CC Resolution 2002-091RESOLUTION NO. 2002-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418
PREPARED FOR ZONE CHANGE 2001-100, AND
ANNEXATION, ESTABLISHING PRE -ANNEXATION
DESIGNATIONS FOR 200 ACRES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418
APPLICANT: NRI/LQLP LAND LLC
COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 3rd day of July, 2001, continued to the 17th day of July, 2001, 7th day of
August, 2001, 18th day of September, 2001, 20th day of November, 2001, 18th day
of December, 2001, 19th day of February, 2002, 21 st day of May, 2002 and
renoticed for the 18th day of June 2002, to hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for Zone Change 2001-100, and
annexation, for the property generally located at the southwest corner of Monroe
Street and Avenue 52, more particularly described as follows:
APN 767-200-002, 003, 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, AND 010
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did, on the 26th day of June, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Zone
Change 2001-100, and annexation, for the property generally located at the southwest
corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52
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 2001-418)
and has determined that although the proposed Zone Change 2001-100 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. 2002-91
Environmental Assessment 2001-418
NRI, La Quints LLC - Country Club of the Desert
Adopted: June18, 2002
Page 2
1. The proposed Zone Change 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
2001-418.
2. The proposed Zone Change 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 Zone Change 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 Zone Change 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 Zone Change 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 Environmental Assessment 2001-418 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. 2002-91
Environmental Assessment 2001-418
NRI, La Quinta LLC - Country Club of the Desert
Adopted: June18, 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 certify Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum attached hereto and on file in the
Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-418 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 18th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
— Ik 4 04,0-�,
JOH J. PEN �ayor
City La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2002-91
Environmental Assessment 2001-418
NRL La Quinta LLC - Country Club of the Desert
Adopted: June18, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU REEK, CMC, City C erk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHE INE JENSO , City ttorney
City of La Quinta, California
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM, EA 2001-418
SECOND REVISION
MAY, 2002
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Zone Change 2001-100,
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: Southwest corner of Avenue 52 and Monroe
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: NRI/LQLP LAND LLC
81-100 Avenue 53
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential with Agricultural
Overlay
7. Zoning: Proposed: Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential
District
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.)
Revised environmental assessment for a Zone Change to assign zoning
designations to a total of 200 acres as part of an annexation application to the
City of La Quinta. The original environmental assessment assessed a project
area which included a total of 240 acres. The parcel located at the northwest
corner of Avenue 53 and Monroe was removed from the proposed annexation
boundary, at the owners' request and the direction of the Planning Commission.
The proposed designation is Low Density Residential. The County General Plan
designation is 3A, 0.4-2 units per acre and 313, Residential, 0.2 to 0.4 units per
acre. Previously, this annexation application included a General Plan
Amendment. Since that time, the City has adopted a new General Plan and
associated land use map, which includes the subject property. The General Plan
Amendment has become moot.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACklst.WPD
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Developed polo grounds
South: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country
Club of the Desert
West: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country
Club of the Desert
East: Vacant desert lands and agriculture
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2). has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
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.
May 28 2002
Date
701
N7
C
0
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CCDesEACkIst.WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -
site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier 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
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\Resolutions\2002-91 eachklt.wpd
4
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)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*1
K9
Kq
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
FA
X
X
X
N
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACklst.WPD
VI.
M
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? (Riverside County Office of the Agricultural
Commissioner 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? (Riverside County Office of the Agricultural
Commissioner 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
==ME
MOEN
M
ME
Omni
'
EMEN
NEON
X
X
M
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACklst.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. 6-1 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-
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
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, 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)
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)
R
X
X
tr
P
rJ
K9
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X
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)
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.)
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.)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
10
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, pg. 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-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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
11
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
The EIR for Country Club of the Desert (SCH #99061 109) was used in the preparation of this checklist
and addendum.
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.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 99061 109, Country Club of the
Desert, August 2000.
Country Club of the Desert Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, October, 2001
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesEACkist.WPD
12
SECOND REVISION, ADDENDUM
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418
MAY 27, 2002
I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of
itself. Buildout of the parcel, however, will generate light, since the proposed
project will occur on a currently vacant parcel. 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. Compliance with these standards will reduce the
potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
II. a) &c)
Approximately 75 acres of the 200 acres in the annexation area have been in
agriculture for some time, primarily as sod farming. The Waters property,
consisting of 40 acres immediately south and east of the annexation area is
being farmed currently, and produces table grapes and dates.
Annexation of the 200 acres, and the imposition of land use designations, will
not in and of itself impact the agricultural use of the annexation area. In the long
term, however, the annexation area will likely be developed in low density
residential land uses.
Currently there are two parcels (769-200-002 & 003), totaling 40 acres, which
are under the Williamson Act contract. This acreage is included in the 75 acres
currently in agriculture within the annexation area. The applicant previously filed
a Notice of Non -renewal for these parcels.
The loss of 75 acres of land currently in sod farming within the annexation area
will not represent a significant loss of prime agricultural land in the Valley. The
sod farming and pasture lands which occur in the annexation area do not
represent a significant portion of those lands in that use in the Coachella Valley.
Data from the County of Riverside shows that land in agriculture in Riverside
County has substantially increased in production in the last twenty years.
Under the revised project, the 40 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of
Avenue 53 and Monroe, which had been included in the original assessment,
but has been removed at the request of the property owner and Planning
Commission, can continue as an agricultural land use without interruption under
the County's jurisdiction.
Furthermore, with annexation of the 200 acres, the City's General Plan land use
designation will include its Agricultural Overlay. This overlay would allow the
start of new farming operations, or the maintenance of existing operations on
all 200 acres, in addition to allowing residential land uses.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD
Acreage in production of table grapes in Riverside County increased 146% from
1979 to 1999, from 9,496 acres in 1979 to 13,829 acres in 1999 (please see
attached statistics). Should the Waters property, southeast of the annexation
area property, be converted to residential land use by the land owner, the loss
of land for agriculture would not be significant, given the increase in production
which has occurred in the last 20 years.
The County land use designation does not designate the annexation lands for
Agriculture. The current County General Plan designations for 40 acres of the
annexation area is 313, Residential 0.2 to 0.4 units per acre. The other 160
acres are designated 3A, Residential 0.4 to 2 units per acre. That portion of the
annexation area designated 3A could generate 320 dwelling units, and the 3B
designated land could generate 16 dwelling units, for a total of 336 residential
units. The 40 acre parcel to the southeast of the proposed annexation area, and
previously included, is also designated 3B, Residential 0.2 to 0.4, and could
generate 16 dwelling units.
There is no specific project proposed with the annexation and associated Zoning
Map amendment. The maximum number of units which could be generated
under the City designation on the 200 acre annexation land is 800 units. It is
likely, however, that either a standard tract or a country club development will
occur. This type of development in La Quinta has typically resulted in densities
of between 2 and 3 units per acre. Such a development would be similar to the
densities which are currently allowed under the Riverside County General Plan.
The property owner of the 40 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenue
53 and Monroe Street (the Waters property) provided comments on the original
Environmental Assessment. These comments included concern that the
development of the acreage to the north and west of their property would result
in conflicts between their existing agricultural land use and the future residential
land uses. The property owner requested both a buffer and a notification
process be implemented by the City.
The development of residential land uses on the annexation area will result in
the construction of a 6 foot wall along western and northern the property lines
of the 40 acre parcel. The current County General Plan includes discussion of
buffers between agricultural and residential land uses, without specifying the
size of such buffers.
The City has adopted a "right to farm" ordinance since the last public hearing
on this matter. This ordinance is equivalent to that currently in place under the
County's jurisdiction. This ordinance protects agricultural operations from the
potential complaints which can arise from neighbors of agricultural land uses.
The ordinance also requires that developers of residential projects adjacent to
active agricultural land uses notify potential buyers within 300 feet of the
agricultural land use that they are purchasing a home near an agricultural land
use. This ordinance has been effective in protecting agriculture from such
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 2
complaints under the County's jurisdiction. The City's ordinance provides
equivalent protection and mitigation from this potential impact. Any developer
on the subject property will be required to provide such notification to
purchasers of residential lots or homes.
A physical separation between the agricultural land use to the south and the
proposed annexation would provide added buffering between the agricultural
and the residential land uses. The following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. All development proposals within the proposed annexation area which
will occur adjacent to existing active agriculture shall be required to
incorporate a 100 foot setback from the property line(s) of the adjacent
agriculture into development plans. No structure shall be permitted within
the setbacks.
2. For any residential development proposed on the parcels currently
identified as 767-200-004, 005, 009 and 010, potential purchasers shall
be notified of the existence of agricultural lands immediately south or
east, following the same procedures as those included in the City's "right
to farm" ordinance. The notification will include disclosure of the use of
chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, night-time operations, potential
odors and potentially high noise levels on the adjacent agricultural lands.
At the public hearing held on this matter in October, 2001, the Waters'
representative provided additional data relating to agricultural buffers, in the
form of two articles on the subject. These articles are summarized below:
"Protecting Farmland on the Edge: What policies and programs work?" (Jerry
Paulson) The article addresses counties in southern Wisconsin and northern
Illinois. The article describes development patterns in two counties in Illinois,
where development pressures are not intense. The Illinois counties have
established policies which encourage the preservation of agriculture. The cities
within these counties generally consider the economic benefits of annexation
as the primary reason to annex lands. Economic development and a logical
extension of services are primary drivers in development decisions. In
Wisconsin, the local jurisdictions (towns and cities) within the counties studied
have a strong voice in the protection of local land use decisions. Land uses
regulations which encourage agriculture are contained in County plans. In both
states, agricultural preservation has been addressed extensively through tax
incentives rather than land use controls. Transfer of development rights and
conservation easements are discussed as tools being considered in this area, as
are greenbelts and growth management. The author indicates that without a
combination of planning policy and political will (through the election of slow
growth candidates), effective agriculture preservation is not possible.
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 3
"Defining the Edge: An Introduction to Agricultural Buffers." The material is
labeled a "workbook," and includes a description of typical complaints between
urban and agricultural land uses, and a number of alternatives for buffers. These
include: walls or vertical plantings; separation by existing topography or
infrastructure; building requirements (including setbacks and building
placement); use of recreational facilities as separators (trails, golf courses, ball
fields and wildlife corridors); and the voluntary conversion of crops, particularly
to organic farming. The article also addresses how to pay for the costs of these
buffers, and contains an extensive discussion of the process which should be
undertaken to develop buffers and determine which type(s) will be implemented.
Finally, the document provides a description of how to start a buffer
development process.
III. c) & d)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Although
annexation will not cause an increase in air emissions in and of itself, the
buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the project
site is low density residential, 0-4 units per acre. At this density, a maximum
of 800 single family residences would be possible. Based on calculations
provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 800 units could generate up to
7,656 trips per day'. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the annexation
area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 237.29 9.13 48.67 -- 1.01 1.01
Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 7,656 trips/day and average trip length of 6 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 is 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.
Although no immediate project is proposed, the disturbance of the site for
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for single family residential,
at 9.57 trips per day.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 4
construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These
impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant 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 portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
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.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 5
shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate
transportation measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions
shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances
in effect at the time of development.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout of the annexation area will not be significant. Moreover,
improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly
from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future are not included
in the analysis.
IV. a) The annexation area was previously studied for biological resources'. The
biological analysis concluded that four types of habitat occur on the site: Desert
Scrub, Agriculture, Pasture and Disturbed. No species of concern were identified
in site surveys conducted specifically for Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard,
Palm Springs Ground Squirrel, Palm Springs Pocket Mouse and Flat Tailed
Horned Lizard. The area was, however, identified as having mesquite
hummocks, which provide important habitat for a number of desert species. The
proposed annexation area includes several mesquite hummocks. In order to
mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall
submit an on -site biological resource analysis identifying the total acreage
of mesquite hummocks on the 200 acre site, or any portion thereof
proposed for development.
2. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project
proponent(s) shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the California Department of Fish and Game and an appropriate non-
profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the
purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall
provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to
purchase and manage the equivalent acreage identified in mitigation
measure #1 of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural
"Biological Assessment for the Country Club of the Desert Project," Michael Brandman Associates, May 2000.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 6
resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. A
cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property'. The survey
found a number of resources in the area, but only very limited resources on the
annexation area property. In order to ensure that buried resources are not lost
if they occur, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all demolition,
earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to
stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A
final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department
prior to occupancy.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. The site is not subject to liquefaction'.
In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking, the
City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will impose
requirements for a PM 10 management plan, which will control this hazard
(please see above). The soils on the property will also be examined through an
on -site soil analysis required prior to issuance of grading permits. These
requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VII. a) & b)
Written and oral public testimony was presented at the October 2001 public
hearing on this matter which stated that the use of pesticides on the property
immediately south of the annexation area presented a potential hazard. The
testimony further stated that there were mandated buffer areas required for the
use of these pesticides. Research undertaken through the Office of the
3
"A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Country Club of the Desert Project Area..." McKenna et. al.,
September 1999.
4
"Draft Environmental Impact Report, Country Club of the Desert," SCH #99061109, Impact Sciences, August
2000.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 7
Agricultural Commissioner resulted in the following':
1. There is no permit, nor has there been, to allow use Methyl Bromide on
the property immediately south of the annexation area.
2. Should the owners wish to secure a permit and use Methyl Bromide, they
would be required to provide a buffer of 60 feet from the area being
sprayed and occupied structures (based on fumigation of 10 acres per
day, which would be the maximum which could be expected to be
applied in one day).
3. Methyl Bromide will be illegal to use by 2005.
4. The only buffer required for the use of Dormex is 330 feet, if the Office
of the Agricultural Commissioner receives a complaint from a producer
of lemons that the application of Dormex on adjacent lands has damaged
his or her crop. There is no lemon production within the annexation area.
5. Dormex has been used on the Waters property, with appropriate permits.
6. Vapam can be used without permitting. It is used on fallow land to kill
weeds prior to planting. It emits an odor similar to rotten eggs. If the
chemical is being delivered through a sprinkler system, a buffer of 500
feet is required. If the chemical is being delivered through a drip irrigation
system, no buffer is required.
7. The Waters property has a drip irrigation system.
The application of chemicals for agricultural use, therefore, does not pose a
significant impact on adjacent property, nor does the location of residential uses
to the north of the Waters property impose an undue restriction on the use of
chemicals by the land owners.
VIII. 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.
The CVWD Draft Water Management Plan includes a Preferred Alternative
(Alternative 4) for the management and recharge of groundwater, which results
in positive cumulative water storage for the period from 1999 to 2035 (Table
6-1). Although not yet adopted, the Draft Water Management Plan constitutes
the best available information on the subject of water resources available at this
time.
5 Personal Communication, George Kregl, Office of the Agricultural Commissioner, December 7, 2001.
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 8
Comments made on the original and revised Environmental Assessment
indicated a concern regarding water usage associated with residential
development. The comments included an attached letter from Pace Engineering,
calculating water usage for another project. Although no source or reference is
provided for the data used in the Pace letter of June 7, 2001, the author uses
an average of 150 gallons per person per day for residential land uses. The
proposed annexation area encompasses 200 acres of low density residential
land which could generate up to 800 dwelling units. The City's current average
household size is 1.99 persons. Therefore, the potential water consumption
within the annexation area boundary at buildout would be 238,800 gallons per
day, or 0.73 acre feet per day, or 267 acre feet per year.
Data provided by the Coachella Valley Water District for the parcels included in
the 200 acre annexation area show that a total of 7,329 acre feet of Canal
water has been provided to metered locations on 80 acres in the last 10 years.
This represents an average annual water usage of 733 acre feet for 80 acres,
or 9.2 acre feet per year per acre. If extended to agricultural land use on all 200
acres, an annual usage of 1,832 acre feet per year would be expected for the
annexation area of 200 acres. The 267 acre feet estimated for usage by 800
residential units would therefore represent only 14.6% of the average annual
usage of agricultural land uses within the annexation area for the last 10 years.
Since Canal water is the primary source of water recharge plans being
implemented by CVWD for groundwater recharge, the current use of Canal
water for irrigation can be used in direct comparison to groundwater usage. The
buildout of the annexation area with all residential land uses would therefore
reduce existing impacts to water resources, and would represent a beneficial
impact.
Alternatively, if the 200 acre annexation area were to develop as a golf course
and residential development, with 100 acres of golf course and 100 acres of
residential development, yielding up to 400 single family units (a similar land use
distribution to that found at the adjacent approved Country Club of the Desert
project), the annexation area would require 883 acre feet of water annually,
based on the factors supplied by Pace Engineering (133 acre feet for the
residential component, and 750 acre feet for the golf component). This
represents only 48.2% of the water which would be expected to be used if all
200 acres were in agriculture. Further, the lands which would develop as golf
course would be irrigated with canal water, not groundwaters.
With either land use scenario, therefore, the impacts to water resources would
be considerably less than those which would result from the use of the land for
agriculture.
6 Personal communication, Steve Robbins, Coachella Valley Water District, December, 2001.
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 9
Regardless of the type of development which occurs on the site, all landscaping
will be required to comply with the standards of the City's landscape water
conservation ordinance, which mandates reductions in both irrigation and
evapotranspiration. This standard will further reduce the potential impacts
associated with groundwater within the annexation area.
The City requires that the following standards be implemented through the
design and construction of projects. These standards shall be implemented for
any development proposed within the annexation area.
1. If a golf course is proposed within the annexation area, a Water
Conservation Plan shall be prepared which demonstrates the use of
drought tolerant plants and water efficient irrigation. The Water
Conservation shall be submitted to both the City and CVWD for review
and approval.
2. If a golf course is proposed within the annexation area, it shall be
irrigated with Canal water, not groundwater.
3. Water efficient landscaping, as prescribed by City codes, shall be used
as a means of reducing water consumption associated with any project
within the annexation area.
4. Efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and
maximize the watering of plant roots shall be encouraged. Drip irrigation
and moisture detectors may also increase the efficiency of irrigation
systems.
5. In conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code,
Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b), and applicable
sections of Title 24 of the State Code, low -flush toilets and water
conserving shower heads and faucets shall be required.
VIII. c)-e)
When the annexation area is developed, impermeable surfaces will be created,
which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. Any project on the site will
be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the
City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
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
3A and 313, which allow 0.4-2 units and 0.2 to 0.4 units per acre, respectively.
The City's proposed Low Density Residential designation will therefore
somewhat increase this density, but will maintain the intended residential
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 10
character of the area. The character of the property will not be changed by the
proposed action, insofar as residential development would be expected to occur
on this site under either jurisdiction. Finally, the adjacent lands to the west are
being developed in residential units in a low density.
The impacts associated with adjacency to existing agricultural land uses
immediately south of the proposed annexation area have been addressed and
mitigated under item II, above. The mitigation measures proposed are consistent
with current conditions and standards under Riverside County's jurisdiction. The
County's intent for the properties in this area is clearly defined as residential in
their General Plan. The agricultural land uses will continue to operate at the
owners' discretion under County jurisdiction. The impacts to land use are not
expected to be significant.
XI. a) b) & c)
The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited
development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the site 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 site,
which are considered sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that these sensitive
receptors are not subject to noise impacts, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
Xlll.a)
1. Any project on the subject property shall be required to complete a noise
analysis which includes current conditions and anticipated buildout noise
levels, and which includes mitigation measures to ensure that exterior
and interior noise levels meet City standards in effect at that time. The
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits, and shall demonstrate
compliance with the City's noise standards and shall demonstrate
compliance with the City's noise standards.
Annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential
impacts for both police and fire services. 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. The project will also
be required to pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XV. a) & b)
Based on comments received on the original Environmental Assessment, a
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 11
traffic study has been prepared for the proposed annexation application'. The
traffic analysis assumed that low density residential development totaling 960
units would occur on a 240 acre site (the 40 acre property now deleted from
the annexation area was included in the traffic analysis). The analysis examined
the potential impacts on the area's circulation system. It is important to note
that the firm which completed this analysis also prepared the analysis for the
General Plan, and therefore has the most current and accurate data available for
the City's circulation system.
The study found that with buildout of the proposed annexation area, combined
with buildout of other projects based on General Plan designations, the
intersections within the project area will all operate at a Level of Service D or
better, which meets the City's standards for roadway operations. Improvements
required, and to be installed as development occurs, include signalization of the
Madison/Avenue 52, Monroe/Avenue 52, Monroe/Avenue 53 intersections, and
widening of Monroe, Madison and Avenue 52 to City General Plan standards.
It is important to note that the widening and signalization will be required even
if the proposed annexation area does not build out. The City requires that
development contribute its fair share to street improvements as development
occurs through its developer impact fee. Such a requirement will be imposed
within the annexation area to ensure that levels of service are maintained at an
acceptable level.
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.
7
"Country Club of the Desert Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 4. 2001.
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\CCDesAdd2.WPD 12
oz
0
d
z
d
a
¢
a
A
U
W
d
W
Q
A
U�
Q W
3x
�W
O�
UU
a�
0
U
oc
Z U.um
U � �
-�>
a¢
ov
��
a
a�
o o
�O
0
C Z
Q U O
•a
w
a
� E E
E a E a
U m u m
W
c
�, •o
z
U
c
0 U o
0
�
W�
'� on
CO
U 4.
�+
cd
Cd
Q
00'
M.
:n o o
W
Q O a` a.
�
W
E�
Q
C
U�
Qw
a�
�w
O�
UU
a
N
Q
..
�,
N
L
r0
�o
M
th
rn
-a
O
U
�
�
U
cca
Q�i
W
°
0
�
-o
�o
Q
$.
.�
�
c
cv
c
�
o
Cd
cd to
Q.cnc
c20
a,
U
aa�UF•
U
U E
w
to
on
to
Cd
cd
c�
co
to
c
c
tQ
�
�
U
bD
bA
c
O
O
OO
N
U
U
a)
U
y
C
Z
U
U
N
cV
c
C
cn L6
O
U
O
U
N
O
F
Eny
'+'
V
O
y +'
�
°=
rn
O
rn
b
� bA
•
'O
�
�
=
O
U s.
a a a
�..
a
%
a
4) s..
a a
4.
a
U i.
a a
sue,
on
. �
a
s
. �
a.
a
�
Q E
oG
0
o
.a rx
o
0
o f
06
a
i
a
a
Ca
C D
°
o
ro-
y
y
C
C
c
to
E
En
a
7
E
7
a0i
E
a�i
E
w
w
:°
E
E
t
E
t
E t
t
�>
c
O
c
o
�'
�'
E
cad
E
m
E
a.
E o.
n.
UL1U
U
U
as
UQ
u
UL
c�pp
`�
E
N
� EnbD
U
3
O
N
�i En
pq
U
91.
O
Cd
"a
"
W
U
0
3
-o
0.
E
G.
E
cq
Ocl
co
C
'C
V2
►•�
E
�'
O
0.
'�'
N
O
V]
O
U
Z
a
c�
�
�
5
as
y
c
p
W
w
U
U
c
►-�
�
a
E
w
L
•a
a
U
a
a
c
v
U
U
�O
s.
CL
cti
7
'O
>
fn
'G
ai
3�
0
0
cz
a
U Q
ai
.r
o
�
c
�
L
W
•�
71
C
�
tv
to
U
•O
�
C
�
�
O
�
.o
O
`o.
O
U
a