CC Resolution 2002-147RESOLUTION NO. 2002-147
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-
457) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30834
APPLICANT: MADISON ESTATES, LLC
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for a 76-lot single family development on 29.29 ± acres located
on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately 2,640 feet west of Madison Street in
a RL Zoning District (collectively "the Project"), more particularly described as:
APN: 762-240-004, -005, -006, -009 and -010 (five parcels)
SW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4 OF SECTION 21, T6S, R7E, SBBM
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 (PRC) § 21092 on
September 5, 2002, and October 3, 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 October 8,
2002, and City Council on November 5, 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
October 14, 2002, and further caused the notice to be mailed to the Riverside County
Clerk on September 5, 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
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on October 8, 2002, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project by adoption of Resolution 2002-098; and
Resolution No. 2002-147
EA 2002-457 for TTM 30834, Madison Estates, LLC
Adopted: November 5, 2002
Page 2
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 (MND), 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 2002-457.
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.
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.
Resolution No. 2002-147
EA 2002-457 for TTM 30834, Madison Estates, LLC
Adopted: November 5, 2002
Page 3
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 (MND) 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 PRC § 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 § 71 1 .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 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 51h day of November, 2002, by the vote to wit:
Resolution No. 2002-147
EA 2002-457 for TTM 30834, Madison Estates, LLC
Adopted: November 5, 2002
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4N.EN -ay or
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN . GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-
M. KATHE NE JENS , City A
City of La Quinta, C Ifornia
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30834
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 and east and south- of PGA West
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Madison Estates LLC
437 S. Highway 101, Suite #220
Solana Beach, CA 92075
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 30834 would subdivide 29.29 acres of land into 76
residential lots. In addition, the vacation of two previously planned cul de
sacs is proposed.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Hermitage Street and PGA West single family homes
South: Avenue 58 and vacant residential parcels beyond
East: Single family house and vacant desert lands
West: PGA West Golf Maintenance and other PGA West properties
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
0 •
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
LJ 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 c udi revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
n urt!�er is required.
5'-27-&1i
Date
0
0
F
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EAChklst.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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Site topography, TTM 30834)
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?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
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? (No ag. Land in
proximity to project site)
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)
S:\City Cie rk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
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, 2002 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, residential planned, no source
for odors)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (General Plan Exhibits 6.1 to 6.7)
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
Exhibits 6.1 to 6.7)
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 Exhibits 6.1 to
6.7)
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 Exhibits 6.1 to 6.7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan p. 66-67)
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 Exhibit 6.1)
9
R
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
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? (CRM Tech letter, 8/2/02)
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)?(CRM Tech letter, 8/2/02)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(CRM Tech letter, 8/2/02)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (CRM Tech letter, 8/2/02)
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:
i1 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)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2 2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems,
8/9/02)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
Potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit
111-17)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code 0 994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit III-17)
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?
(Earth Systems letter 8/6/02)
X
X
f3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? ("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," Earth
Systems, 8/9/02)
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 Environmental Site Assessment,"
Earth Systems, 8/9/02)
c1 Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? ("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,"
Earth Systems, 8/9/02)
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
Environmental Site Assessment," Earth Systems, 8/9/02)
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. 95 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? ("Preliminary
Hydrology Study," Nolte Associates, August 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 would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ql
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
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?("Preliminary Hydrology
Study," Nolte Associates, August 2002)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or off -site?("Preliminary Hydrology Study," Nolte Associates,
August 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? ("Preliminary Hydrology Study," Nolte Associates,
August 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)
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. 74 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:
X
X
X
M
KI
X
X
X
I1
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
8
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," Penardi & Assoc. 7/17/02)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
(Residential project -- no ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," Penardi &
Assoc. 7/17/02)
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? (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 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.,
application materials)
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)
XI11. 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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
KI
M
X
X
*1
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
XV.
XVI.
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)
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM 30834)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (TTM 30834)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (TTM 30834)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
description)
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 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. 58 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
duo
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. 58 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. 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 commitments? (General Plan MEA,
P. 58 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. 58 ff.)
XVIL 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.
X
X
X
X
X
I
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.
None
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
11
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
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 and Testing Report," prepared by CRM Tech, April E
2002.
Two letters from CRM Tech, dated August 2, 2002
"Noise Impact Analysis Report..." prepared by Penardi & Associates, July 17, 2002.
"Preliminary Hydrology Study" prepared by Nolte Associates, August 2002.
"Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest,
August, 2002.
Letter dated August 6, 2002, from Earth Systems Southwest, RE: Infiltration Testing.
"Preliminary Hydrology Report," prepared by Nolte Associates, August, 2002.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAChklst.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-457
I. a), b) & c)
The project site is vacant desert land. No significant features occur on the land.
The site is not designated as a City entry feature. The site is surrounded on
three sides by similar single family development.
I. d) The tract map will not, in and of itself, generate light or glare. Buildout of the
site with 76 single family homes will create some light, but this light will be
regulated by the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, which will significantly limit
the type of lighting that can be used on the site. These standards will mitigate
the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
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 buildout
of the tract map will result in the construction of 76 single family homes.
These 76 homes could generate up to 727 daily trips'. The table below
illustrates the vehicular emissions which would have been generated by the
project trips at buildout.
Running Exhaust Emissions - Approved Specific Plan
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 30.0
4
Daily
Threshold 550
1.16 6.16 --
75 100
0.13 0.13
150
Based on 727 trips/day and average trip length of 8 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
0
autos at 75 F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project.
Based on the table above, the buildout of the project will not generate
significant air quality impacts, particularly when compared to the SCAQMD's
threshold for significance.
1
Traffic Generation, 6th Edition. Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, Single Family Homes.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 1
III. b) The proposed project will not result in significant stationary source air quality
violations, because residential land uses are proposed, which will have little
impact on stationary source emissions.
III. c) & d)
The construction of the 76 homes 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 PM 10 (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 the
proposed project. The contractor(s) on the site will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity, and to
submit the Plan to both the City and SCAQMD. In addition, the 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 and the
retention basins shall be landscaped with the first phase of development
on the site. Any portion of the site which is graded and not immediately
built upon shall be stabilized with either chemical stabilizers or natural
ground cover, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 2
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM 10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts from
particulate matter to air quality from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of homes will not result in objectionable odors, because the
permitted land uses do no generate such odors.
IV) a)-f)
The site is not designated as potential habitat for any species of concern in the
City's General Plan.
V. a), b) & d)
A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject
property2. The survey and testing found that no resources occur on the site. The
report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered
during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during all earth moving
activities. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect
grading activities if resources are uncovered. The archaeologist shall also
be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for
review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site.
V) c) A paleontologic survey was performed at the proposed site'. The survey found
that fossilized mollusks occur on the site, and that a Phase II surface collection
was necessary, and that a paleontologic monitor should be present during earth
moving activities. In order to mitigate the potential impacts associated with
paleontological resources, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1 . A Phase II paleontologic resource survey shall be completed on the site
prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
2. A paleontologic monitor shall be on site during all earth moving activities.
The paleontologist shall be empowered to stop or redirect grading
activities if resources are uncovered. The paleontologist shall also be
required to submit to the Community Development Department, for
review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site.
VI. a) 0, ii) iii) & iv)
HistoricaVArchaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, April 2002 and August 2002.
Letter dated August 2, 2002 by CRM Tech.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 3
The proposed project lies in a Zone III 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. In order to mitigate and protect from this hazard,
the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated
construction 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. The
project site is not located adjacent to a hillside, and will not be subject to
landslides. A Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Earth Systems
Southwest for the property found that the water table is located approximately
126 feet below the surface. Since liquefaction occurs when water is 50 feet or
less below the surface, the site will not be subject to liquefaction.
VI. b) The site is located in a moderate blowsand hazard area. The soils on the
proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly compacted prior
to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's standards for site
preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City Engineer. In order to
reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed
site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City
Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include
recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being
constructed.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and support the development proposed.
The soils on the site may be subject to caving during excavation, but this
potential impact will be mitigated by the geologist in the above -required
geotechnical analysis. The potential impacts associated with geology are less
than significant.
VII. a)-h)
Residential land uses will not generate any unregulated hazardous material. The
City's solid waste provider has programs available for household hazardous
waste. The site is not located within an airport land use plan. The site is not
located within a wildfire area. Emergency response will be implemented in
accordance with the City's Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the
County of Riverside.
Vill. a) & c)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 4
TJIIM
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. The tentative tract map proposes a series of retention basins which will act
as open space between the residential lots. The percolation of water through
soil serves to clean the water. Should additional techniques be required to clean
the soil, the City has standards in place for the installation and maintenance of
these facilities. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a
water quality standard to a less than significant level.
All development adds to demand for groundwater. 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 project will be required to
retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into
the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's
standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project
will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that
landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
The proposed project, through the construction of streets, homes, patios and
driveways, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage
patterns in a rain event. Retention basins have been designed for the center of
the site. The basins will not significantly alter the topography of the site. The
profile of these basins will be regulated by the City Engineer to ensure
compliance with City standards. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will
ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than
significant level.
VIII. f) & g)
The homes being proposed for the tract map will not be located in a flood zone.
There will be no impact.
IX. a)-c)
The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the
project site. The project site is surrounded on three sides by existing
development or projects under construction. No impacts to land use and
planning will result from construction of 76 single family homes.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & c)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 5
A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project4. The study
found that at General Plan buildout, the noise level at the site will be 61.5 dBA
CNEL (at the closest pad to Avenue 58). This level of noise is well within the
City's General Plan noise standard for sensitive receptors of 65 dBA CNEL.
Noise levels will be higher during construction on the project site. Since phasing
of the site may occur, and some homes may be occupied when others are being
constructed, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
2. On -site generators, or other stationary equipment, shall be located as far
away from existing residential units, whether on or off site, as possible.
3. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The proposed project will be constructed on currently vacant land, and will
provide 76 single family residences. The maximum additional population likely
to be generated by the project is 200 persons. The site will not displace any
existing housing or people. 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 proposed project 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, the project proponent
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.
4
Noise Impact Analysis, Penardi and Associates, July 2002,
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 6
XIV. a) & b)
The buildout of the proposed project will increase the population, and therefore
the need for recreation. The proposed tract map, however, includes retention
basins which will serve as recreational areas for the residents. Altogether, 3.04
acres of retention area and recreation space will be available to residents of the
project. In addition, 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.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed tract map will result in the construction of 76 homes on 29.3
acres. As stated previously, these homes could generate up to 727 daily trips.
The maximum daily trips which could be generated by a project proposed on the
site at the maximum General Plan density would result in 1,122 trips'. The
project falls well within the parameters of the land use designation assigned to
the property, and therefore well within the potential impacts associated with
traffic on Avenue 58 analyzed in the General Plan EIR. That document found
that Avenue 58 would operate at Level of Service B at General Plan Buildout.
XV. c►, d), e), f) & g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the project does not
create any hazardous design features. Parking requirements for the homes are
included in the Development Code, and will be applied when plans for homes
are submitted. The map provides for two project access points, one on Avenue
58, and one through "Lot C". Alternative transportation in the form of trails and
public transportation will be implemented based on General Plan policies and
programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required
to pay connection fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to
incorporate future needs and facilities. Future residents will pay service fees
which also will contribute to future facilities. These fees will eliminate the
potential impacts associated with utilities at the site.
5
Traffic Generation, 6th Edition. Institute of Traffic Engineers, for category 210, Single Family Homes, detachcd.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\StoneCrEAAdd.wpd 7
i
0
0
a;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
z
C
d
0
H
ti
a
M
00
0
M
cr�
F-+
z
I
U
a
r-a
°
o
z
W
Con
a
� a
W
W
A
U
d
W
a
A
U�
A
aU
W
Ov
U
�
W
Ile
c*
U
o
Qcl
°'
U
a
C's
a
S
o o
U
03
C7
0
°
°
z
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
F'
o
o
o
O
U
U
U
U
o �
•o
•o
� •o
•o
�
�
•o
.o
O
F
a
U
t
t
z
q
o
o
W
o
c
U q
U
U
Eli
z
O
co
3
0
to
cqs
Q
C
b
on
o
`13
s
�p
~
Q
cd
N
U
V
,(n
cd
C.
0.
H
d
A
U�
�A
a�
oU
d
b
w
Cl c0
to
U o
ao
ztoo
o
F Q
F
� �
c�
N
to O
O
A a
Wz
�R
0 0
0
zZ
o
A A
41
UA UA
an
o �
z
� �
W
�C13
a
ou
O
a0� o U c
a'
�...y
C0 o y y Cd
F„
c
1
O y 0 cl
0
F
W
F
A
q
U�
zUz�
U
W
� W
Ov
pV
U
�
w �
w
0
�
� •�
b_
�7
0 0 0
O to
wz
Wz
ao
v�
mo
� F
Cd
b b b
U
GG � pq
5
z
d�
Q�
C�W
0r
ol0
3 0
as
F
O
CIA
u cd i�r
z
�
s
U on
.°c