Loading...
CC Resolution 2002-139RESOLUTION NO. 2002-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051 AMENDMENT #1 AND VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-007 AMENDMENT #1 CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411, REVISED APPLICANT: CAMEO HOMES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 151 and 151h days of October, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-411 (Revised) for Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001-007 Amendment #1 ("Proposed Project") located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, more particularly described as follows: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-022-014 and 773-022-032 Parcels 1-4 of Parcel Map 29886 Portion N%2 of Section 1, T6S, R6E, SBBM WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the V and 24`h days of September, 2002, and 8th day of October, 2002 hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 (Revised) for Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001- 007 Amendment#1, and after deliberation, adopted Resolution 2002-093 on a 4-0-1 vote, requiring Mitigation Measures to be implemented during construction. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 61h day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-411 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map 30043), and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2001-16, requiring compliance with mitigation measures during on -site construction work; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27" day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-411 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Resolution No. 2002-139 Environmental Assessment 2001-411, Revised Cameo Homes Adopted: October 15, 2002 Page 2 Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map 30043) located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, and unanimously recommended certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-411 under Planning Commission Resolution 2001-017; and WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment (EA) has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," as amended (City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has prepared a Revised Environmental Assessment for EA 2001-41 1, determining that although the proposed Project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures are being required consistent with the prior assessment as certified by the City Council on March 6, 2001, by adoption of Resolution 2001-16; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Revised Environmental Assessment was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office on August 8, 2002 for a 30-day period by the Community Development Department. On September 26, 2002, the Community Development Department mailed a copy of the completed Environmental Assessment to the Departments of Fish and Game and U.S. Wildlife Service for their review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 22, 2002 for the September 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and September 19, 2002 for the October 1, 2002 City Council meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site on August 13, 2002 and September 6, 2002. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2002, the Community Development Department mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the applicant has prepared traffic and hydrology studies for the new project on July 26, 2002, to supplement earlier studies that were evaluated by the City Council on March 6, 2001. Resolution No. 2002-139 Environmental Assessment 2001-411, Revised Cameo Homes Adopted: October 15, 2002 Page 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the revised Environmental Assessment was prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures, and that mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Proposed Project and that these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project. SECTION 3: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major modifications or revisions to the Environmental Assessment, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. SECTION 4: No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the Environmental Assessment was adopted, has become available which shows any of the bases described in CEQA Guidelines Section 151621a1(3), for requiring an Environmental Impact Report. SECTION 5: Based on these findings and the EA Addendum, the City has determined that no Environmental Impact Report is required or appropriate under Public Resources Code Section 21166, and that an Addendum is sufficient to make the prior Environmental Assessment apply to the Proposed Project. SECTION 6: 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. SECTION 7: 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. Resolution No. 2002-139 Environmental Assessment 2001-411, Revised Cameo Homes Adopted: October 15, 2002 Page 4 SECTION 8: 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, as the site has been used for farming activities since the late 1940's and the site's date palm grove was removed in 1999. SECTION 9: 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. SECTION 10: 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. SECTION 11: The Proposed Project will not have the environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. SECTION 12: The City Council has fully considered the proposed revised Environmental Assessment, underlying Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments received thereon. SECTION 13: The EA Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. SECTION 14: The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based, is the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, .78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community Development Director. SECTION 15: Based upon the Environmental Assessment and the entire record of proceedings, the Proposed Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2. SECTION 16: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Resolution No. 2002-139 Environmental Assessment 2001-411, Revised Cameo Homes Adopted: October 15, 2002 Page 5 City Council. SECTION 17: The revisions to EA 2001-41 1 are hereby certified by the SECTION 18: The Community Development Director shall cause to be filed with the County Clerk a "Notice of Determination" pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15075(a) once reviewed by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 15' day of October, 2002, by the vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None JOHN . PE ,Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE EEK, CMC, ity Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) Resolution No. 2002-139 Environmental Assessment 2001-411, Revised Cameo Homes Adopted: October 15, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ZMKATH "INEJENN, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2001-051, Amendment No. 1, Village Use Permit 2001-007, Amendment No. 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cameo Homes 20 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial 7. Zoning: Village Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Specific Plan Amendment changes the proposed land uses for a Specific Plan approved by the City in 2001. The site is a total of 32 net acres. The previous approval allowed 227 residential units on the westerly 22 acres, 20,000 square feet of retail commercial space on 1.68 acres, 20,600 square feet of office commercial space on 2.57 acres, and a distribution center and employee parking lot for the La Quinta Resort on 5.79 acres. Since approval of the Specific Plan, a portion of the employee parking lot (94 of the possible 630 allowed spaces) and a 17,891 square foot office building have been constructed. The applicant proposes to amend the Specific Plan to reduce the residential site to 10.3 acres, with a total of 200 units (on the northwestern portion of the site); to allow for a future school site on the southwestern 12 acres; to delete the 1.68 acre retail commercial site on Calle Tampico; to allow 15,000 square feet of retail commercial land uses on 1.7 acres on the western end of the property; and to maintain the distribution center and parking lot approval on the 5.79 acre parcel on the northeastern portion of the site. The approved and constructed office building site is currently built out. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd 1 The Village Use Permit would allow the construction of 200 apartments on 10.3 acres, and the parking areas on the 1.7 acre commercial site. The apartment complex also includes parking, a common recreation building, one swimming pool and two tennis courts. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel, golf course at Duna La Quinta South: Calle Tampico, generally vacant Village Commercial lands East: Vacant Village Commercial lands, recently approved for hotel and commercial development West: Eisenhower Drive, golf course 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None SACity Clerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).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. 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. L 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 i's equired. /1 �U / �, ❑ Signature Date P:\Greg�Y\Caine0EA41 1 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd ' Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance SACity C1erk\Resolutions\CameoEA41 1 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd 4' Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues and Su Significant Unless Significant No ( Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impa 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 lirrted to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Site topography, TTM 30651) 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 (Familand) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in . loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. Land in proximity to project site) 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) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: y Cierk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd 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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01) 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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01) 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?((LSA, letter report, 1/17/O1) 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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01) 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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/O1) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001) 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: X X X X X X ity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation..." Sladden Engineering, July 2002) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit III-17) 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, Exhibit III-17) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit III-17) [I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) 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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.) 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) ty C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) X III. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002) 0 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) 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.) MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: X X X X X X X a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X ity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd [I. 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.) a NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, 1/16/O1) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Residential project -- no ground home vibration) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, 1/16/01) 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) 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) 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) ty C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd IV V VI. Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) 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)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01 & 7/18/02) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01 & 7/18/02) 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)? (VUP site plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (VUP site plan) 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? (VUP site plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (VUP site plan) 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.) Ity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd 10 X X X X X X X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) ✓II. 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? III. EARLIER ANALYSIS 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. The original technical studies and Initial Study, prepared and adopted in 2001 for Specific Plan 2001-051, were used in this review. y C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd 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 wen 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 addre site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. 1UM"11 aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. neral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. neral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. 'AQMD CEQA Handbook. :y of La Quinta Municipal Code istorical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," prepared by CRM Tech, January 8, 200'. ista Montana Village Use Permit Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, January 16, 2 a Quinta Village Apartments.... Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, July, 2002. :ter Report regarding biological resources prepared by LSA, January 17, 2001. ista Montana Development Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA, January 16, 2001. •eliminary Hydrology Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2002. ity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 Chklistl Revisedl.wpd 12 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-411 - Cameo Homes (Revised) a) & c) The intersection of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico is designated for Primary Gateway Treatment, and the intersection of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas is designated a Secondary Gateway Treatment. This designation requires that special landscaping, building heights and building setbacks be incorporated into project design. The previously approved Specific Plan exceeded the building height limitation, and a mitigation measure had been required. The Specific Plan Amendment has modified the building height for the residential component to conform to these limitations. No mitigation measure is needed to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. I. b) The project site is currently vacant. No significant outcroppings or other aesthetic features occur on the site. I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the project site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. II. a)-c) The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. III. a) The previously approved project would have resulted in 227 residential units, 20,000 square feet of retail commercial development, 20,600 of commercial office development, a 40,000 square foot distribution center, and an employee parking lot. The traffic study prepared for the proposed project estimated that the project at buildout would generate 4,370 trips'. The table below illustrates the vehicular emissions which would have been generated by the project trips at buildout. Running Exhaust Emissions - Approved Specific Plan (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brake Tires 45 mph 215.12 9.65 38.59 -- 0.96 0.96 1 Traffic ImPact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 1 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 4,370 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75*F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. The revised project would result in 200 apartment units, a future school site on 12 acres, 12,000 square feet of retail commercial land uses on 1.7 acres, and to a 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630 parking spaces for employees. The approved and constructed office building site is currently built out. These land uses have the potential to generate 7,312 daily tripS2. These trips could generate the following level of pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions - Proposed Amended Specific Plan (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 45 mph 359. 16.1 64.5 -- 1.61 1.61 95 4 7 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 * Based on 7,312 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75*F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. Although the revised project will result in increased emissions, the revised project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant. III. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality violations, because residential and commercial land uses are proposed, which will not generate stationary source emissions. III. c) & d) Z Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001 ("Vista Montana Traffic Impact Analysis'), and July 2002 ("La Quinta Village Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis". S:\City Clerk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 AddlRevisedl.wpd 2 The construction of the revised project will have the potential to generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. The contractors for all projects on the site will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity, and to submit the Plan to both the City and SCAQMD. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping shall be installed with the first phase of development. Any portion of the site which is graded and not immediately built upon shall be stabilized with either chemical stabilizers or natural ground cover, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 AddlRevisedl.wpd 3 of the Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts from particulate matter to air quality from buildout will not be significant. III. e) The construction of homes and retail commercial development will not result in objectionable odors, because the permitted land uses within each of the planning areas do no generate such odors. IV) a)-f) A biological survey was conducted for the original project'. The survey found that the site provides poor habitat due to previous disturbances on the site. Although common species were found at the time of the survey, no threatened species are expected to occur on the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. Since the revised project will be substantially similar to the original project in terms of types of construction, the impacts of the revised project are also expected to be less than significant. V. a►, b) c) & d) A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject property'. The survey and testing found that no resources occur on the site. The report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. 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. VI. a) i►, ii) & iv) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. In order to mitigate and protect the City from this hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. This Letter report prepared by LSA, January, 2001. 4 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report, prepared by CRM Tech, January, 2001. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 4 mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project site is not located adjacent to a hillside, and will not be subject to landslides. VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils on the proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's standards for site preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City Engineer. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being constructed. VI. c)-e) The soils on the site are not expansive, and support the development proposed. The soils on the site may be subject to caving during excavation, but this potential impact will be mitigated by the geologist in the above -required geotechnical analysis. The potential impacts associated with geology are less than significant. VII. a)-h) Residential and commercial land uses will not generate any unregulated hazardous material. The site is not located within an airport land use plan. The site is not located within a wildland fire area. Emergency response will be implemented in accordance with the City's Emergency Response Plan, in cooperation with the County of Riverside. VIII. a), c►,d) & e) The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on - site. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than significant level. VIII. b) All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA41 I AddlRevisedl.wpd 5 landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c►-e) The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. The project site is located in an AO Flood Zone. The project will,be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on - site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. VIII. f) & g) The proposed project is located in an AO flood zone. The City Engineer will require that all structures on the site are constructed above the potential flood level in this zone. This standard will, serve to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. IX, a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site. No impacts to land use and planning will result from construction of 200 single family homes. X.a) & b) The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources. XI. a) & c) A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project'. Noise impacts exceeding the City's standards will occur during construction activities. At buildout, however, the proposed project will meet the City's current exterior noise standard for sensitive receptors. Construction mitigation measures are offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from noise are reduced to less than significant levels. 1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northern portion of the site. 5 Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, January, 2001. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411AddlRevisedl.wpd 6 XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the north, west and south of the site. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XI. d) & e) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. XII. a)-c) The revised project will be constructed on currently vacant land, and will provide a mix of residential and commercial development. The site has the potential to employ some of the residents within either the commercial retail area, or at the school. No impacts to population and housing are expected. XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and sales tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services. All homes within the proposed project boundary will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, each project within the tract map area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XIV. a) & b) The buildout of the revised project will result in an increase in population which will have a need for recreational facilities. The project site will include a SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 7 clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts for residents' recreation. The generation of property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level. XV. a) & b) Traffic analysis were prepared for the proposed project and the revised project'. The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service, with or without the proposed project; that minor alterations to lane geometries will be required to accommodate the project, and are listed below under mitigation measures. Both analysis found that signalization would not be necessary at Eisenhower and Calle Tampico with implementation of either the original or the revised project. The study for the revised project, however, did not include any of the uses currently constructed on the site, and potential expansion of these uses, as permitted in the Specific Plan. Specifically, the study did not include the office building currently on the southeastern corner of the site, or the potential 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630 parking spaces allowed on the east side of the site. By combining the two studies, it was determined that the revised project will generate 7,312 daily trips, while the original project would have generated 4,370 daily trips. Because of the increase in trips, and the high concentration of these trips during the morning peak hour, when the future school will also have a significant impact, it is likely that the intersection delay at Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will increase to an unacceptable level. Since this assumes buildout of the 630 parking spaces (only 94 such spaces are currently built), which have the highest potential impact to AM peak traffic, should the parking not be constructed, the traffic signal may not be needed immediately. In order to assure that the impacts to traffic and circulation from buildout of the revised project are not significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Prior to any additional site plan or Village Use Permit on this site, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that all of the components of the Specific Plan land area have been considered in a traffic signal analysis. That analysis shall also include recommendations on thresholds for the construction of the traffic signal at the corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. The July 2002 traffic study also included mitigation measures to assure that impacts of the project were less than significant. The following mitigation c Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, and La Quinta Village Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2002. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411Add(Revised).wpd 8 measures shall be implemented: 1. Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will be fully improved to their General Plan half -widths adjacent to the project site. 2. All project exits will be. STOP sign controlled. 3. The project proponent will contribute his fair share to the signalization of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico. 4. The project proponent shall provide lane geometries as depicted in Figure VI-2 of the Traffic Analysis, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level. XV. d) The project proposes a right -in, right -out access onto Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and the primary site access. The distance between these drives may not be sufficient to allow for safe ingress and egress. In order to ensure that this potential impact is mitigated, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: XV. f) 1. The City shall monitor development proposals for the school site, and shall participate in the public comment process to assure that driveways accessing the school are at safe distances. The commercial retail component of both the original and the revised project include the potential for restaurant land uses. The parking on the retail portion of the site, however, has been calculated for general retail use, which is much less stringent than restaurant use. Should large portions of the retail square footage be dedicated to restaurant use, the site would have insufficient parking. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Restaurant use within the Commercial Retail component of the proposed project shall be limited to 5,000 square feet gross floor area. XV. c), e), g) The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the project does not create any hazardous design features. The map provides for an emergency S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CameoEA411 AddlRevisedl.wpd 9 access point in addition to project access. Alternative transportation in the form of trails and public transportation will be implemented based on General Plan policies and programs. XVI. a)-f) Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay connection 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. SACity CIerk\Resolutions\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 10 F H z � z a U a W F Q C1 a z um a �c w a wv 7H a a b v 5x r U 'U U z b Q A U ❑ O C ° ° z U c m r y '0 a F cl � U U U U = r 0 0 to DA 0 M.O. 5bq F z 0 x � z °w z r ° C 0 a v a v a V � In U Q .. zz 0.1 ao a m to an O U U q U U U U Im U q xa FU z b z = to ulet a N Pro lzr z za" W a w N o _ F A •• a. � � W a a` U a`, rn 3u Eu ES \ u u E[ ¥ u \ \to o [ o o § § § n \ m e=[ ,\ ,} .\ : , _ � ■ 27 22 3 22 22 §k ƒ) §2 §k \ / o .\ to |v / \ \ \ G c a < 2 \ § ( ( \ \ q § t ©2 { /# / S (\ / } I � ) En cli )\ / # u, 2 /\ � k /= i; . }� | / § /. ; k 0 k / / / / ) / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \) 0 0" �\ \\ a ±E± z& 2= ±m ( \ } 2 \ \ \ .2 / / / / » » » _ [a |E c e e 2 0/ = a / 16 & ] j o / ® \ \i _\ ) e { 2 / ] \ \ ( \ k = A 2 Q