CC Resolution 2015-018 WatermarkRESOLUTION NO. 2015 — 018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO.2014-638, FOR BEAZER HOMES
HOLDINGS (WATERMARK)
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2014-638
APPLICANT: BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") of Environmental Impact and associated
Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit A) for Environmental Assessment 2014-638
for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Community Development Director has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been
incorporated.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did publish a Notice of
Intent to Adopt an MND in The Desert Sun newspaper, on the 21 st day of
November, 2014, as prescribed by CEQA. The Initial Study was distributed to
responsible agencies and was available for review at the Community Development
Department at La Quinta City Hall; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 9th day of December, 2014, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
MND of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment No. 2014-638, and
after hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, did by minute motion
unanimously recommend to the City Council approval of said MND; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department did publish a Public
Hearing Notice in The Desert Sun newspaper, on the 8th of May, 2015, as
prescribed by Municipal Code, with public hearing notices mailed to all property
owners within 500 feet of the Beazer Homes/Watermark property; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to justify approval of said MND of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment No. 2014-638:
Resolution No. 2015-018
Environmental Assessment 2014-688
Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. — Watermark
Adopted: May 19, 2015
Page 2 of 4
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by the MND.
2. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that no significant effects on environmental
factors have been identified by the MND.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential
for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends in that in that no significant effects on environmental
factors have been identified by the MND.
4. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
MND.
5. The Project will not result in impacts, which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as ' development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the Project.
6. The 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 in that mitigation measures
are imposed on the Project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
8. The City Council has considered the MND and said MND reflects the
independent judgment of the City.
Resolution No. 2015-018
Environmental Assessment 2014-638
Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. — Watermark
Adopted: May 19, 2015
Page 3 of 4
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).
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, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the City Council approving Environmental Assessment 2014-638;
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of La Quinta hereby approves the a
MND of Environmental Impact and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibits A and B) for Environmental Assessment 2014-638 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution;
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of La Quinta held this 19th day of May, 2015, by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Franklin, Osborne, Pena, Radi, Mayor Evans
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
c-
LINDA EVANS, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
SUSAN MAYSELS, y Cle
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2015-018
Environmental Assessment 2014-638
Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. — Watermark
Adopted: May 19, 2015
Page 4 of 4
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO -FORM:
WILLIAM`H. IHRKE, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Phone: (760) 777-7000
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Project Title:
Beazer Homes, Watermark Villas
Case No:
General Plan Amendment 2014-127, Zone Change 2014-145, Specific
Plan 2003-069, Amendment #1, Site Development Permit 2014-942,
Tentative Tract Map 36762
Lead Agency
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
(760) 777-7125
Applicant:
Beazer Homes Holding Corp.
1800 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 140
Brea, CA 92821
(714) 672-7047
Contact Person:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta
(760) 777-7125
Project Location:
NW Corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52
La Quinta, CA 92253
APN: 776-220-012-1, 776-220-013-2, and 776-220-014-3
General Plan/Zoning:
Current: Medium/High Density Residential
Proposed: Low Density Residential
Surrounding Land
Uses:
North: Single-family housing (The Citrus Club)
South: Vacant lands, Avenue 52
East: Vacant Lands, Jefferson Street
West: Single-family housing (The Citrus Club)
Project Description:
The proposed project will result in the development of 82 single-family detached residential
dwelling units to be located on ±20.84 acres in the City of La Quinta, California. The project was
previously approved for 248 condominiums in 2004 and was partially built. Existing
improvements, including residential structures and parking podiums will be demolished as part of
the project.
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will change the land use and zoning designations
from the existing Medium/High Residential to Low Density Residential. The Watermark Specific
Plan Amendment No. 1 will be amended to eliminate discussion of the previously approved
condominium project and to allow for the 82 single-family detached homes with three floor plans.
A Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide the lots and create lots for streets, parkways and
other ancillary facilities.
The proposed development includes internal private streets, a community recreation center with
pool, and a retention basin that also serves as passive open space. The project also makes provision
for a possible gated golf cart connection to Fresa Circle to provide access should an agreement be
made with the Citrus Course and HOA.
The majority of the subject property is currently vacant with the exception of several palm trees
and 11 abandoned buildings, some only partially constructed, from the previous development
which will be demolished as part of the project. The existing perimeter wall, primary entry and
retention basin will be retained from the prior development with minor modifications made. Most
underground utilities will be removed and reconstructed within the new street system.
The Specific Plan sets forth General Plan and Zoning amendments from "Medium/High Density
Residential" to "Low Density Residential," making the project consistent with both the General
Plan Land Use and Zoning classifications.
Project Location and Limits:
The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street in the
City of La Quinta, California. The project involves Assessor's Parcels 776-220-012-1, 776-220-
013-2, and 776-220-014-3.
Other Required Public Agencies Approval:
None
-2-
� e ��,�,„ � gaa r �r€ '^-z _ � ,. € s'Y.,,:...at1� �°�a��, � 3 � {�i � � '• � !
*,�`
r Gx gg
Akw v ��_�.
i ' 4r'�'
x m g 4r� - to asa aG CC y
q �s zn r• ..� s : r .�'i C`..' € aae
Ave 48 A"
7,7 EP
_It
,
` a �' ='_..-+ E - F PrC�oj ecIR
t
rk a �"' pis f vw- • »> � ..;..,';� `x ° r t ..:. ti.V o-,S0
� g
x s t 8
�s J
TA
�r S U § "-
-
sff
��'�`• ¢� ' �`
_�+y, 3+s I C
MI
,,,f,, "li
Tgn
�
i:.� 4
4, d-•ifs'£' - $ L. ?" �� M"t f ro,. by ?rB' . f.,N
y T
IN
`l �
c.�wr 3 x .•� "' �.-"� `€'` 4 «.«ara <-�: � ,. <.. w , �
.b ✓ '" s5` v�' e-�csgx .e�37 rE y�: "a k<r �� �„Z I z
''��
AIZ
_ve56ft
ltI
� k '."y �`" �t' s -, "F "', e' �S k•rgv A•��" 'd� ih` n ' ,i'°'``' w
�Cg L; p
3
`y t"yi g ?Lt'2....nj34R'S �^,✓ kry4.Y. T
''
vOu
�yl w.,.^:.. Eii r, ;a6� •,�,a«"�' 5�..+i�. .. `d"i� � t-,-`'' ,C,4[' f � �,.�"� ��« � �"- t* ��"�v� £�,S � i a,�g g � s -,a •^
Source: USGS 7.5 Mmute Quad Map V
La Quinta, CA 1959
Photorevised 1980
. ' I e S8 N
_.4 ,v'`'' i"" 3 3 s€ e,t'r ✓�... ems"- 'eS x ' Y `,p,, b@`'v... ` s "'
err
-R-a-L k!
x-,
Exhibit
Watermark Villas
TERRA NOVA Vicinity Map
1
Plann ing 411,111twarth,Ina; La Quinta, California
Watermark Villas Exhibit
P Project Aerial
I� � TETtR.� 1�OV,� 2
IN, unin &, ,R arch, Igic. La Quinta, .California
y F
_Al
' Q:
::ffiW "_z^:'a..., w.,,:. ,.+..., r".+ffi!::^va3.:.«. ems' by8 �sa-satq-.�".,.4"...':.� •.';,.,„
.::..�-r...c.w,�".+s +.�«m.,.,.„„i `�` Sh�;. � A' •swe�*^s:., }. �". ,......,.yam'. 4-v..w�ne.
�- .a�"" ,� ��., .:o-a . ^,.,:' .�§. ,�•r ,ate. ,.�,�,,,.».aza�«. �y„a ,r�.m.., .X ...,x �_ .,9 x��-.�, n.r,:`-.
'y°'4, 4y
� �a
i .4aa tia ,. ?' . �.« s X{ r; .`,:�. J" to ..». ,.f: ,,: §. a x € �x,,� .• =.`"bye ar x w -' _ �en�s tcxnYA sr i ,§.
f r ,<it 4i. t5 € - -' �ai "t}z.' �';"KCG, 'a "'x�,: �. :. �� ad �• �p. • � ,gg� ..:,--X, ..»� � �y ::.y 4,>�t �.� �.,,, t;,.4�i
."�^' a^ °��. iY d! 4 P► ivy Ax . fcts.
s . .".x '^�_ ..mow.-r'�r,,� .,.,,.: �°� :-_. -y �':__.�_�....x �,, ",,..,..,, e�.� x t'� i�.s + 3� -, •�r>.u�a :... '_^ ^ �; ems, -e�'�„�,�"''-:'y`"..+,re� .- �+�
^..t,a
,,. .. ��.��, .,+""' ,.. �, � .>,,., �,€ ., .. ^>✓r-:^..: ,�a»:...:. E«s '_ :,a a.,w., .. p d'. 34p 2,�. ..,#' -1 s >,.»-,,✓'�+ ' ,�«w. " � fir;.-». � �:. g,.°�,"...�r�� ':,,:,„•x€� f
r, „,d� a w,,.,,�,., �;� ..�_. •>r, ,.... » - ^.,..w. 'rt�. dr'.. .;.._ :. t �.�««°�r . »x. r., """'�," �`'a �.•.•.a- "r'>,.. �� �'" . p=,s� �.,�* l.d .
'>,r , _ .. .�,�',;. ,. ..;,,� o. a..; �:.,, ... �. a r r:,'iE ! { ...A,,.,,•"'"T .4� t �S �t°e„,�, µ:a�`,r;.r°i;�,., �
s:'ri$� r: ✓ ia.,x,.»« ., a „tf.p' L,..
'Ra'iss" •JSd
MN ,�. "�,. '��`l��r'S ��.. f, 'x: ,aq��`"„ +^..,;�r•e /t 6� ix � f;��l.� of Saar.. � �, .� � �✓^
x�
Cdl g. 4i� t lit
$ Ka. a 4 a.
sax k
,". �,.���,,.. »�,.�., ."�a'>'� �.€.: ,,.. --. _,.f'f- .,' ;. i, ' a4�. v '�-.af :�... ',ti .�.,, ;t .t^'# "d L , �',•1ti k#dd ��: ,. �..�.. ,� '1y
W Mg
� ti `
§> :,.». � f. �E. .. .. ':'1.".. v`� ..r i i ! 4 �i � € ➢%:tf 'E.
;a.... ,.�44a a. y., t'"' t <. ,�. ",...,„ r: ''SESE__ _Wm..„___..; �a �,, .,H,. a�r_.f`._.. ...., ..» :L .'4 a4 .ir i i`'
- a.. $d3 iw'D. '*.3.., '-,;,ice' ,� : • y. > si'L` i 't i 1 e. �gx, . _ _
t z:.�..,.,.... .,
s v :...$,.,,d t i £��Y 31� «�� � '.`'+ ram• ,. "v;t.,s ",,.."...x;....4 p Y f ,i ^ _
.t
t '3'. s 'JYA6it'Y, 1; ,.r ...,_x.., t 'c
CNtb�sJ $. 11 } ;� '-'�:a' '-i �D° sr 'a �t .8s f{
,
'l k,
r4t'".wi g •.. , ^.CK'°,Lr6d k - 3:z. Y ,. s w�^ ,} . i atm; .•a T, 1' f �. ,6., :t€
� : � .4� }j .. a : a �
,..t.
&9, E.V-
d�X_....
f.
t6
.�..»...Z-.
,. �
w
{_ �' See%A'=t:- ';:'„ .,..'�•:;, ' .,„a^r1 _ �`�r' , s.,',` '�«.3 d»:, .r....�:
l .s:l ..'
Sl.t :.' ?�i•?: •_�':_„ ., '.: .`. "%ii kiX$.. >. E, I ;. .. �'"�}' ^'^ro+..a._.-.+.I .rc+.«. �. ^may.'» _. :"..'v
•.�� � ._..._._ �......«.,:.:.s: r �,£.1 i��', .#mod'. °�d . , x...: ,. .. ,axa �... �g K°� ,.i ,t".o, r� ..:_.q _�� ..;✓ {� .isx': 4a'
.,., � i.. ,.. .... y:' ,,.�. �dn�ir4� �.•{,. il:1 `,. ,�t.a b f. .;.., ,, ,. .4 t^',lI &4i'b- �� .., d 7. ,� ..� �..:. §'_+ F4. ''?.,,.,, $.
." �...�{p
X.<.Lh"�a;.. P, ,d .. ,..,. adi „FS..tisRS ,.4,a f. CG�7i'9'ta9 t.?�:�44,
:•f. a �.. ,,. a�.. .:�, �,.�:". ;,,.. ,.. "' !.z !k . ... ��. t ( t .f �::; 4�"1'f�'.., i
RMQ4 . s . , 4 .r t, , i...a.4 . s,.. 6 M.� t2. USA . a�"X+:+e ;. b f .: ,,. "r k» f
V':..:,•$. rt5 sfax. ,srii t ! e' f. t 4k: St'' •�,..F, a 4'xi;dr#aC_ ".,..5
,f $...i�
d ( fi z aE _, �:�'`•E," w we »irp, s«-} `�^ •- . } '� . d.4 K 1 5�'C�:. $, 4 YS&` A 1 i`v ,4 At,
1f.f, is it,i P GY.j S
'� .� ,�-� ..r-,,.,i• $- � _ r. ,'
, � � ,.' .-..;.' '.._�' .'.'`>'t i,.. i�$' � ,...'.:;,.,„a �' �,>.-.>r.4.$,,...�.. , #- Vim,.•-..»r�L,'..._�:..:, �ki - ttf ��(�
i'Awl,
.,�..""� �'::„.L�, , a
w-- "«$
,r
�tr.-; ^ , ' ,. .ry¢:,, , f".,,....• ;Qr� �... � , '',f„ �^ .: .:..r . � ,f,' ,� «� •: ,:..:�z . :�:.., .a i � d]B .°�' � I
t:. —s-.,.
$��a a�'iY�+,^'fa' �•.� 4�° <rtv. .�..,,-..»....,-... -.., ,&m.,: .,,.§'�,.�:,:,"_ -�'i�� '".'�R`� .€ - s. -_ .,t�,.�w:�� _ �'',x �m�.,.� ,� � +py�»" ,. �» '�,
.@ a s�,_:"_ ��..,'rw,«mN, f'•°^".w;....• .:,«...;,. ,K.w ".�'� �, ...,-'^` ��._ ..... ..w:'m,,,a t � ..� �. ...,a _ xiy. rL's �" "h,q�"'ti
� �,r
A{'i _Lv d x i E sn.c {', { x�,e P gxli3 aivs;
..61
ag § -let
k5ti. ...� '"4;i Gar.** :E $. :3iig it;Ft.zCv6R'. Aai. '. € t.. x @ r(^»..„;..-„,.,. s ah ?' ...-s:.:,"..�T
Z "+aet c aa•¢ta i :d nC. a' t' :9s xes2 a j ( } $
11
:i If �k'G e � _ -: ki3-�i'Sa �1
44 LOS,
:af� .t;, e' `"».. $::� ' i6'ffi:
.�:.: a
4 az
tr' . "",. '"..,...-^a.`^"" � �- . j — °�: -� „x' 'v Fes« � ��o.� �.»�,s,:.�yY'""°..:..:w, ao � .,,��_-" ..z=.�....,� g�;l�3xts cr;_ � T E x• � -:.� M> ;�"«�v` r'::... �,.a •.
u
1
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
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 and
Forestry Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
a
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
El
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑
Hydrology /Water Quality
Land Use / Planning
❑ .
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population / Housing
n
Public Services
Recreation
(
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service
Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
ignificant effect on the
ared.
ignificant effect on the
because revisions in the
.3onent. A MITIGATED
on the environment, and
significant impact" or
nnnent, but at least one
it pursuant to applicable
ures based on the earlier
FAL IMPACT REPORT
addressed.
gnificant effect on the
L) have been analyzed
4 pursuant to applicable
to that earlier EIR or
3tion measures that are
ii I 1
Date
-6-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
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 and
Forestry Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
El
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
El
Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service
Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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
X 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 project proponent. 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" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
In
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
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 referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures 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.
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) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
-7-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
X
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
X
nighttime views in the area?
Source: 2U35 General Plan, La Qumta Municipal Code, Calitornia Scenic Highway Mapping System, project materials.
I. a-c) Less than Significant, No Impact. Properties in the project vicinity generally enjoy views of
the Santa Rosa Mountains located to the west and southwest. The site is not located near an
existing or proposed state scenic highway and there are no scenic resources, rock
outcroppings, or historical buildings located onsite. However, both Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52 are designated as Image Corridors in the 2035 General Plan and provide valuable
visual character and resources to the City.
Lands to the south, southeast, southwest, and east of the project site are currently vacant
creating very little obstruction to existing scenic vistas. Development of the proposed project
will have limited impact on scenic vistas for the neighboring single-family residences to the
north and west due to the site's existing perimeter wall and abandoned buildings. In addition,
the proposed project will be developed with single story homes with a maximum height of 22
feet or less. New landscaping will be limited to an approved plant palette consistent with the
surrounding desert environment. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas are expected to be less
than significant.
d) Less than Significant. Approval of the proposed project will result in the construction of 82
detached single-family units. Lighting will be generated by vehicle trips, buildings,
landscaping, and is expected to be similar to that generated by existing residential
developments to the immediate north and west, and traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue
52.
The proposed project will be required to abide by City of La Quinta building codes and
lighting ordinance, which require proper shielding of light sources and prohibit light spillage
on adjacent properties. A lighting plan will be submitted and approved prior to development,
and all standard requirements will be applied. With compliance with City lighting standards,
lighting impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Monitoring: None
-8-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
Source: 2035 General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping, project materials.
II. a-c) No Impact. The subject property is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the California Dept. of Conservation, nor is it
used for agricultural purposes. The subject area is surrounded by both urban development and
open space recreational lands, including single-family housing, golf courses, and vacant lands
zoned for general commercial, major community facilities and open space -recreational.
There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property or properties in the immediate
vicinity. The proposed property and immediate area are not zoned for agricultural use and will
not result in the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. There will be no
impacts to agricultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None
Monitoring: None
-9-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
X
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
X
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
X
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
X
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people?
Source: La Ouinta General Plan. SCAOMD CEOA
Handbook: 2003 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley SCAOMD
2012 Air Quality Management Plan; CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2; Earthwork Volume Analysis: Watermark La Quinta,
prepared by Earthwork Calculation Services, October 8, 2014.
III. a) No Impact. The Coachella Valley, including the project area, is located within the Salton Sea
Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air
pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. All
development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
(2012 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV
PMIo SIP).
The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans.
The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The
proposed project will reduce the lot density from a previously approved 248-unit
condominium development, to the currently proposed 82-unit single-family development.
This land use density decrease will result in fewer construction and mobile emissions, thus
having a less significant impact than the previous proposed use. Given its location adjacent to
an existing neighborhood and limited scope, the project will be consistent with the intent of
the AQMP. No impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are
expected.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Criteria air pollutants will be released during both the
construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to project air quality emissions that
will be generated by the project. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction -related
emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated at operation.
-10-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Construction Emissions
The construction period includes all aspects of project development, including site
preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural
coatings. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur over a 3-year period
from January 2015 to December 2017.
As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will be reduced to less
than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures. The data reflect average
daily emissions over the 3-year construction period, including summer and winter weather
conditions. The analysis assumes approximately 53,202 cubic yards materials will be
imported during grading, and will require the demolition of 11 existing buildings totaling
70,378 square feet. Applicable mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the
implementation of dust control practices in conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403, proper
maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, phasing application of architectural
coatings and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Adherence to such
measures will ensure construction related emissions would remain less than significant. The
complete list of mitigation measures is provided at the end of this Section under Mitigation
Measures III (b).
Table 1
Watermark Villas
Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary
(nounds Der dav)
Construction Emissions'
CO
NOX
ROG
S02
PM10
PM2.5
2015
86.14
95.85
9.50
0.15
9.48
6.06
2016
23.90
25.81
3.83
0.03
2.50
2.01
2017
23.06
23.82
29.55
0.03
2.31
1.83
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds? No No No No No No
1 Average of winter and summer emissions, mitigated, 2015-2017.
Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 11.12.14.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They
include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electric and natural gas), and
mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions at
operation of the proposed project.
Table 2
Watermark Villas
Operation -Related Emissions Summary
(Dounds Der dav)
CO NO,,
ROG
S02 PM10
PM2.5
Operational Emissions' 57.14 10.14
17.62
0.08 6.04
3.15
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00
75.00
150.00 150.00
55.00
Exceeds? No No
No
No No
No
Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, 2017.
Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 11.12.14.
-11-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
As shown in Table 2, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of
significance for any criteria pollutants. The data are conservative and reflect unmitigated
operations.
c) Less than Significant. Historically, the Coachella Valley, in which the project site is located,
has been classified as a "non -attainment" area for PM10 and ozone. In order to achieve
attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo Management Plan was adopted,
which established strict standards for dust management for development proposals. The
Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is currently (November 2014) a non- attainment area for PMIo
and is classified as attainment/unclassifiable for PM2_5. The proposed project will contribute to
an incremental increase in regional ozone and PMIo emissions. However, given its limited size
and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be considerable. Under mitigated
conditions set forth in this analysis, project construction and operation emissions will not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMIo or ozone precursors (NOx). The project will not
conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts.
d) Less than Significant. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences
immediately north and west of the project site. Their distance from the building pad ranges
from approximately 20-25 meters.
To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized
air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was
used. The City of La Quinta and subject property are located within Source Receptor Area 30
(Coachella Valley). Given the project's size and proximity to existing housing, the 5-acre site
tables at a distance of 25 meters was used. Table 3 shows on -site emission concentrations for
project construction and the associated LST. As shown in the table, LSTs will not be exceeded
under unmitigated conditions for CO and NOx. PMIo and PM2.5, which include best
management practices and standard dust control measures (SCAQMD Rule 403). Therefore,
air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant.
Table 3
Watermark Villas
Localized Significance Thresholds
(lbs/dav)
CO
NOx
PMIo
PM2.5
Construction 86.14
95.85
9.48
6.06
LST Threshold 2,292
304
14
8
Exceed? No
No
No
No
Emission Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 11.12.14.
LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD.
e) Less than Significant. The proposed project is not expected to generate objectionable odors
during any of the phases of construction or at project buildout. The proposed project has the
potential to result in short term odors associated with paving and other construction activities.
However any such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance
from the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected
to be less than significant.
-12-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Mitigation Measures III (b):.
The following measures will reduce emission of potentially harmful pollutants and should be
included in project grading and dust control plans, as well as in construction and- construction traffic
staging:
1. Construction equipment, delivery trucks, worker vehicles, and haul trucks will limit idling
time to no more than 5 minutes.
2. The grading contractor shall certify in writing that all construction equipment is properly
serviced and maintained in good operating conditions. Certification shall be provided to City
Engineer for review and approval.
3. Diesel -powered construction equipment shall utilize aqueous diesel fuels, and be equipped
with diesel oxidation catalysts.
4. A fugitive dust plan shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be approved by the
City Engineer. Said plan shall include but not be limited to the following best management
practices:
5. Chemically treat soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days;
6. All construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour;
7. Water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth -moving operations;
8. Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site;
9. Establish and strictly enforce limits of grading for each phase of development; and/or
10. Stabilize and re -vegetate areas of temporary disturbance needed to accomplish each phase of
development.
11. Wash off trucks as they leave the project site as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
12. Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials prior to transport, provide adequate
freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to reduce PM10 and
deposition of particulate matter during transportation.
13. Use track -out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize
dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic.
14. Construction equipment and materials shall be sited as far away from residential and park uses
as practicable.
15. The following Best Control Measures (BCM) shall be utilized by the contractor, as required,
to limit impacts to air quality:
-13-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
1. BCM-1: Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, and track -out control.
2. BCM-2: Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, and revegetation.
3. BCM-3: Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization,
access restriction, and revegetation.
4. BCM-4: Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders,
and clean streets maintenance.
16. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid
on -site power generation.
17. Imported fill and paving materials, as well as any exported material, shall be adequately
watered prior to transport, covered during transport, and watered prior to unloading.
18. Each portion of the project to be graded shall be pre -watered prior to the onset of excavation,
grading or other dust -generating activities.
19. On -going watering soil stabilization of disturbed soils, especially in the staging area, 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 workday.
20. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, ensuring the clean-up of construction -related dirt on
approach routes to and from the site.
21. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or
when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Monitoring III (b):
A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and authorization to proceed, the City
Engineer shall review and approve project staging and detailed dust management
plans. The dust control plan or equivalent documentation shall also address issues of
construction vehicle staging and maintenance. Implementation of these mitigation
measures will ensure that impacts associated with PM10 are mitigated to a less than
significant level.
Responsible Parties: City Engineer, General Contractor
B. The City or its designee shall conduct daily inspections of the project and intervene
when contractor deviates from City -approved plans. Daily logs shall be maintained on
the activities and their conformance to the project's dust control plan.
Responsible Parties: City Engineer staff or designee
-14-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
X
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
X
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
X
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct ,
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
X
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
X
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
X
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Source: 2035 General Plan, Coachella Valley MSHCP, project materials.
IV. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Biological resources in the project area have been
affected by area roadways and urban development. Native habitat onsite has been highly
degraded due to previous grading and site development. Several palm trees occupy the site
and may offer limited nesting sites for birds protected by the international Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA). To comply with the MBTA, any vegetation or tree removal, or other
ground disturbing activities occurring between January 1 to August 31 with the potential to
impact nesting birds shall require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey to
determine if there is a potential impact to such species. Conducting construction activities
outside of the breeding season (September 1 through December 31) can avoid having to
implement such measures. If active nests of any native bird are found onsite, they will be
avoided until after the young have fledged. Compliance with the MBTA will ensure impacts
to sensitive species are reduced to less than significant levels.
-15-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
The City of La Quinta participates in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CV MSHCP), which is a comprehensive regional plan encompassing a
planning area of approximately 1.1 million acres and conserving approximately 240,000 acres
of open space. The Plan is intended to address the conservation needs of a variety of plant and
animal species and natural vegetation communities that occur in the Coachella Valley region.
It establishes a system of preserves outside of urbanized areas in the valley in order to protect
lands with high conservation value. It streamlines permitting processes by implementing state
and federal endangered species acts while providing for land development within its planning
area.
b,c) No Impact. The project site is located in a developed and highly disturbed area and there are
no riparian habitats or wetlands located on the site. The proposed project will have no impact
on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, including
marshes or vernal pools, or through direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a
natural drainage.
d) No Impact. The subject property does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor for any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or as a native wildlife nursery site. The
site is bounded on the east by Jefferson Street (an Urban Arterial roadway), on the south by
Avenue 52, on the north and west by single-family residential. In addition, the site is currently
bounded on all sides by a perimeter wall. The ground surface has been disturbed by previous
grading and other anthropogenic activities. The proposed project is not expected to impact
wildlife corridors or nursery sites.
e,f) Less than Significant. The City of La Quinta has adopted the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). As a result, the City is required to
implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for projects located within the
CVMSHCP plan area. Although the proposed project site is not within a designated
conservation area, as defined in the Plan, it is located with the general Plan boundaries, and
the developer will be required to pay LDMF. These fees are designed to offset potential
impacts of cumulative projects on covered biological species, and assure that impacts are
reduced throughout the Valley and City to less than significant levels.
Mitigation.
1. To comply with the MBTA, any vegetation or tree removal, or other ground disturbing
activities occurring between January 1 st and August 31 st with the potential to impact nesting
birds shall require a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey to determine if there is
a potential impact to such species.
All vegetation and suitable nesting habitat (including open ground) on the project site,
whether or not it will be removed or disturbed, shall be surveyed for nesting birds. If no nests
are present, this condition will be cleared. Conducting construction activities outside the
breeding season (September 1 st through December 31 st) can avoid having to implement these
measures. If active nests of any native bird are found on site, they will be avoided until after
the young have fledged.
-16-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Monitoring
A. The City's Planning Division shall assure that necessary nesting bird surveys are completed in
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable protocol.
Responsible Parties: Planning Division
Schedule: Between January 15t to August 31s' and no more than 30 days prior to site
disturbance.
-17-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
Nnvemher 2111 d
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
X
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
X
to ' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
X
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Source: 2035 General Plan, project materials.
V. a,b) No Impact. According to the 2035 General Plan the subject property has been previously
surveyed for cultural resources (Exhibit III-4). There are no known historic, archaeological or
paleontological resources of significance located on -site. The site is located in a developed
area that has contained residential and recreational development for many years. It is bounded
by Jefferson Street (an Urban Arterial roadway) on the east and 52 Avenue on the south; and
single-family residential to the north and west. The site is also contained by a perimeter wall
on all sides. Given the area's highly disturbed nature from previous urban development, it is
not anticipated that the proposed project will adversely affect historical or archaeological
resources.
c) No Impact. According to Exhibit III-5 of the General Plan, the proposed project site is
located in an area of the City of high paleontological sensitivity/significance, underlain by
ancient Lake Cahuilla beds. However, the site has been previously developed and disturbed
though the introduction of surrounding roadways and residential developments. As a result of
these disturbances, the soils within the project site are considered low in sensitivity for
paleontological resources. Implementation of the project will have no further impact on
paleontological resources.
d) No Impact. It is not anticipated that any human remains will be encountered during
construction of the proposed project because the site and surrounding area have been
previously disturbed to accommodate development. However, should any previously
unidentified or unanticipated human remains be discovered during project construction, state
law requires that law enforcement be contacted, and the remains removed in a prescribed
manner. The project will be subject to these requirements.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-18-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
X
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
X
topsoil?
c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
X
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Sources: 2035 General Plan; project materials; " Geotechnical Assessment, Watermark Project," prepared by Petra
Geotechnical, Inc October 30, 2013
VI. a) Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) prepared a Geotechnical Assessment for the proposed project
in October 2013. Petra reviewed the various geotechnical engineering reports/letters and well
as the repot of compaction testing prepared by the previous consultant Earth Systems
Southwest (ESS) for the subject site in addition to conducting site reconnaissance and
laboratory testing.
i. No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone, and there are no known active or potentially active faults on site or within the
immediate vicinity. There will be no impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site.
ii. Less than Significant. Ground shaking is judged to be the primary hazard most likely to
affect the site. The project site is located in a seismically active area based upon proximity to
four regionally significant faults; the San Andreas, San Jacinto -Anna segment, San -Jacinto -
Coyote Creek segment, and Burnt Mountain. The San Andreas Fault is capable of generating
a moment magnitude 7.4. All structures in the planning area will be subjected to this shaking,
and could be seriously damaged if not properly designed. All construction on the site will be
required to abide be the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4, thereby reducing impacts
related to strong ground shaking to less than significant levels.
-19-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
iii. Less than Significant. Both Riverside County and Exhibit IV-3 of the 2035 General Plan
indicate the project site is located in an area of low liquefaction susceptibility. This area is
characterized by fine-grained granular sediments that are normally susceptible to liquefaction,
but groundwater depths are greater than 50 feet. The site is located in an area that is
susceptible to high levels of ground shaking and may result in localized impacts related to
liquefaction around saturated foundations or other load -carrying structures. Results from the
2013 CPT data and analysis (Petra) indicate that the site is somewhat susceptible to
seismically induced settlement, with settlement ranging from 0.35 to 0.7 inches during a
major seismic event.
Based on these findings, Petra recommends that the proposed foundations be supported by a
post -tensioned system with consideration given to the installation of flexible joins as the
deformation sensitive utility lines enter the dwellings. Similar consideration should be given
to major utility line fixtures within the proposed development.
The project is required to conform with the City Zoning, Development Code and the Uniform
Building Code Standards at the time of construction, thus further reducing impacts related to
seismically induced liquefaction to less than significant levels.
iv. No Impact. The proposed project site is relatively flat and is not located within the vicinity of
a landform susceptible to landslides, such as a slope or hillside. No impacts are expected.
b) Less than Significant. The project site is located within a high to very high Wind Erosion
Hazard zone as identified in the 2035 General Plan Exhibit IV-5. The project area is
susceptible to high winds that can cause wind erosion and soil displacement and
accumulation. As described in the Air Quality section above (Section III), the applicant will
be required to submit a dust control and management plan as part of the permitting process.
Implementation of dust control management practices will reduce impacts associated with soil
erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant levels.
c) Less than Significant. Soils in the planning area include alluvial sand and gravel with fine-
grained lakebed deposits such as silts and clays in some areas. The project site is located on
lands comprised of wind -laid dune sand (Qs) as shown in Exhibit IV-4 of the General Plan.
As previously mentioned, the site has been previously graded and partially developed. Petra
Geotechnical, Inc. conducted laboratory tests in 2013 indicating that the fill and/or native
alluvial soils on site are classified as poorly -graded sand to poorly -graded sand with silt that
have a very low expansion potential. Results also indicate that soils tested were found to have
a negligible corrosion potential to concrete materials (soluble sulfate of 0.03 and pH of 7.2),
are moderately corrosive to buried metallic elements (minimum resistivity of 5,500 ohm/cm),
and have a low corrosion potential to metals embedded in concrete (soluble chloride content
of 82 ppm). Maximum dry -density testing had a value of 103 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) at
optimum moisture content of 10 percent.
However, given the limited testing samples, Petra recommends that additional sampling and
testing are warranted during final site grading to ensure that expansion rates of on site soils
pose no substantial risks to life, or property in accordance with Table 18-1-B of the 1994
Uniform Building Code, thus reducing potential impacts related to expansive soils to less than
-20-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
significant levels. These standard requirements will assure that impacts are less than
significant.
d) No Impact. The proposed project occurs in an urbanized area of the City. The proposed
project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer lines in the area, and no septic systems
will be permitted. No impact is expected.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-21-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
-- Would theproject:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
X
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
X
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2, project materials.
VII.
a,b) Less than Significant. The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
during both construction and operation. As mentioned in Section III (Air Quality), CalEEMod
was used to quantify air quality emission projections, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction related greenhouse gas emissions will be temporary and will end once the
project is completed. Operation of the proposed project will create on -going greenhouse gases
through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, the transport and
pumping of water for onsite use, and the disposal of solid waste. Table 4 provides projected
short-term and annual GHG generation for the proposed project
Table 4
Watermark Villas
GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation
(Metric Tons/Year)
CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Construction Activities 1.234.07 0.23 0.00 1,238.81
Operational Activities 1,454.83 1.39 0.00 1,187.31
CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 output tables generated 11.12.14. Values
shown represent the total annual, unmitigated GHG emission projections for
construction and operation of the proposed project, 2017.
State legislation, including AB32, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels
by 2020; however, there are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases associated with
residential developments. It is recognized that GHG impacts are intrinsically cumulative. As
such, project construction and operation will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with
applicable rules and regulation pertaining to the release and generation of GHG's. Statewide
programs and standards will further reduce GHG emissions generated by the project,
including new fuel -efficient standards for cars, and newly adopted Building Code Title 24
standards. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the environment
from the emission of GHG's and will not conflict with any applicable GHG plans, policies or
regulations.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-22-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
X
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
X
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
X
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
X
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
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
X
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
X
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
X
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Source: 2035 General Plan, CA Department of Toxic Substances, project materials.
VII.a,b) Less than Significant. The proposed project will result in 82 single-family residential units.
This residential development will not create a significant hazard to the public related to the
transportation of ' hazardous materials. Small amounts of chemicals for household cleaning
may be transported or stored by residents; however, they will be minimal and cause similar
risks as those associated with existing residential uses in the area. Impacts associated with
transportation, use or storage of these materials are expected to be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The nearest school is Harry Truman Elementary School and La Quinta Middle
School located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the proposed project. The project is not
located within a quarter mile of a school nor will it result in the emission or handling of
hazardous materials of significance.
-23-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
d) No Impact. The project site is not located on or near a hazardous materials site as identified
by the California Department of. Toxic Substances Control. It will not create a significant
hazard to the public or environment.
e-f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 5 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes
airport. The project site is not susceptible to hazards associated with aviation.
g) No Impact. The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway
networks, or interfere with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. The
proposed project will have access to the City's existing street grid for emergency purposes,
including Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. No impacts are expected.
h) No Impact. The project site is located on the Valley floor, and is in a highly urbanized area.
There will be no impacts associated with wildland fires.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-24-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
X
discharge requirements?
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
X
level (e.g., 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)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
X
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
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
X
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
X
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
X
delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
X
flows?
Source: 2035 General Plan; FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel #2233G; project materials.; Hydrology Study for
Watermark Villas prepared by Adams -Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. June 2014.
IX. a) No Impact. The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. The project proponent will be required to implement National
Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows by preparing and
implementing SWPPP and WQMP, as required. Project development will be connected to
existing sewer lines in Jefferson Street and or Avenue 52. Wastewater will be transported to
and processed at CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) in Thermal.
CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as
they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. Therefore, the
proposed project will have less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
-25-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
b) Less than Significant. Water for the proposed project will be supplied by CVWD. CVWD
has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, which is a long-term planning
document that helps CVWD plan for current and future water demands. The proposed project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and is therefore addressed in the UWMP. The
UWMP demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve
the proposed project. Impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less
than significant
c-e) Less than Significant, Less than Significant. The project will result in impermeable
hardscape onsite, which will increase surface runoff and somewhat alter the local drainage
pattern. The subject property does not contain any streams or rivers, and storm water issues
associated with this development will be limited to local drainage. The proposed drainage
system includes an on -site storm drainpipe system that will collect and convey the stormwater
runoff into the existing retention basin located at the southwest corner of the site. Off -site
street flows on Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street will be conveyed into an existing catch basin
located at the entrance of the project and on the street. A storm drain system will collect and
direct these intercepted flows into the existing on site retention basin.
According to the Hydrology Study (Adams -Streeter, 2014), the total storage capacity of the
retention basin is 220,320 cubic feet and the required storage capacity for the site is 211,240
cubic feet (100-year 24-hour runoff). The existing basin utilizes nine sandfilters per the City's
Standard Drawing No. 307. The applicant will be required to rehabilitate the existing
sandfilters to original specifications.
The project proponent will be required to submit the stormwater drainage plan prior to
construction to ensure impacts to local drainage are reduced to less than significant impacts.
All hydrology improvements will also be required to comply with NPDES standards, to assure
that no polluted storm water enters other surface waters either during construction or
operation of the project. The City's requirements assure that drainage patterns will not be
significantly impacted by the proposed project.
f-g) No Impact. The subject property is designated Zone X on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, which is defined as an area of moderate to low risk of flood hazard. The proposed
project will not place housing within the boundaries of the 100-year flood hazard area.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-26-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
X
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
X
conservation plan?
Sources: 2035 General Plan, 2003 CVMSHCP Figure 4-1: Conservation Areas; project materials. Watermark Specific
Plan Amendment No.l, prepared by MSA Consulting, October 16, 2014.
X. a) No Impact. The proposed project will not divide an established community. The property is
located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 surrounded by vacant lands
and residential developments. The project will be a continuation of residential development
trends in the area.
b) No Impact. The site has been designated for "Medium/High Density Residential" uses in the
City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Watermark Specific Plan Amendment No. 1
will result in a General Plan Land Use and Zoning amendment, allowing for "Low Density
Residential." Therefore, with approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the
project is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the City, and impacts are
considered negligible.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within any conservation areas as identified in the
CVMSHCP. However, the property is within the general boundaries of the Plan, and
therefore, the project proponent will be required to pay Local Development Mitigation Fee
(LDMF). There will be no conflict with the Plan. (See Section IV Biological Resources).
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
-27-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
X
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
X
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Sources: 2035 General Plan, project materials.
XI.a,b) No Impact. Mineral resources in the City consist primarily of sand and gravel. The proposed
project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources
occur (Exhibit III-1, 2035 General Plan). There will be no impact to mineral resources as a
result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
-28-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
X
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
X
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
X
levels existing without the project?
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
X
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
X
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Source: 2035 General Plan Noise Element, project materials.
XII. a) Less than Significant. The City of La Quinta Noise Element of the General Plan provides
guidelines for community noise impacts per land use designation. The current City noise
standards for residential land uses allow noise levels of 60 dBA from lam to lOpm, and 50
dBA from lOpm to lam. The primary source of noise in the City and project area is traffic
related. The main source of off -site exterior noise impacting the project will be generated
from traffic along Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Tables IV-1 and IV-2 of the Noise Element
provide noise analysis of various locations throughout the City. The average daily noise levels
generated from traffic at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 is is 62.2 dBA. This does not reflect
the noise reduction from the existing perimeter wall.
The proposed project is located in proximity to residential land uses of the Citrus Club,
immediately north and west of the subject site. According to City standards, residential land
uses are considered "noise sensitive" thereby restricting allowable noise levels within the
planning area. The City requires that exterior noise levels not exceed 65 dBA CNEL in
outdoor living areas, and interior noise levels not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL iri all habitable
rooms. Noise generated by project operation and related traffic is anticipated to similar to
existing noise of the surrounding residential uses and traffic along Jefferson Street and
Avenue 52. Therefore, noise impacts to surrounding residential land uses will be less than
significant.
-29-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
b) Less than Significant. Development of the proposed project will temporarily generate noise
and groundbourne vibrations through construction related activities, but will cease once in
operation. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant.
c,d) Less than Significant. Surrounding land uses in proximity to the proposed site include low
density residential to the north and west, and currently vacant lands to the east and south. The
proposed project is consistent with lands immediately north and west of the site and will
generate comparable noise levels. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
e,f) No Impact. The project is located approximately 5 miles to the south of the Bermuda Dunes
Airport. Although an occasional overflight is likely, the approach patterns do not occur in the
vicinity of the proposed project. There are no private airstrips in the region. Therefore, there
will be no impact associated with airport noise.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
-30-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. 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
X
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
X
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
X
housing elsewhere?
Source: Project materials. "Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1,
2011-2014, with 2010 Benchmark," CA Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, May 1, 2014.
XIII. a)No Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of 82 detached single-family
residential units. According to the California Department of Finance, the 2014 household size
in La Quinta is 2.591 persons per household. Based on this factor, the project has the potential
to add approximately 213 persons to the City's population. Although the project will directly
induce population growth, it is consistent with the natural growth occurring over time in the
City. Impacts to population will be less than significant.
b,c) No Impact. The proposed site is currently vacant and designated for medium/high density
residential. The project will not result in the loss or relocation of housing stock. Instead, the
project will be adding 82 single-family units to the City's housing stock. There will be no
impact to housing.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
"E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2011-2014", prepared by CA Dept. of
Finance, accessed November 2014.
-31-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
Novemher 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. 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?
X
Police protection?
X
Schools?
X
Parks?
X
Other public facilities?
X
Source: 2035 General Plan, Google Earth accessed November 2014, project materials.
XIV. a)
Fire Protection- Les than Significant
The County of Riverside Fire Department provides Fire Protection for the proposed project.
The nearest exiting fire station (Station #93) that would respond first to an incident is located
approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site at 44555 Adams Street. There are two other
stations located at 78111 Avenue 52 (#32) and 54001 Madison Street (00). All County -
operated stations feature a minimum of one trained paramedic as part of its three -person
engine company per RCFD policy. The Fire Department also operates four additional stations
in surrounding communities. The Department's first -in -response times range from two to six
minutes and exhibits an Insurance Services Office (ISO) public protection class rating of four
based on the provision of staffing, communication, water system for suppression, building
standards etc. The site will have immediate access to Avenue 52 and possibly Jefferson Street
(at the City's discretion) for emergency purposes. Project development will be in accordance
with all City Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Protection Standards to assure
adequate fire safety and emergency response. Impacts will be less than significant.
Police Protection- Les than Significant
The City contracts with the County Sheriff for police services. The addition of 82 single-
family residential units will increase the need for police services for 213 additional persons;
however overall impact to police services is expected to be less than significant. The project
vicinity is currently patrolled and will continue to be patrolled after project development. The
site will be immediately accessible from Avenue 52, and project development will occur in
accordance with City standards to assure adequate police protection.
-32-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Schools -Les than Significant
The proposed project will result in 82 single-family residences and has the potential to
directly increase student population. The proposed project is located within the Coachella
Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) and the Desert Sands Unified School District and
will be required to pay the State mandated developer fee to help address and offset the
potential impacts to local schools. Fees will be collected prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Parks -Les than Significant
Each residential lot will have a private yard and the development will provide a community
center and several open space components that will serve as both recreational space and a
retention basin. The project is not expected to substantially increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project will
participate in the City's parkland in -lieu fee program to offset impacts associated with parks
generated by the 213 new residents of the project. Impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
-33-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
X
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Sources: 2035 General Plan, project materials.
XV. a,b) No Impact. Residents of La Quinta currently have access to 72 acres of parks, 147 acres of
nature preserves containing recreational parkland areas, 845 acres of regional parks, a 525-
acre municipal golf course, and numerous other private and public recreational facilities.
The City sets a requirement for providing a minimum of 5 acres per 1,000. When this
standard is applied to the estimated General Plan buildout population, a total of 403 acres of
neighborhood and community parks will be required to adequately serve the City and its
sphere of influence.
The development consists of 82 detached single-family residential units, which could
potentially increase the City's population by 213 persons. The development offers a private
community recreation center with pool, private yards for each dwelling unit, and several
open space components that will serve as both passive recreational space and a retention
basin. The project is not expected to substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project will participate in
the City's parkland in -lieu fee program to offset impacts associated with parks generated by
the 213 new residents of the project. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
-34-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. 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
X
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
X
management agency for designated roads
or highways.
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
X
traffic levels or a change in location that .
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
X
racks)?
Source: 2035 General Plan, " Watermark Villas Focused Traffic Memo' prepared by Endo Engineering, June 11, 2014.
Project materials. Engineering Bulletin No. 06-13.
XVI.
a, b) Less than Significant. A Traffic Impact Memo was, prepared by Endo Engineering in June
2014 to provide updated analysis for the proposed project. The previous approved Traffic
Report (Paul Singer, P.E. 2003) was based on the originally proposed 248 condominiums and
traffic conditions present at the time of analysis. The current traffic memo (2014) compares
and analyzes impacts associated with the proposed 82 unit single-family development to the
approved 248 condominiums to determine whether or not a new Traffic Report is required.
According to the Traffic Memo and pursuant to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-13 (EB #06-13),
a focused traffic impact memo may be prepared to compare the trip generation analysis in an
-35-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
environmental document prepared for an already approved entitlement to the trip generation
analysis for a proposed or amended entitlement. If there is an insignificant difference (equal to
or less than 50 daily trips or 5 peak hour trips) between the existing entitlement and the
proposed/amended entitlement trip generation, no additional traffic analysis will be required.
Table 5 below shows the reduction in the weekday trip generation associated with the
proposed change in the residential development within the project from the approved 248
condominiums to 82 single-family detached residential units.
Table 5
Watermark Villas
Reduction in Weekday Site Trip -Generation Forecasts
Development Scenario
Land Use
Quantity
Morning Peak Hour
Evening Peak Hour
Daily
2-Way
In Out Total
In Out Total
Approved Watermark Villas
248 DU
18
89
107
85
42
127
1,420
Proposed Watermark Villas
82 DU
17
50
67
55
33
88
870
Reduction in Trip Generation
1
39
40
30
9
39
550
% Reduction
6%
44%
37%
35%
21%
31%
39%
As shown in Table 5, the change in land use type and density associated with the proposed
project compared to the previously, approved project would result -in a decrease in daily trips
as well as peak hour trips. Therefore, the"traffic impacts associated with the proposed project
should be less than previously identified.
The proposed project would generate 37 percent fewer trips during the morning peak hour, 31
percent fewer trips during the evening peak hour, and 39 percent fewer trips during a typical
weekday. The main site access would provide adequate capacity to accommodate the site
traffic generated by the proposed project, and do so at acceptable levels of service. Therefore,
impacts related to roadway capacity and level of service are considered less than significant.
c) No Impact. The nearest airport, Bermuda Dunes Airport, is located approximately 5 miles
north of the proposed site. The project is not located within proximity to an airport and will
not impact air traffic patterns.
d) Less than Significant. The proposed project is required to meet Development Code standards
for roadway, parking and intersection designs, and is not expected to significantly impact
traffic safety. Impacts will be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant. Access to the planning area is via major arterial, secondary arterials,
Interstate-10 and a variety of local roads. East -west roadways include Highway I I I and 47th
Avenue, while Washington Street serves as both the north -south roadway and project access.
Design guidelines further ensure that emergency access will be created and preserved for the
proposed project. The applicant may be required, at the discretion of the City, to provide an
emergency only access. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access.
f) No. Impact. The proposed project will provide the required amount of parking consistent with
design guidelines for single-family residential. No impact is expected.
-36-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
g) Less than Significant. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities.
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
-37-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
X
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
X
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
X
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
X
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
X
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
X
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Source: Project Materials.
XVII. a) No Impact. Wastewater discharge requirements for the Coachella Valley, including the
subject property, are administered by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality
Control Board. All development within the proposed project will be connected to existing
sewer lines in either Jefferson Street or Avenue 52. Project wastewater will be transported to
and processed at CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) in Thermal.
CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they
relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. The proposed project
will increase wastewater flows to the treatment plant, but it will not adversely impact water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b-e) Less than Significant, No Impact. The subject property falls under the jurisdiction of the
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic water supplies and wastewater
treatment. The project will be able to connect to existing water and sanitary sewer lines in
either Jefferson Street or Avenue 52, and no new regional infrastructure will be required.
-38-
Watermark Villas IS/MNI)
November 2014
Wastewater produced by the proposed project will be processed at the Mid -Valley Water
Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) located in Thermal, which has a capacity of approximately 9.5
million gallons per day (mgd).
CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, which is a long-term
planning document that helps it plan for current and future water demands. The Plan
demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve City and
project area. The project will also be required to implement water conservation programs,
including a drought tolerant landscaping plan and the CalGreen Building Code, which
requires that high efficiency fixtures be used. The project will not be required to provide a
Water Supply Assessment (WSA) because it does not meet the "Project" criteria set forth in
State Water Code Section 10912. The project is also consistent with current land use
designations set forth in the General Plan and therefore has been considered in future water
demand projections.
CVWD is also responsible for regional stormwater management in the Coachella Valley.
According to CVWD, the general project area is adequately protected from stormwater flows
by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River), and drainage issues
affecting the subject property are limited to the management of local drainage. To manage
onsite stormwater flows, the project proponent will be required to develop a stormwater
management plan and drainage plan prior to approval of the project. It is not anticipated that
new or expanded off -site stormwater management facilities will be required to serve the
project.
The project will be required to provide electric, telephone and cable service through the
applicable providers. Service is available adjacent to the site. The applicant will be required to
construct connections to these services to the standards established by each service provider.
fg) No Impact. The project site will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash
generated by the project will be hauled to the transfer station located in Cathedral City, west
of the City, and from there transported to one of four regional landfills. All four landfills have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is required to meet all local,
regional, State and federal standards for solid waste disposal.
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
-39-
Watermark Villas ISAIND
November 2014
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVIII. 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
X
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?
X
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
X
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
X
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Less than Significant. The proposed project is located northwest corner of Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street and is surrounded by developed or previously disturbed lands. There will be
no substantial reduction in wildlife habitat nor will it restrict the movement or range of any
plant or animal. Compliance with the MBTA will ensure impacts to sensitive species are
reduced to less than significant levels.
The project will not impact any important examples of California history or prehistory. In the
event cultural artifacts are uncovered during site disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist
will be called in to evaluate and, if necessary recover and document such resources to reduce
related impacts to less than significant levels.
b,c) Less than Significant. Buildout of proposed project is consistent with both the General Plan
and Watermark Specific Plan Amendment No. 1. The project will not have any additional
cumulatively considerable impacts beyond buildout of the General Plan.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project's potential environmental effects have
been mitigated to a less than significant level by the measures outlined in the Initial Study and
development requirements of the City of La Quinta. Further, as mitigated the project will not
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. This Agency intends to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration based upon the supporting documentation herein.
-40-
Watermark Villas IS/MND
November 2014
References
City of La Quinta 2035 General Plan
City of La Quinta Municipal Code.
CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2
"Watermark Villas Focused Traffic Memo" prepared by Endo Engineering, June 11, 2014
"Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-
2014, with 2010 Benchmark," CA Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, May 1, 2014.
Watermark Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, prepared by MSA Consulting, October 16, 2014.
2003 Coachella Valley MSHCP
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel #2233G
`Hydrology Study for Watermark Villas," prepared by Adams -Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. June
2014.
CA Department of Toxic Substances
"Geotechnical Assessment, Watermark Project," prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc October 30,
2013
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley
SCAQMD 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
Earthwork Volume Analysis: Watermark La Quinta, prepared by Earthwork Calculation Services,
October 8, 2014.
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping
California Scenic Highway Mapping System
-41-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
County Clerk
County of Riverside
Attention: Tammy'Marshall
2724 Gateway Drive
Riverside, CA 92507
From:
City of La Quinta
Atth: Les Johnson
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject:
The City of La Quinta intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2014-
638 in compliance with Section 21092 et.seq. of the Public Resources Code, with respect to the project
more fully described herein.
Project Title:_ Environmental Assessment 2014-638; General Plan Amendment 2014-127, Zone
Change 2014-145, Specific Plan 2003-069, Amendment #1, Site Development Permit
2014-942, Tentative Tract Map 36762
Beazer Homes Watermark Villas
State Clearinghouse Number Lead A enc /Contact Person Telephone
N/A City of La Quinta/Les Johnson 760-777-7125
Project Location (include County):
Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52, within the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside.
Project Description:
The proposed project will result in the development of 82 single-family detached residential dwelling units to
be located on t 20.84 acres in the City of La Quinta, California. The project was previously approved for 248
condominiums in 2004 and was partially built. Existing improvements, including residential structures and
parking podiums will be demolished as part of the project.
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will change the land use and zoning designations from the
existing Medium/High Residential to Low Density Residential. The Watermark Specific Plan Amendment No. 1
will be amended to eliminate discussion of the previously approved condominium project and to allow for the
82 single-family detached homes with three floor plans. A Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide the
lots and create lots for streets, parkways and other ancillary facilities.
.Comment Period
The comment period for this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is November 21, 2014 to December
10, 2014. Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be submitted in writing to the address
shown above, or via email to Ijohnson@la-quinta.org.
Planning Commission Hearin ;
The La Quinta Planning Commission will consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public meeting
tentativel.yltheduled for December 9, 2014, to be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at
78-495 a.l e° Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
son, Community Development Director
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF LA QUINTA
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEOA COMPLIANCE
DATE:
December 3, 2014
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
776-220-012-1, 776-220-013-2, and
776-220-014-3
CASE NO.:
General Plan Amendment 2014-127, Zone
PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue
Change 2014-145, Specific Plan 2003-069,
52
Amendment #1, Site Development Permit
2014-942, Tentative Tract Map 36762
EA/EIR NO:
2014-638
APPROVAL DATE: In Process
APPLICANT:
Beazer Homes Holding Corp.
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER
AA
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
III. AIR QUALITY
Include in grading and dust control plans:
Public Works Department
Prior to grading
Approved grading
and dust control
(.Construction equipment, delivery trucks, worker
plans.
vehicles, and haul trucks will limit idling time to no
more than 5 minutes.
2.The grading contractor shall certify in writing that
all construction equipment is properly serviced and
maintained in good operating conditions. Certification
shall be provided to City Engineer for review and
approval.
3.Diesel-powered construction equipment shall utilize
aqueous diesel fuels, and be equipped with diesel
oxidation catalysts.
4.Chemically treat soil where activity will cease for at
least four consecutive days.
5.All construction grading operations and earth
moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 25
miles per hour.
6.Water site and equipment morning and evening and
during all earth -moving operations.
7.Operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to
site.
8.Establish and strictly enforce limits of grading for
each phase of development.
9.Stabilize and re -vegetate areas of temporary
disturbance needed to accomplish each phase of
development.
10.Wash off trucks as they leave the project site as
necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
I (.Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials
prior to transport, provide adequate freeboard (space
from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to
reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter
during transportation.
12.Use track -out reduction measures such as gravel
pads at project access points to minimize dust and
mud deposits on roads affected by construction
traffic.
13.Construction equipment and materials shall be
sited as far away from residential and park uses as
practicable.
14. Existing power sources should be utilized where
feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site
power generation.
15. Imported fill and paving materials, as well as any
exported material, shall be adequately watered prior
to transport, covered during transport, and watered
prior to unloading.
16. Each portion of the project to be graded shall be
pre -watered prior to the onset of excavation, grading
or other dust -generating activities.
17. On -going watering soil stabilization of disturbed
soils, especially in the staging area, 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 workday.
18. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, ensuring
the clean-up of construction -related dirt on approach
routes to and from the site.
19. All grading activities shall be suspended during
first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Any vegetation or tree removal, or other
Community Development
Prior to any vegetation removal
Biological survey.
ground disturbing activities occurring
Department
between 1/1 and 8/31.
between January 1 st and August 31 st with
the potential to impact nesting birds shall
require a qualified biologist to conduct a
nesting bird survey to determine if there is a
potential impact to such species.
SUMMARY MITIGATION
MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING
TIMING
CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY
DATE
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be
Community Development
During earth moving
City standards for
present on site during any earth moving
Department
archaeological
activities. Should the monitor identify a
resource analysis
resource, he/she shall be empowered to
stop or redirect earth moving activities
until such time as the resource can be
properly identified and processed. The
archaeological monitor shall be required to
prepare a report at the end of earth moving
activities and file such report with the
Community Development Department
within 30 days of completion of
monitoring activities for any building on
the project site.