CC Resolution 2001-034RESOLUTION NO. 2001-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-074
AND ZONE CHANGE 2001-098 ESTABLISHING PRE -
ANNEXATION DESIGNATIONS FOR 280 ACRES.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408
APPLICANT: VILLAGE AT THE PALMS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 3rd day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for The Village at the
Palms to review Environmental Assessment 2001-408 for General Plan Amendment
2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 acres located at the southwest corner of
Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 27th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
unanimously approved Environmental Assessment 2001-408 for General Plan
Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098, located at the southwest corner
of Airport Boulevard and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows:
TRACT 28983, THE PALMS GOLF COURSE PARCELS
AND APN 761-720-017, 018, 019, AND 020
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-408)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074
and Zone Change 2001-098 could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the
conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2001-34
Environmental Assessment 2001-408 - Village at the Palms
Adopted: April 3, 2001
Page 2
1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-408.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098
will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098
do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098
will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively
considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098
will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human
population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been
identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-408 and
the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
Resolution No. 2001-34
Environmental Assessment 2001-408 - Village at the Palms
Adopted: April 3, 2001
Page 3
10, The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-408 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-408 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 3rd day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, Mayor P o em
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2001-34
Environmental Assessment 2001-408 - Village at the Palms
Adopted: April 3, 2001
Page 4
ATTEST:
J N . GREEK, CMC, Ci Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Sea[)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
?M.ATHERI JENSON, Cite Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-408
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-074, Change of Zone
2001-098 and annexation of 280 acres to the City of La
Quinta.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: South of Airport Boulevard, North of Avenue 58, West of
Monroe, and East of the City limits
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Village at the Palms
81-910 Arus
Indio, CA 92201
6. General Plan Designation:
County: Agriculture, 2-B (2-5 d.u./acre), LDR (0-4
d.u./acre)
City Proposed: Golf Course, Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: County: A-1-20, R-1-9000
City Proposed: Golf Course, Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Pre -annexation General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for 280 acres
located immediately east of the existing City limits, and ultimate annexation
of the area to the City. The property is developed as golf course, a residential
subdivision, and lands in agriculture.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Golf Course, Low Density Residential and Agriculture
South: Agriculture, scattered residential
East: Agriculture, scattered residential
West: Agriculture, golf course
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD 07
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially❑
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
rrtntea !Name
G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCk1st.WPD
2
Date
u
CITY OF LA O IINTA
For
08
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
09
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
[II. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
4
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
It t
i
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials) X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but nol
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM
Tech, 10/18/2000)
G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCk1st.WPD
KI
X
X
X
X
a
►0
I:I
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech,
10/19/2000)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey
Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
6
X
V4
M
X
X
kt
X
X
X
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-1 1)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-59 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede of
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
0
01
X
X
X
X
F1
X
M
0
0.4
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) X
13
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
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 costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
91
14
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
G:\WPD0CS\EAAnnexCk1st.WPD
X
X
X
X
X
013
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
24)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tern, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
1/
X
X
X
ro
X
KI
KI
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD 1 6
10 1
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential impacts of the
proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No.
37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 18, 2000.
"Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 19, 2000.
17
G:\WPDOCS\EAAnnexCklst.WPD
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-408
Introduction
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change for a proposed annexation of 280 acres into the City of La Quinta.
Approximately 200 of the 280 acres proposed for annexation are under development
(low density residential) or fully developed (golf course). The balance, approximately
80 acres, has been in agriculture, and does not have imminent development proposed.
The annexation action, in and of itself, will not have an impact on the environment.
However, the continued development of the area, particularly the 80 acres which have
yet to develop, will have an impact on the environment. These impacts, however, can
be reduced to a level of insignificance through the imposition of mitigation measures.
The purpose of this environmental assessment, therefore, is to review and quantified
all known potential impacts to the environment. Where appropriate, mitigation
measures associated with the physical development of the undeveloped property have
been proposed.
II. c) The proposed annexation area is not listed as significant farmland, nor is it
currently subject to Williamson Act contracts. The land has a County General
Plan designation of Low Density Residential, and is zoned Agriculture, 1-20
acres under the County Zoning Ordinance. The annexation action will not
change the current use of the land for agriculture. Its ultimate development in
low density residential, however, will result in the loss of 80 acres of
agricultural land. The currently undeveloped 80 acres is bordered on two sides
by roadways, and adjacent to existing golf course and residential development
on the other two sides. It does not represent agricultural land of high value, and
its ultimate loss is not expected to be significant.
III. a), c) & d)
Annexation of the proposed lands will not, in and of itself, have an impact on
the air quality of the area. The air quality impacts for development of the 200
acres already developed have been previously assessed, and found to be less
than significant'. The 80 acres in the southeasterly quarter of the annexation
area have the potential to generate up to 320 single family residential units.
These units could generate up to 3,062 average daily tripS2. These trips could
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-
39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses
cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
"Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume 1" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Single Family detached housing (210) used.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD 18
generate the following emissions. The Table below also includes the SCAQMD
thresholds of significance for each potential pollutant. Based on these
calculations, the Table clearly demonstrates that development of the proposed
80 acres will not have a significant impact on air quality.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 158.17 6.08 32.45 -- 0.68 0.68
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 3,062 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided
by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational
thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM 10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust.
SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated
into the following mitigation measures for future development:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM10 Management Plan. At the time of development of
any portion of the annexation area, the project proponent(s) shall submit
same to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three
feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
'S.
ME
7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall
be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading
activity on the site. Portions of any portion of the site that are actively
being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed
on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
1 1 . All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code.
13. Any project on the annexation area lands shall provide for non -motorized
transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to
encourage the use of alternate transportation measures.
14. Any project proposed on the annexation lands which generates more than
3,062 trips per day shall be required to prepared revised air quality
calculations which provide an accurate analysis of the potential impacts
caused by the project.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed annexation will not be significant. Moreover, improvements
in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor
vehicles or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the
project site are not included in the analysis.
IV. a) The potential impacts to biological resources have been previously analysed for
200 of the 280 acres proposed for annexation3. Impacts on this acreage were
found to be less than significant. Biological resource analysis has not been
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track
#98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses
cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project.
20
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
performed for the 80 acres at the southeasterly portion of the annexation area.
However, the land has been in agriculture, and as such does not represent a
likely area of valuable habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of
concern for known sensitive species. The land is outside the boundary of the
Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts from
either annexation or development of the 80 acres are not expected to be
significant.
V. a) & b)
Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property4. The survey
found that no resources occur on the site. The report further finds that it is
possible that buried artifacts could be encountered during the construction
process on any portion of the area. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Should any earth moving activity uncover a potential archaeological
resource, all activity shall stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist
has evaluated the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. The
archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on
all activities on the site.
V. c) A paleontological resource study was performed for the 80 acres at the
southeasterly portion of the annexation area, and the balance of the site has
been previously assessed for paleontologic resources5. The annexation area has
exhibited signs of mollusks, being within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake
Cahuilla, but no vertebrate remains have been located. The mollusks found are
abundant in this area, and do not represent a significant resource. As such, the
on -site investigation and report found that the impacts on paleontologic
resources are less than significant, and that no further analysis of the site is
necessary.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed annexation area lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The
property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground
movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures already constructed
4 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000 for the 80
acres at the southeasterly portion of the annexation area. Environmental Assessments prepared for
the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317;
Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres
proposed for this project.
s Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP 15672, Fast
Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These
analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. 1
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
within the annexation area have been required to conform to Uniform Building
Code standards for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans for any development proposed in the future on the site. This
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less
than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
The annexation area is located in an area with the potential for liquefaction. The
development of the residential and golf course portion of the annexation area
was analysed and mitigation measures proposed at the time of development of
those sites6. Site specific geotechnical analysis of these lands determined that
the liquefaction hazard potential was not significant, due to the highly
consolidated nature of soils on these sites. It is therefore likely that the 80 acres
in the southeasterly portion of the annexation area has similar soil condition.
The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Annexation effort will not,
in and of themselves, have any impact on the liquefaction hazard within the
annexation area. However, in order to ensure that proper mitigation measures
are implemented at the time of project development, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
Any new construction proposed within the annexation area shall be
required to submit a site- and use -specific geotechnical analysis prior to
the issuance of grading permits. Such analysis shall include
recommendations for over -excavation, and other methods known to
reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on a structure.
VIII. b)
The annexation will not, in and of itself, have an impact on groundwater
supplies. All development within the annexation area will, however, have an
impact on the demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided by the
Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of
wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The annexation area is also served by
Canal water for agricultural irrigation. The overall water usage rate on the site,
once developed for residential development, may represent a positive impact,
insofar as water usage may be reduced when agricultural irrigation no longer
occurs on the site.
Future projects will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will
encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. Future development will
be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing
fixtures, and to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39;
TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1.
12
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that
landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
The annexation will not, in and of itself, have an impact on drainage patterns
in the area. Development in the future, through the construction of buildings and
parking lots, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage
patterns in a rain event. The project site is located in a C Flood Zone. The
project will, be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100
year storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the future
project during a storm. The drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer at the time development is proposed, prior to the issuance of
grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system
are reduced to a less than significant level.
XI. a) The annexation area does not occur in an area currently impacted by noise. The
development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are not
expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will
continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include
landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area.
The impacts from noise are therefore not expected to be significant.
XIII. a)
The proposed annexation will have a direct impact on the provision of services.
The project area is currently served by County Sheriff and Fire Department. The
City contracts with the County for these services. The project area will
generate, at buildout a population of approximately 1,053 persons. This will
generate a need for one additional police officer, based on the national standard
of 1 officer per thousand. This cost will be added to the City's contract for such
services. A similar national standard for fire personnel can also be expected,
with a corresponding additional cost to the City's contract. The project area will
generate property tax from construction which currently exists, and from the
buildout of the project area. These revenues will be used by the City to offset
the costs of police and fire services.
The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development
occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to
schools.
The project area includes a golf course, which provides residents with
recreational amenities. The residents will also have access to existing and future
City parks and other municipal facilities. The collection of property tax, and the
generation of sales tax from these residents' disposable income, will generate
revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of
`' 3
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
municipal services. Builders within the project area will be required to participate
in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements.
Annexation is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services
or facilities.
XV. a)
200 of the proposed 280 acres proposed for annexation have been previously
reviewed for traffic impacts, which were sound to be less than significant'. The
proposed land use designations are consistent with those currently in place
under the County's jurisdiction, and would therefore have been analysed as part
of the County General Plan EIR. Since development in the future may vary from
the anticipated 320 residential units discussed, above, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented should new development be proposed on any
portion of the annexation area.
New development projects on any portion of the annexation area which
propose a more intense land use than the Low Density Residential
designation currently proposed shall be required to submit a site -specific
traffic analysis, which includes mitigation measures to maintain levels of
service at standards in place at the time of development.
2. The annexation area will be added to the City's Impact Fee program.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential
impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
XVI. a)-f)
Annexation of the project area will not have a direct impact on utilities and
public services. The eventual buildout of the site, however, will require service
from the utility providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected
to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents or
businesses for their services, and provide improvements to these services as
needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at construction of any
project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39;
TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1.
10.4
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddAnnex.WPD
00
o
0
N O
�rl
ci
= N
E o
c
ct
A~ U
ct
c �
U �
C7 0
zz
w
UO
U
00
0
0
O
N
W
w
W
F
d
A
U
z °
d w
U
a
w
O �
U U
U
a
D
Y
o
ch
w
�o
ti
-o
U
�
•�
c
U
C.
E
°
i
ca
a
�
ti
c
=
s
U
G]
=
R
4°
c o
U
as
Z:)UE-
to
o4
�
"O
w
�
O
O
V
O
•�
•�
•�
C
cl
U
U
U
a as
a
a
aa.
a ao. oq
HY
Y
w z
=
E
W
=
o
w p
�F
o a
UQ
rz
E
u
m
Q
lu
U Gl U
z
F
•�
7
cr
F
ca
�
V
WN
CZ
=
Y
N
Y
"
W
v
a
m
0.1
ci
U
a`
.r
z
§
�
/
�
\
.\
/
k
■
2�
tf
w&
\a
)§
—�
ƒ�
z
>2
,
}�
\\
a
E e
\\
§
§
&
�
�
/
j§
k
2s
Q
a e
�
a
/ y 2
§
0
/
/
7
#
�
§2
z
\\
\k
*
Q
�
�
EI:g
»
; )
*,
�
\\
§
0
a
» 2
-
�
3
/
\�
\ /02
/
t )
2
w �
E
/E!
±ƒ2\
k)
2=
t�
3§
t0me 2=
Eƒ
{2£
c
t CL
o
» \ [
§
k
\
k
22
�
kE
�
(
2
—
ca
�
�
2
\
.
E
2
> O
2
z
\
\
�
�
�m
)§
k�
Qu
a
/
)
\
7
/
z
\
�
r
§
/a
(
�§
k
E/
)§
2
{
)e
\
=z
§�
k
m
j
.
2
\
2
a
\k
a
\
-
�
\
k
\
(
c
(m
/§
\)
uu
\
<
(
/\/
)
\z \\
2\/
-
/
E
o
�
z
\
k
w
.g
�
\
a
�
]§
9
}�
�2
6�
a
\
E
j/
z
ƒ
o
�
®
}\
u
\\
»
2
z &