
w�
�
Z
d°
3�
�U
W
O x
U U
a
Q
0
cx
w
E■
o
�
� U
C U
co cz
�+
L
0.
c
0
C� "„
U O
F
co
cz
O O
++
L
L O
O "
a cz
Oz
o
O
0
C Z
Ca
o a°i
U p
o
F
w
U
a
H
d
O
W�
CZ
a
N
a
F+
a�
U
°-
H
�
U
w
F
a
°
U m
z
a°
w
a ac
�U
w
O =
U U
cz
c
0
a
7
C
w
V)
o
F
U
�
� N
cz U
C U
cC cz
v� a
C7
on
=
�>
z
F
�
c�
a>
bA
C
L
wZ
c
cu
.a rx
o
E
�
E a.
o �
U z
U
cz
cz
z
O
O
y
;
to
�
L
Oo
nr
�
r bA