CC Resolution 2002-164RESOLUTION NO. 2002-164
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM
TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN
AMENDED SUBDIVISION OF 381 LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
17" day of December, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on the adoption of an Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26" day of November, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the
15" day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined
under Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and
Tentative Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution
83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study, and
has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code
21 166 have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for SP 99-040 and TTM
29323, for Wade Ellis; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on December 171h, 2002 upon
considering testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the
La Quinta City Council did find the following facts to justify certification of said
Addendum:
1. The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the Addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
Resolution No. 2002-164
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 2
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air
quality, biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were
addressed as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new or
changed impacts being identified with the Revised Project.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the Addendum prepared
for this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed
under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan and Tentative Tract
29323. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human
health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered the Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, and both bodies have determined that it
reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolution No. 2002-164
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 3
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council in this case;
2. That it does hereby affirm the environmental determination of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, thereby certifying the Addendum to EA 99-389 for
Tentative Tract 29323, Amendment #2.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 17th day of December, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON ADO PH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN . GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2002-164
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSOPI, Ci
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-461
1. Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #2
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
4. Project Location: 127 acres on the Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Jefferson Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #13-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (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.)
An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to include a 10 acre parcel and increase the density over the current
approved map by 0.02 units/acre. The project would increase from 349 lots on
117 acres, to 381 lots on 127 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
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, all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required. ❑
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Printed Name
November 4, 2002
Date
Community Development
Department
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
2
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 account for 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 analyses 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
CAMydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
.r7
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
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 MEA)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d► Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
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 to non-agricultural use? (LQGP)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEA)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively
result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial
photographs; MEAT
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, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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/PM10 SIP)
X
n�
X
K4
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eackist389#2.wpd
4
IV.
V.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or througl
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 Fist
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (site bic
assessment; James Cornett; 11/14/02)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat of
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? (site bio
assessment; James Cornett; 11/14/02)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, EIR)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
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?
(EA 99-389)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
i
'I
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eack1st389t/2.wpd
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitianted Impact Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(EA 99-389)
X
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map, EA 99-389)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? (Site history)
X
VI- GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General
Plan EIR)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could 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)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property? (General Plan EIR)
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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\W PDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
6
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
Vill.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmen
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmeni
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition!
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project
assessment)
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? (Not
applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (EA 99-389; Site assessment)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
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)
t
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eack1st389#2.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off -site? (General Plan EIR)
X
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to
control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
X
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA)
X
IX
X.
XI.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
b1 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
costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (EIR, EA
99-389) X
D
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
8
XII
XIII
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground.
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389)
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?
(Not applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
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, Project assessment)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant No
ITDaCt Imi
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CAMydata\WPD0CS\13esolutionMeack1st389#2.wpd
9
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
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? (Project
assessment)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? (EA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
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? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, EA 96-328)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD, LQGP)
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? (CVWD, LQGP).
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
10
XVII.
XVIII.
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? (CVWD, LQGP)
X
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (LQGP)
X
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (LQGP MEA)
X
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a► Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce 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?
X
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
indirectly?
X
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
See attached Checklist Addendum.
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:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389 Jig. wpd
a
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 Checklist Addendum.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\eacklst389#2.wpd
12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-461:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
PRIOR ADDENDUM UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #02-446
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #2
Recommended by the La Quinta Planning Commission, for certification by
the La Quinta City Council
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-1 13
Adopted November 26, 2002
For City Council Action: December 17, 2002
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\adden389#2. wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to the original Environmental
Assessment #99-389, certified on February 15, 2000, by the La Quinta City Council
for Wade Ellis. A prior Addendum was also certified on July 2, 2002, for the repeal of
the original Specific plan and design modification to the original tract layout.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following subdivision approval:
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #2
This case is referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures included in
EA 99-389 and EA 02-446 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 381 lot single family subdivision proposal, adding 10
acres, for a new project area of ± 127 acres, which would replace the existing
approval for 349 lots on 117 acres. The original project area under the Specific Plan
was approved for 379 lots, so the proposed revision essentially reduces the original
density, as approved in 2000, from 3.24 to 3.0 units/acre. The City has determined
that the Revised Project will be consistent with the intensity of development and
character of the adjacent residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals,
policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan, as approved in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any change to the land use as approved in the
prior actions. The currently approved map allows for 349 lots on 117 acres (2.98
units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to include a 10 acre parcel and increase the density over the current
approved map by 0.02 units/acre.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\adden389#2.wpd
pacts no greater than
Fpreviouslyanalyzed. The Revised
Air Quality - Impacts no
Geology & Soils -
greater than previously
he Coachella
ll create draina epactssmilar
Impacts no greater than
to those identified Valalley hasTn thepast
for the original proposal EA
Site is not locateeviously d The
in y
under been a non -attainment
99-389 and EA 02-446. As such, area for PM 10
Earthquake Fault zones
nes
the mapprovides for several
(particulate matter of 10
as designated by the
State but is ma in
smaller retention areas,
interconnected through a linear
microns or smaller), and
is
Aped
Ground Shaking Zone IV
facility traversing the site
currently in danger of
losing it's attainment
meaning seismic events
northwest to southeast.
status. In order to
can cause damage to
building under certain
Biology - Impacts greater than
control PM 10, the City
has imposed standards
occurrences. Impacts
previously analyzed. The
development of the Revised
and requirements on
involving potential
seismic activity also
Project will result in a similar loss
development to control
dust. This project will be
relate to possible risk
of habitat for the Coachella
required to comply with
associated with upset of
hazardous substances
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
(CVFTL). A bio study of the
the PM 10 Fugitive Dust
(i.e. fuels and auto-
entire new site indicates a
Control Plan (FDCP)
related chemicals and
significant loss of mesquite
currently approved for
the entire project area.
wastes) and potential for
hummock and CV Milk -Vetch
upset/explosion/fire. The
habitat. A focused survey for
project will be required to
Giant Sand Treader Cricket still
adhere to seismic
must be undertaken.
reinforcement and other
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
Noise - Impacts not
Transportation/Traffic
greater than previously analyzed.
The project proponent shall
significantly greater than
Impacts similar to those
submit for review and approval ,
previously analyzed.
Development of the site
previously analyzed.
Development
a comprehensive Phase II
archaeological investigation. An
will create construction
impacts
of the
Revised Project adds 2
archaeological monitor shall be
noise of a short-
term nature. New long
lots to the original unit
on site during any grubbing, earth
term impacts relate to
count of 379. A similar
impact in generated traffic
moving or excavation activities.
This is required mitigation as
roadway noise by can be anticipated.
originally stipulated in EA 99-
addition of 10 acres
fronting on Jefferson
389. Phase I shall be required for
Street. A new/revised
the additional 10 acre site.
acoustic study will be
required to address the
effects of such noise on
the Revised Project.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\adden389#2.wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the preparation of
subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166,
in that the Revised Project does not involve:
1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EA which would involve new
significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts;
2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken, which would involve new significant effects on the environment not
analyzed in the EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects
on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 and EA 02-446 have been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the
complete EA documents are attached.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
1. City of La Quinta General Plan; Adopted 3/20/02.
2. Environmental Assessment 99-389, certified 2/15/200
3. Environmental Assessment 02-446, certified 7/02/02
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District; CEQA Handbook, April 1993.
5. Final Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan; June 2002.
6. Biological Resources Assessment for Cornerstone; James W. Cornett, 11 /14/02.
7. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan; June 1985.
8. Riverside County Congestion Management Plan; 1992.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\adden389#2.wpd
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation is recommended, based on the Revised Project review (final wording
as included in the conditions of approval for the project may be subject to change). Mitigation
measures adopted as part of prior analyses under this project are incorporated by reference,
and are found in those analyses.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
A. The project proponent shall confer with the United States Department of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS) to assess measures for the offset of habitat loss to the Coachella
Valley milk vetch plant species. Such offsets shall include consideration of a
maintenance program of the species within the proposed project landscaping, along
with a remedial hummock habitat, within protected areas of common area landscaping
within the development. This shall be done during landscape plan preparation, with
written findings/recommendations from USFWS to be submitted and incorporated with
the project landscape plans as may be appropriate. The plans as proposed shall be
subject to review by the ALRC as part of the overall common area landscaping plans
submitted for final approval.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A. A Phase I archaeological survey shall be required for the additional 10 acres along
Jefferson Street. This may be done in conjunction with monitoring on the original site
as required, but no grading on this portion may commence until clearance has been
given from the Community Development Department.
NOISE:
A. A revised acoustic analysis shall be prepared to include assessment of the impacts of
roadway noise from Jefferson Street on the project residents. The revised report shall
address the proposed site in its entirety, and shall be reviewed and accepted by
Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits, other than for
approved model units within a City -approved model complex.
C:\Mydata\WPD0CS\Resolutions\adden 389#2.wpd