CC Resolution 2002-019RESOLUTION NO. 2002-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431
PREPARED FOR A PORTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2001-080, ZONE CHANGE 2001-103
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-431
APPLICANT: T D DESERT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 5th day of February 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-431 for General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone
Change 2001-103 for pre -annexation designation of lands bounded by Avenue 58,
Madison Street, Avenue 60 and extending approximately one half mile east of Monroe
Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 22nd day of January 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-431 for General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone
Change 2001-103 for pre -annexation designation of lands bounded by Avenue 58,
Madison Street, Avenue 60 and extending approximately one half mile east of Monroe
Street, more particularly described as follows:
APNs 761-210-002 through -007, 761-2001, -003, -005 -006
and -007, 761-180-001 through -006, 761-190-002 through -007,
761-330-003, -004, -005 and -013
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 2001-431)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080,
Zone Change 2001-103 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. 2002-19
Environmental Assessment 2001-431
TD Desert Development
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 2
1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103 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 2001-431.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed project 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 project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
431 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. 2002-19
Environmental Assessment 2001-431
TD Desert Development
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 3
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certifying Environmental Assessment 2001-431 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 2001-431 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 5th day of February 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins, Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, Vayor PrAnm
City of La Quinta, Californial
Resolution No. 2002-19
Environmental Assessment 2001-431
TD Desert Development
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
- .Sd ,� jew 41 )
JUN . GREEK, CMC, C' Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/
My KATHERNE JENS , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, Cififornia
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-431
I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of
itself. Buildout of the ,420 acres, however, will generate light, since the buildout
of the area could generate up to 1,680 dwelling units. The land use designation
to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which
generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's
standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed
downward and contained within the site. These, standards will mitigate the
potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
II. c). The loss of land in this location will likely be made up on lands being farmed in
the future to the east of this area. The loss of 360 acres of agricultural land in
an area where over 331,000 acres are in cultivation, is not expected to be
significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The buildout of the annexation area has the potential to
generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order
to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on
development to control dust. Applicants for future projects will be required to
submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In
addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the
measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of any site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on any
site within the annexation area. Portions of a 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.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD
7. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until any site within
the annexation area is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain
undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass
seed, or chemical stabilizer.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts of PM 10 on
the annexation area will not be significant.
III. d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Annexation will
not increase air emissions, but the buildout of the project will. The proposed
land use designation for the subject properties is Low Density Residential, 0.
Based on this daily trip generation, the potential impacts associated with vehicle
traffic generated from the properties can be calculated.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 489 19 100 -- 2 2
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 13,517 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos
at 75yF. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in
determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The
impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be
significant.
IV. a) Annexation of the parcels will not have a significant impact on biological
resources. A number of the parcels are or have been in agriculture, and
therefore disturbed. Prior to development on the parcels, City staff will review
the area's potential as habitat for sensitive species, as part of individual project
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 2
approvals. Should the parcels be identified as being likely habitat for a sensitive
or listed species, the City's General Plan requires that biological resource
analysis be performed. The resulting reports, if any, will include mitigation
measures for any identified species.
V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural
resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. Prior to
development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential for
cultural resources, as part of individual project approvals. Should on -site surveys
be necessary, the City's General Plan requires that cultural resource analysis be
performed. The resulting reports, I any, will include mitigation measures for any
identified resource.
VI. a) i), ii), iii)
In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking and
liquefaction, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the
associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will
require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with
the submittal of grading plans for specific projects. This requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground failure or liquefaction are reduced to a less than
significant level.
VI. c) The soils for this area will be examined through an on -site soil analysis required
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects.
These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Vill. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
At the time the properties are developed, individual projects will be required to
retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into
the ground. Developers or land owners will also be required to implement the
City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, all future
projects will be required to meet the requirements of the City's
water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects
demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These existing City
standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
IX. b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The
land use designation for the subject property under the County General Plan is
Agriculture. The City proposes a Low Density Residential designation for the
properties. The lands to the north and west are approved for the Coral Mountain
Specific Plan, which includes low and medium density residential development,
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 3
commercial and golf course facilities. Lands to the north are already developing
for golf course and low density residential land uses. The annexation and
ultimate development of the properties represents a logical extension of the
City's urban boundary. The impacts to land use are not expected to be
significant.
XI. a) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited
development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the
annexation area will result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise
generated by automobiles. The proposed land use designation will result in
residential land uses on the properties, which are considered sensitive receptors.
The City requires the preparation of noise analysis when projects are proposed
adjacent to major roadways. At the time that individual projects are proposed,
the City will review the potential noise impacts associated with the properties,
and require analysis if it is necessary. The reports resulting from this analysis
will include mitigation measures if required.
XIII. a►
Both annexation and construction and ultimate buildout of the annexation area
will result in potential impacts for police and fire services, and schools. The
property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will
contribute to the City's General Fund, and offset the potential impact to police
and fire service.
XV. b)
The individual projects to be developed in the future will be required to pay the
mandated school fees in effect at the time development occurs.
The ultimate development of the annexation area is not expected to have a
significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
An additional 60 acres is being studied under this Environmental Assessment
(EA). It is estimated that the total area being studied under this EA could
generate up to 13,517 daily trips. The traffic analysis has found that although
a number of traffic improvements will be required as buildout of the annexation
area occurs, the level of service standards adopted by the City will be
maintained. In order to assure that circulation generated by buildout of the
annexation area is adequately mitigated, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
1. All development proposals within the annexation area shall either
conform to the roadway improvements recommended in "Coral Mountain
at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation
Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001;
or
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 4
2. Shall prepare an independent traffic analysis which incorporates
cumulative development into the analysis, for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
XVI. b)- f)
Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout
of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the
overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be
significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services,
and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection
fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project.
These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtAdd431.WPD 5
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2001-431
1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone Change 2001-103, Pre -
Annexation land use designation and zoning
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 side of Avenue 58 a distance of 1 /4 mile a distance of 1 /2
mile, west side of Monroe Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, westerly a
distance of 1 /2 mile, and the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Proposed: 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to assign land use and zoning designations
for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The proposed designation is
Low Density Residential. The land is currently designated Agriculture in the County
General Plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Golf course, vacant desert lands designated for Low Density Residential
development
South: Vacant desert lands
West: Approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan
East: Vacant desert lands, agriculture, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CoraIMtCklst.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
0
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.
O
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,
nothing further is required.
;TL --5
Signature i Date
Christine di lorio City of La Quinta
Printed Name For
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the
end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference
to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit 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)
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)
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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
P
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
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, Exhibit 5-1)
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 not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (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 5-5)
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? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F3
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 5
Im
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
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)
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)
MMME
mmmmi
MMME
MMME
M�M=
==ME
MEMO
X
KI
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ Coral MtCklst.WPD
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
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-
30 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 4-30 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 4-30 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 or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
MEMO
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan
Project Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assess. 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, page 4-157 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan EIR, page 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, page 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? (Master Environmental Assessment)
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)
R
�J1
X
X
P.
X
9
X
X
E1
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 8
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, 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, page 4-126
ff. And "Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment
1 Option Property Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by
Endo Engineering, November 2001)
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, page 4-126 ff. And "Coral Mountain at La
Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property Annexation
Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November
2001)
X
X
M�M=
M�M=
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD
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? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
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, page 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)
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?
1:1
X
X
X
X
*1
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 10
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
P
X
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
None
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Coral Mountain at La Quinta Specific Plan 218 Amendment 1 Option Property
Annexation Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Cora1MtCk1st.WPD 11
N
cz
00 C
0
.. `r'
Z
�
O
Q
Q
ri
00
r �o
0-0
o r-
a�
>
2
cq
-"
C - c
cd
00 0
O
Ud'
°_' `�' ' r
Q
o0O
c.., -v
O'er `�
Z
z
a
a
A
~
NEW
�
O
oN
v,
Fz
WQ
�vo
N
V
N
C13
p
N
M
a W
ti
00
C7 0
oN
h
O
..
V
zZ
..
...
..
c
z
z
<°H
v
oa
W
A
V
Q
x W
E-� A
F
0
Um
Z
Q�
aV
O=
UU
c
U
C)
cC
Ems-
v
-v
cz
^ cc c
a
i
d
c,*
. U
U
U
rA
�
m
an
b°
•U
•U
•U
Z
U
V
�
V
t�
sue.
_
i
_CA cz
CA
F'
o
U
•�'
o
U
Ln
•`�
°' a o
t Q U
0
U
0
0
.o
o
•o cz
a
v
LT.
C°O
E
> E
E
Z
L
Lcz
t:
t:
r-
cz
r_
C
U
U
U
CO
U OC
m
-v
cC
=
O
•cz
Q
E
C E
(�
CL
vi
O N
o
a
N
� o
=
O
L
aW
�_
x
o
cc
' �
_ -v .
cz
=
N
c
3
'C
> CL
co
E-�
C
W }�
m
Z
aU
O=
UU
rA
c�
Q
c
cz
A
rA
U
> o
C. c
a L
�
E •c V
Z
U U
'O 'O
L
L
a a,
O
mp
z "
O p
cu a�
CU a�
c
'on 'an
w
LLIr.
U U
L
o
H
a >
v� -o
Cy
Qz
•,,,,.,��
W
d
cz cz
cc E U w U
d
U
c cz
fs,
° c E
° o Q o
a
�°O•c�C� L C
a� o 0
o C; N k L U.C.O."`'
a a
c c
C."U c o
x
U LL Q C. N C,