CC Resolution 2003-048RESOLUTION NO. 2003-048
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-064 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31202
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-472
APPLICANT: DESERT ELITE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 10th day of June, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-472 for Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative Tract
Map 31202 (the "Project"), for lands bounded by Avenue 52 on the north, Monroe
Street on the east, more particularly described as follows:
APN 767-200-004 and 767-200-005
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the facts, findings, and reasons to adopt Resolution 2003-038 recommending
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2003-472)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan 2003-064 and Tentative
Tract Map 31202 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there
would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures
were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 1 st day of July, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 2003-472 for the Project; 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, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2003-048
EA 2003-472 / Desert Elite, Inc.
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 2
1. The proposed 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 2003-472.
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 rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an 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 by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed 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 proposed Project.
6. The proposed Project will not have 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.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the Project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2003-472 and
the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. 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).
Resolution No. 2003-048
EA 2003-472 1 Desert Elite, Inc.
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 3
10. 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:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That Environmental Assessment 2003-472 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 1 st day of July 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: Council Members Osborne, Perkins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON AD PH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN EK, CMC, City CI
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2003-048
EA 2003-472 / Desert Elite, Inc.
Adopted: July 1, 2003
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M: KATHE"RINE/JENSON, City Aforney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Rancho Santana
(Specific Plan 2003-064, Tentative Tract Map 31202)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oscar W. Ord, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street
APN: 767-200-004 and -005
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Desert Elite c/o John Pedalino
78-401 Highway 1 1 1, Suite G
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Proposed through Annexation: Low Density
Residential, Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay
7. Zoning: Proposed through Annexation: Low Density Residential,
Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay
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 property in question is currently under review by the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation into the City. The property is
in active agriculture.
Once annexed, the applicant wishes to develop the parcel for single family
residential development. The Specific Plan has been submitted to establish
the design standards and guidelines under which such development would
occur. The Specific Plan proposes minimum lot sizes of 8,800 square feet, a
private street system and common area amenities, including equestrian
facilities.
The Tentative Tract Map is necessary to subdivide the 79.21 acres into a
gated community with 201 residential lots, private streets and on -site
retention and common area amenities. Lots will range from 27,000 square
feet to 8,800 square feet.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Avenue 52, El Dorado Polo Club
South: Vacant desert lands and agricultural lands
West: Agricultural lands
East: Monroe Street, agricultural lands
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.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
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
_ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
FRI
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
IN
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.
0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
071
May 28, 2003
car Ord, Planning Manager Date
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.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 analyses 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.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.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 outcropping, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, 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? (Aerial Photo in SP)
AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
Potentially
Potentially significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
rJ
q
X
PA0scar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 5
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
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? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ("Biological
Assessment and Impact Analysis...", James Cornett
Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
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? ('Biological Assessment and Impact
Analysis...", James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February,
2003)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ("Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis... ",
James Cornett Ecological Consultants, February, 2003)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
X
n
X
X
X
9
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 X
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit 9.1)
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 6
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)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit 9.1)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
("(Paleontologic Assessment Desert Elite" San Bernardino
County Museum, February 2003)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural
Resources Exhibit 9.1)
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:
1) 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)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, February
2003)
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? (Geotechnical
Investigation, Sladden Engineering, February 2003)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden
Engineering, February 2003)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
n
P
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.wpd 7
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
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? (General Plan EIR,
p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading
Plan)
X
f_t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 8
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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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:
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?
(General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Parking lot-- no
ground borne vibration)
X
X
F�
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
PA0scar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 9
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.)
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)
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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
X
X
X
X
X
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 X
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 10
XV.
XVI.
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)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
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.)
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.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kq
X
X
PA0scar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 11
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity 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-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
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
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.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EA Chk1st472.wpd 12
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
"Paleontologic Assessment Desert Elite, Rancho Santana," prepared by the San Bernardino county
Museum, February, 2003
"Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Desert Elite Residential Project,"
prepared by James W. Cornett, February, 2003
"Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 80 Acre Residential Development...," prepared by Sladden
Engineering, February, 2003
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EA Chklst472.wpd 13
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-472
I. a), b) & c)
Avenue 52 is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. This
designation requires that care be taken in the design of the landscape parkway
in this area. The project proponent has incorporated into the Specific Plan an
additional private parkway, in addition to the 20 foot street parkway, which will
include an equestrian trail. This enhanced treatment will improve the aesthetic
appearance of the street, and is supported by General Plan policies regarding
image corridors. Homes will be no more than 22 feet height within the 150
image corridor setback, further reducing the visual clutter in the area. Impacts
associated with viewsheds are expected to be inconsequential.
I. d) Lighting within this project will include landscaping, entry access points and
similar functions. All lighting will be required to conform to the City's lighting
ordinance, which prohibits the spillage of light onto adjacent properties. Lighting
from a residential project is generally low in intensity, and the impacts
associated with light and glare from this project are expected to be less than
significant.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture as a sod farm. There are no
Williamson Act contracts on the parcels, however' the proposed Specific Plan,
and subdivision of 79.21 acres will ultimately result in the loss of this acreage
to agriculture. The land is designated Prime Farmland in the Riverside County
Draft Integrated Plane.
The loss of 79 acres of land in sod farming will not represent a significant loss
of prime agricultural land in the Valley. The sod farming lands which occur in
the annexation area do not represent a significant portion of those lands in that
use in the Coachella Valley.
In addition, the requested City zoning designation for this project includes the
Agriculture/Equestrian Residential district, which promotes the preservation of
agricultural and equestrian land uses within urbanizing land uses. The project
will include horse riding trails, an equestrian jumping course, and other
equestrian amenities, which will perpetuate a measure of equestrian land use
within the Plan area. The impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be
less than significant.
1
Personal convnunication, Marvin Roos, Mainiero Smith & Associates, May 16, 2003,
2
Hearing Draft Riverside County General Plan, April, 2003.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 1
III. a) The proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not generate emissions
in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds
for criteria pollutants (see below) and therefore will not obstruct implementation
of applicable air quality management plans.
III. b) & c)
The single largest contributor to air quality in the City is the automobile. It is
expected that the proposed project's primary air quality impact will be
associated with vehicle trips and construction dust.
The proposed project will result in the construction of 202 single family
residences, which will generate 1,933 trips at buildout3. Based on this trip
generation, the SCAQMD has established formulas to calculate emissions,
which are shown in the Table below.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 99.85 3.84 20.48 -- 0.43 0.43
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,933 trips/day and average trip length of 10 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos
at 750F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for
assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution from the proposed project are not expected to be significant
at this time.
The construction of the proposed project will 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).
s Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 210, Single
Family Detached.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 2
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 79.21 acres of
— land. This has the potential to generate fugitive dust during the grading of the
site. Since the site will be mass graded and then built in phases, potential also
exists for on -going fugitive dust for unbuilt areas. The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan
adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the
construction process and as an on -going issue. These measures will be
integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include
the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction
Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, re -vegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, re -vegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving,
chemical stabilization, access restriction, re -
vegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to
initiation of any earth moving activity. 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 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.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 3
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Avenue 52 and
Monroe shall be installed prior to the first certificate of occupancy. The
perimeter wall along Avenue 52 shall be installed with the first phase of
development.
8. All lands shown as Phase 2 through 4 shall be landscaped or chemically
stabilized within 30 days of the termination of mass grading on the site.
The project proponent shall submit a landscape or stabilization plan to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site. As development occurs, only
one phase, as depicted on Exhibit 6 of the Specific Plan, of the site shall
be disturbed at one time. Phases not yet under construction shall be
maintained in a stabilized or landscaped condition until constructed upon.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall be required to employ a PM 10 monitor during
all mass grading of the site, in conformance with the 2002 PM 10
Management Plan.
12. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and
end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames
established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
III. d) The construction of residential dwelling units will not generate any pollutant
concentrations.
III. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors. The area is in equestrian and agricultural land uses at the present time,
and the odors associated with manure and other equestrian activities are
commonplace in this area.
IV) a)-f)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture, and does not harbor native
habitat. A biological survey prepared for the proposed project found neither
habitat nor animal species of concern on the site. There will be no impact to
biological resources from implementation of the proposed project.
4 "Biological Assessment and impact Analysis of the proposed Desert Elite Residential Project," prepared by James W. Cornett, February 2003.
P:10scar\Santana HomesIEAADDENDUM-472.wpd 4
V. a), b) & d)
The site is currently in agriculture, and has been for some time. There is
considerable evidence in other parts of the Valley, however, that buried
resources can occur in agriculturally active areas. There is therefore a potential
that buried resources do occur on the site which will not be uncovered until
grading and excavation occur. As a result, the following mitigation measure
shall be required:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. 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 prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
V. c) A paleontologic study was conducted for the proposed projects. The study
found that although the site has been in agriculture, there is a high probability
that fossilized molluscs dating to ancient Lake Cahuilla could exist on the site.
The field survey found such remains, although they were disturbed by the
agricultural activity. The study recommends the following mitigation measure
to assure that potential impacts to paleontologic resources are reduced to a less
than significant level:
1. A paleontologic monitor shall be present during grading activities. The
monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to
avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading
activities to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor
shall also be required to curate and submit a written report to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
occupancy of the first building on the site.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. A geotechnical study was prepared for the
S "Paleontologic Assessment Desert Elite, Rancho Santana." prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, February 2003.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 5
proposed projects. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 43 feet at the
project site. The risk of liquefaction on the site is therefore considered limited,
and mitigation measures are not necessary.
VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be
required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above,
to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower
the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant
level.
VI. c►-e)
The study found that soils on the subject property consist primarily of silty
sands and sandy silts. These soils have a very low expansion probability, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code. The soils on the site are not expansive,
and will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The soils
will require over -excavation, as required in the City's standards for construction
under the Uniform Building Code. These standards will ensure that the stability
of the soils is mitigated. The project will be connected to sanitary sewer
provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, and will not rely on septic
tanks.
VII. a)-h)
The proposed project consists of the construction of 201 residential housing
units. No significant use, transport or storage of hazardous materials is expected
at the site.
VIII. a1, c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -
site. The proposed project includes several retention basins which will be used
as passive and active recreation areas and equestrian facilities. These retention
basins are sized to meet the City's standards for stormwater retention, thereby
reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. The proposed project 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.
6 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 80 Acre Residential Development...," Sladden Engineering, February, 2003,
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 6
VIII. f) & g)
The proposed project does not occur in a 100 year flood plain, and will therefore
not place housing or other structures in such a flood plain.
IX. a)-c)
The proposed project site is currently in agriculture, and is surrounded by vacant
or agricultural lands. The site is in an area of the City which is rapidly
urbanizing, with development which can best be characterized as low and very
low density residential planned communities. The project as•currently designed
is consistent with the General Plan and meets the standards of the Development
Code. The project is outside the boundaries of the Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan. No impacts to land use and housing are expected.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a)
The proposed project is in an area of the City that is relatively quiet at this time.
The General Plan predicts, however, that vehicular traffic in this area at buildout
will result in noise levels slightly above City standards, without mitigation. In
general, on most City roadways, the construction of a perimeter wall, 6 feet in
height, results in a reduction of 5 to 12 dBA for adjacent back yards. This is
expected to be sufficient to lower impacts on the subject site. In order to assure
that the residential units built within the project site are not subject to excessive
noise levels, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall construct a decorative wall, or a wall and
earthen berm, six feet in height and meeting City standards, along the
rear property line of all lots located adjacent to the landscaped parkways
on Monroe and Avenue 52. The walls shall be of solid construction, with
no breaks or gaps.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. The project site is not surrounded by sensitive receptors, and
therefore will have little impact during initial construction phase. As
development within the site occurs, however, it can be expected that residents
will have moved into early phases of the project when later phases are under
construction. In order to assure that these residents are not significantly
impacted by construction noise, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. Construction staging areas, and stationary equipment such as generators
and service areas, shall be located as far from existing residential units
as possible.
PAOscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 7
2. The construction hours stipulated in the City's noise ordinance shall be
strictly adhered to.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The site is currently in agriculture and will not disturb existing populations or
housing units. The construction of housing units on the site is well within the
numbers analyzed in the City's 2002 General Plan. No impacts to population
and housing are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
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 and
sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services.
The proposed project will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to
mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
XIV. a) & b)
The proposed project includes the construction of on -site passive and active
recreational opportunities. These will be available to all project residents,
thereby reducing potential impacts to off -site City recreation facilities. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant
impact on recreational facilities.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed project will generate 1,933 trips per day. The requested land use
on the subject parcel is well within the limits analyzed in the City's General Plan
traffic study, which found that buildout of the General Plan in this area would
result in acceptable levels of service. The impacts to the circulation system are
expected to be consistent with those identified in the General Plan EIR, and are
not expected to be significant.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create
any hazardous design features. The proposed residences will be required to
provide on -lot parking in conformance to the City's standards. The site plan
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 8
provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of
bus stops will be implemented throughout the area 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 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.
XVII. a)
The project is currently in agriculture, and does not harbor native species or
habitat. It therefore has no potential to degrade the quality of the environment
or affect local plants or animals.
XVII. b)
The project is consistent with the long term goals for housing and equestrian
facilities included in the General Plan. The project is on the eastern boundary of
the City, in an area which is rapidly urbanizing, and therefore represents a logic
extension of development. There is no potential for the project to achieve short
term goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
XVII. c)
The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The
project will somewhat lower the potential density on the parcel from that
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, thereby reducing anticipated impacts
associated with buildout of the General Plan.
XVII. d)
The project has identified impacts associated with noise and air quality, which
both affect human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are
proposed which reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
P:\Oscar\Santana Homes\EAADDENDUM-472.wpd 9
CITY OF LA QUINTA
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE
DATE: May 22, 2003 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 767-200-004 and -005
CASE NO.: Specific Plan 2003-064 and PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe Street
Tentative Tract Map 31202
EA/EIR NO: 2003-437 APPROVAL DATE: In Process
APPLICANT: Desert Elite
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER
SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
DATE
MONITORING
CHECKED BY
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Written confirmation that the property is
Community Development
Prior to the issuance of
Standard professional
no longer subject to Williamson Act
Department
grading permits for the
practices
contracts.
I
I property
P!\Oscar\Santnnn Hnm-OFAMitin Mnnit479 wn l
Ill. AIR QUALITY
Maintain construction equipment.
Contractor
Project Construction
SCAQMD standards
Utilize temporary power.
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
III) standards
grading permits.
Balance cut and fill on site.
City Engineer
Project Construction
Municipal Code
Pre -water and stabilize soils.
Building Department
Prior to issuance of
PM10 Management
building permits.
Plan
Landscape parkways in Phase I
Building Department
During Construction
Site inspections.
Landscape or stabilize Phase 2 thru
Public Works Department
Within 30 days of mass
Site inspections
4
grading.
Provide alternative transportation.
Community Development
Prior to the issuance of
TDM ordinance.
Department
grading permits
Stop grading during winds of more
Building Department
During grading..
Site inspection
than 25 mph., 1 st and 2nd stage
ozone episodes.
Employ an air quality monitor
Building Department
During all mass grading
Site inspections
Provide notices to City and
Building Department
Prior to earth moving.
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
2002 Coachella
Valley PM 10 SIP.
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological monitor to be
Community Development
During grubbing and
Standard
retained if resource identified during
Department
grading
professional
grading.
practices.
P-�0SC£1r%Cnnt,n Nn..•- 'CAI Ait;n nnnn;rn7) , n,i
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
IV. PALEONOLOGIC RESOURCES
Monitor to be on site during grading.
Community Development
During grubbing and
Standard
Department
grading
professional
practices.
Report to be filed by monitor.
Community Development
Department
Prior to any occupancy
Standard
professional
practices.
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
IV. NOISE
Construction staging and equipment
Building Department
During construction
Site Inspections
to be located away from residences
in Phases 2-4
Adhere to City construction hours
Building Department
During Construction
Site Inspection