CC Resolution 2002-133 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-133
_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-032, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30651
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-452
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 17th day of September, 2002, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-452 for Tentative Tract 30651 and Specific Plan 98-
032, Amendment No. 1 herein referred to as the "Project" for Winchester
Development; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 3rd day of September, 2002, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-452 for Tentative Tract 30651 and Specific Plan 98-
032, Amendment No. 1; and,
WHEREAS, said Project 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 Initial Study (EA 2002-452) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact could be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, arid reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
Resolution 2002-133
Environmental Assessment 2002-452
Winchester Development
Adopted September 17. 2002
Page 2
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed Project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified .
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is attached hereto pursuant
to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance during
Project implementation.
7. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
8. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-
452 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
9. EA 2002-452 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
10. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolution 2002-133
Environmental Asseument 2002-452
Winchester Development
Adopted September 17, 2002
Page 3
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-452 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council, held on this the 17th day of September, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor PeRa
NOES' NOne
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN' None
JOHN Ijl'pE~4,/l~yor- -
City o~a Quin~a, ~alifornia
ATTEST:
JUN~REEK, CMC,'~~ Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution 2002-133
Environmental Assessment 2002-452
Winchester Development
Adopted September 17, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM-
Environmental Checklist Form
_
1. Project Title' Specific Plan 1998-032, Amendment No. 1, Tentative
Tract Map 30651, Quarry Ranch
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' Southeast corner of Cahuilla Park Road and Jefferson
Street (extended)
APN: 766-050-002, 776-050-008, 766-060-001, 766-
060-002, 766-060-01 3 through -017
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Winchester Development
1 Quarry Lane
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.)
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment removes a 2.2 acre parcel from the
"Retreat at the Quarry" Specific Plan (No. 1998-032). The approved Specific
Plan permitted up to 23 residential dwelling units on this 2.2 acres, under the
Tourist Commercial land use designation. The proposed amendment is required
because the property will now be used as the entry point and open space areas
for proposed Tentative Tract Map 30651 (see below).
The proposed Tentative Tract Map will divide 74.78 acres into 28 lots for
single family residential development, lots for private streets and public
roadway dedication, 50.49 acres of golf course area, and 5.01 acres of
landscaped and/or drainage area. The residential lots range in size from 1 3,375
to 42,921 square feet, and will generally occur along the southern, eastern and
northern edges of the property.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
1
North: Bureau of Reclamation dike, Open Space lands
South: Vacant desert lands, Low Density Residential lands
West: Existing single family residential (The Quarry), Low Density
Residential
East: Jefferson Street (extended), Open Space lands
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
2 ~
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 H~rds and Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Tragic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluntion:
! 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 p~ proj~ MAY have a signitimnt ¢ffe.~t on the environment, and an ENVIRO~~
IMPACT REPORT i~ reqmr~l.
I find that the propo.~! project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" on the environment, but at le~t one e. tt'e~ 1) has be~n ad~luat¢ly analy2~ in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) ha~ been addressed by mitigation measures bas~ on the earlier
analysis as d¢$cribe~! on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reqmred, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to I~ addre.&~.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially ~ignificant effects (a) have I~en analyz~ adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
smda~, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are impose.~:! upon the propose.~d project, nothing further is require.
Date /
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
3
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
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
4
Potemtaily
Potenti~Hy Si~ni~t Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan X
Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic X
highway? (Site topography, 'FFM 30651)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
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 X
materials)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califorma 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 fi) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in X
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. Land in proximity
to project site)
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 X
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 X
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQ1VID
CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd
5
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description) X
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, X
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological Assessment
Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002, Attached-Exhibit "A")
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 X
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("General Biological
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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 X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC,
Inc., June 2002)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? ("General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc.,
June 2002)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("General X
Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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?("Generai Biological X
Assessment Quarry Ranch," VHBC, Inc., June 2002)
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 X
Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Phase I
Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June 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 X
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)?("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." Keith Co., June
2002)
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
6
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
-- (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? ("Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..."
Keith Co., June 2002)
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("G-eotechnical Investigation..." X
Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General X
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General X
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 X
result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? ("Geotechnical Investigation...' Sladden
Engineering, July 2002)
,
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or X
property? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July
2002)
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? CGeoteclmical X
Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
VH. 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 X
materials? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fi) X
,
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X
(Application materials)
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452.wpd
7
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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) X
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 X
Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map) X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 fO X
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) X
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Hydrology...and X
Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July 2002)
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 X
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 X
off-site? (Hydrology...and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and
Assoc., July 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 X
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(Hydrology...and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July
2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to Control? X
(Hydrology...and Drainage Concept Study, Tettemer and Assoc., July
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 6.6) X
P:\FRE D\QuarryRanchChklst EA02-45 2. wpd
8
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) X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or X
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 fi)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment X
p. 74ff)
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.) X
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. X
7~ff.)
XL NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to ~r generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 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? X
(General Plan land use map)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to X
excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
P:\FRED\OuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
9
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly X
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X
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. 57) X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 fl'.) X
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have X
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 X
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General
Plan EIR p. 111-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency X
for designated roads or highways?(General Plan EIR p. 111-29 ff.)
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
10
c) Result in a change in air tm~c patterns, including either an
-- increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in prOject) X
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X
equipment)? (Tentative Tract Map 30651)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Tract Map X
30651)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Tract Map X
3o651)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Tentative Tract
Map 30651)
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
_ (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which X
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
p. 58 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 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 X
commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 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- X
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminat~ 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
Califorma history or prehistory?
P:\FRED\OuarryRanchChklstEAO2-452.wpd
11
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X
__
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)? X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
xvm. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIK or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case
a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) 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 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
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..., prepared by the Keith Companies, June, 2002.
Geotechnical Investigation..., Prepared by Sladden Engineering, July 2002
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd
12
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study..., Prepared by Tettemer and Associates, July 2002
Personal communication, Patti Schwartz, engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, July and August, 2002
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchChklstEA02-452. wpd
13
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-452
I. a) & c)
The proposed project is not located within a General Plan Image Corridor.
The site is located at the base of the Coral Reef Mountains, and will not
infringe on the mountainside.
I. b) The project site is currently vacant. No significant outcroppings or other
aesthetic features occur on the site.
I. d) The project will generate a minimal amount of light, insofar as the City's
dark sky ordinance will be implemented for all lighting plans. These
requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties.
Furthermore, the project will ultimately result in the construction of only 28
homes, which will not require parking lot lighting or other significant lighting
facilities. The potential impacts associated with light and glare are not
expected to be significant.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject
to Williamson Act contracts.
III. a) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The
Tentative Tract Map will result in the construction of 28 homes, which will
generate up to 269 average daily trips~. Based on this trip generation, the
proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PMIO
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 8.34 0.32 1.71 -- 0.04 0.04
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 1 00 1 50
Based on 269 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
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.
"Trip Generation, Sixth Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, based on single family detached
home category.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAdd02-452. wpd '1
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. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality
violations, since buildout will generate only 28 homes.
II1. c) & d)
The construction of the proposed project will have the potential to generate
dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley
is a severe non-attainment area for PMIO (particulate matter of 1 0 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 the
proposed project. The contractors of all homes on the site will be required to
submit a PMIO Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving
activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 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 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. Parkway landscaping 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.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAddO2-452.wpd 2. ,
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, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts to air
quality from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of 28 homes will not generate any objectionable odors.
IV) a)-f)
A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project2. The
assessment found that although the project occurs in the potential habitat area
for several species of concern, the habitat on the project site has been
degraded by off-road vehicle use and illegal dumping, and these species are not
expected to occur on the site. Impacts to biological resources are not expected
to be significant.
V. a), b) &d)
A Phase I cultural resources survey was completed for the proposed project3.
The survey found no historic structure on the site, but did identify a historic
trash dump. The survey also identified a prehistoric site, in the form of sherd
scatter. The Phase I study made recommendations for mitigation measures
which were confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and
earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to
the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
2. A Phase II testing program for the historic and prehistoric sites identified
on the project shall be completed and submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to recordation of the final map.
2 "General Biological Assessment Quarry Ranch," prepared by VHBC, Inc., July 24, 2002.
3 "A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Quarry Ranch Development," prepared by the Keith
Companies, June 12, 2002.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAddO2-452.wpd ~
VI. a) i), ii) & iv)
A geotechnical analysis was completed for the project site4. The project site
lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The site is not located within an Alquist
Priolo Study 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 and the State's standards for
construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic
zones. These requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are
reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, and will therefore not be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The site is subject to flooding
erosion, however. The project proponent will be required to secure approval
from the Coachella Valley Water District for all flood control plans on the site.
These plans will be required to include control of soil erosion. Please also see
hydrology discussion below.
VI. c)-e)
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are not expansive,
and that they will support the development proposed by the project proponent.
The geotechnical analysis found that the soils on the site are loose and that
caving occurred during borings. The soils on the site will not support
foundation designs unless the following mitigation measure is implemented:
1. All building areas shall be watered and recompacted as described in the
geotechnical analysis, resulting in 90% relative compaction to a depth
of at least 2 feet below the existing grade or 3 feet below pad grade,
whichever is deeper.
VII. a)-h)
The construction of 28 homes on the project site will not expose residents or
neighbors to hazards or hazardous materials. The site is not located within an
airport land use plan. The site is not located within a wildland fire area. All
emergency responses will be implemented in accordance with the City's
Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the County of Riverside.
VIII. a), c), d) & e)
The project site is located immediately south of the Bureau of Reclamation Dike
No. 2, which is managed by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The
site will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows tributary to
"C-eotechnical Investigation Proposed Short Course Development The Quarry .... "prepared by Sladden
Engineering, July 31, 2002.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAdd02-452.wpd ~
Dike No. 2. Siltation and debris were also identified as issues in this area, due
to its proximity to the Coral Reef Mountains. The proposed project
improvements include an earthen ditch with flood wall at the southwest corner
of the property, another along the southern boundary of the site, and a
trapezoidal channel within the Jefferson Street right of way. CVWD required
the preparation of a hydraulics, hydrology and drainage study for the proposed
project6, to address flood control issues on the site. CVWD is still reviewing the
materials at this writing, but has indicated that the proposed improvements,
with some modifications, will reduce the impacts associated with drainage and
flood control on the site to less than significant levels. In order to assure that
this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall secure approval of all flood control
improvements from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any earth
moving activity at the site.
VIII. b)
Buildout of the site will result in the construction of 28 homes which will utilize
groundwater for domestic and landscaping. The Coachella Valley Water District
provides domestic water to the subject property. All units 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 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.
IX. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing
country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for the project site. No impacts to land use and planning
will result from construction of 28 single family homes.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
Xl. a) The project site is not located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise
levels. The location of 28 homes on the site will not generate significant noise
levels. The impacts associated with noise are not expected to be significant.
XI. c)The construction of the project will generate noise from construction
"Hydrology, Hydraulics and Drainage Concept Study for Quarry Ranch ..... "prepared by Tettemer and
Associates, July 2002.
P:\FRED\OuarryRanchAddO2-452.wpd 5
equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the north, west and south
of the site. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the
construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these
potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of only
28 residential units. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
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.
All homes within the tract map boundary 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, each project within the
tract map area 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.
XIV. a) & b)
The buildout of the tentative tract area will result in an increase in population
which will have a need for recreational facilities. The project site will include
golf course areas which can be used by the residents for recreation. The
generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that
- . standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development
occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than
significant level.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAddO2-452.wpd (~
XV. a) & b)
The buildout of the proposed project will result in 269 average daily trips. The
proposed project falls well within the land use analysed in the General Plan EIR
traffic study. The impacts associated with traffic are not expected to be
significant.
xv. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the map does not create
any hazardous design features. The homes will be required to provide parking
according to City standards. The map provides for two emergency access
points. Alternative transportation in the form of trails will be implemented
based on General Plan policies and programs.
XVl. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer and individual
homeowners will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of
the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities.
These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the
site.
P:\FRED\QuarryRanchAddO2-452. wpd '7