Loading...
CC Resolution 2003-124 EA 2003-483 MNDRESOLUTION NO. 2003-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QU1NTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093, ZONE CHANGE 2003- 116, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483 APPLICANT: CORAL OPTION I, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2003-483 for a General Plan Amendment 'and Zone Change to change land uses and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and Golf Course, Mixed/Regional Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and relocate the Neighborhood Commercial land uses to the southwest and southeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, and eliminate the Major Community Facility designation; a Specific Plan to establish development standards and design guidelines and a Site Development Permit for development of two 18-hole golf courses, a 16,400 square foot golf clubhouse, 4,000 square foot swim & tennis facility, 400 square foot gatehouse, 14,000 square foot maintenance building, and 1,400 attached and detached residential model units ranging in size between t 3,150square feet and t 3,650square feet, generally located at the northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows: APNs: 764-200-001 thru 007; 764-210-001 thru 006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25" day of November, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to recommend to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2003-483; and, 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 Environmental Assessment 2003-483 and determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant Resolution No. 2003-124 Environmental Assessment 2003-483 Coral Option I, LLC December 16, 2003 Page 2 levels, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to certify said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 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 in that the project site has been conditioned to mitigate impacts to biological and cultural resources to less than significant levels. 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 in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant wildlife resources on the site. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as significant effects on environmental factors will be reduced to less than significant levels as identified in 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 in that the site will be developed with less intensity than the current land use designations under the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the Environmental Assessment did not identify any significant impacts which would affect human health, risk potential, or public services. Resolution No. 2003-124 Environmental Assessment 2003-483 Coral Option 1, LLC December 16, 2003 Page 3 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2003-483 and said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City Council has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings . of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003483 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-483 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16' day of December, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Osborne ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2003-124 Environmental Assessment 2003-483 Coral Option I, LLC December 16, 2003 Page 4 DONALD ADN PH, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: 9�E�. "C-4010. -.1 J . GREEK, CMC, City Jerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: I--,' Z r�^-- . KATHE E LJENSO, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2003-093, Zone Change 2003-116, Specific Plan 03- 067, Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 218, Site Development Permit 2003-787, Coral Option I 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, and between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Coral Option I, LLC 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Dr. La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Mixed/Regional Commercial, Major Community Facility Proposed: Low Density Residential, Golf Course, Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Mixed/Regional Commercial, Major Community Facility Proposed: Low Density Residential, Golf Course, Neighborhood Commercial 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project consists of a 587 acre portion of the previously approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan, which was reviewed under CEQA through an Environmental Impact Report and associated addenda, by both the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. In addition to these previously reviewed lands, a 355 acre addition is proposed, for a total project area of 942 acres. The 355 acre addition has not been previously proposed for development, and therefore has not previously been reviewed under CEQA. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required to reduce the proposed density on the site from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, on the west side of Madison, to add Golf Course designation to Low Density Residential on the east side of Madison, and to change Mixed/Regional Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and relocate the land uses to a different portion of the site than that approved in Specific Plan 218. In the previous plan, the commercial designation was located on Avenue 60, east of Madison Street. The proposed Specific Plan will locate 10 acres of Neighborhood Commercial, SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -1- divided evenly on the southwest and southeast corners of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. Also, the applicant requests the elimination of the Major Community Facility designation on the General Plan Land Use Map. Specific Plan 2003-067 includes lands previously included in Specific Plan 218 (see below), as well as lands which currently have no entitlements. The Specific Plan includes design standards and guidelines, and facilitates the construction of up to 1,400 attached and detached single family homes on 497 acres, golf course on 435 acres, and 10 acres of neighborhood commercial land uses at the southwest and southeast corners of Avenue 58 and Madison Avenue. The golf course designation would also include maintenance and clubhouse facilities. The Site Development Permit establishes plans for the construction of the facilities within the Specific Plan boundary, including attached and detached residential, golf course and tennis facilities, and ancillary maintenance facilities. The purpose of the Specific Plan (Coral Option) is to delete lands previously included in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and now included in Specific Plan 2003-067 in one document, described above. No other change is proposed. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Single family residential, golf course (Norman Estates) South: Bureau of Reclamation Levee, Coral Mountain Specific Plan (Trilogy) West: Bureau of Reclamation Levee, Parks and Recreation East: Single family residential, Ag lands, vacant desert lands 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -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 Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETER IINATION: (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 project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature November 3.2003 Date SACity Clerk\Resolutions\CoralEA Checklist.doc -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions .for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -4- 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed Specific Plan and associated Site Development Permit propose the construction of one and two story residential, golf course associated facilities and commercial structures. Most of the construction will occur away from the project boundary, in the interior of the site. Madison Street and Avenue 58 are designated as Agrarian Image Corridors in the General Plan and the project will comply with the requirements. There are no significant landforms located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The Coral Reef Mountains, located to the west and south of the project site, are sufficiently distant from the site so as to still be visible from the project and surrounding development. The proposed project is consistent with other development in the area, which consists of single and two story residential projects, often on golf courses. Impacts to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant. I. d) The proposed project will generate light from the commercial parcels located at Avenue 58 and Madison, as well as from residential outdoor lighting, and the lighting of facilities at the golf and tennis club. All lighting on the site will be required to conform to the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, which prohibit "spillover" from the site. Further, the more intensely lit land uses will be located in less sensitive areas (either at a street intersection, or within the center of the golf course), and will have little potential to affect surrounding sensitive uses. Impacts associated with light and glare are expected to be less than significant. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, letter of 9/23/03 from Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) Three parcels within the proposed project consisting of f195 acres, and generally located in the southeastern quadrant of the site, have previously been under Williamson Act contract. Additionally, portions of the site have been in agriculture in the past. The balance of the site is vacant desert lands. A formal request to cancel the Williamson Act contracts is being processed by the City for parcels affected by such a designation. The applicant will have to pay a cancellation fee in the amount of $1,168,125.00 to Riverside County within one year of cancellation of the contract. Based on aerial photos of the site, it appears that a majority of the ±355 acres included in the Specific Plan area have been in agricultural use. The development of the project would therefore result in the conversion of about f 195 acres from agriculture to urban uses. The remainder of the site encompasses vacant desert lands. The property is not designated as prime agricultural land in the General Plan, and is developing at lower densities than originally envisioned in the General Plan. The project is adjacent to developing or developed land uses, in. an area of the City which has been urbanizing for a number of years. The site is within the corporate limits of the City, and as such is expected to develop in urban land uses. Although portions of the site which have previously been used for agriculture will no longer be available for such use, the acreage involved represents a very small percentage of the total acreage in agriculture in the eastern Coachella Valley. Impacts to agricultural resources are therefore expected to be less than significant. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X. substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,400 residential units, golf course facilities (36 holes) and neighborhood commercial land uses which could generate up to 109,000 square feet of commercial space. These land uses could generate up to 19,362 daily trips at the site'. This calculation does not account for complementary use between the three land uses, and is therefore considered conservative. Actual trips generated could be 25% less. Based on this traffic generation, and an average trip length of 10 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be generated from the project site. 1 "Trip Generation, Oh Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, categories 430 — golf course, 210 — single family housing, and 820 — shopping center. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -8- Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) k Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day 199362 x 10 = 1939620 Pollutant ROC CO NOX PM 1 o PM 1 U PM 10 Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Grams at 50 mph 17,425.80 453,070.80 92,937.60 - 1,936.20 1,936.20 Pounds at 50 mph 38.47 11,000.16 205.16 - 4.27 4.27 SCAQMD Threshold 75 550 100 150 (lbs./day) Assumes 12,895 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated above, the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for both carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The potential impacts of the proposed project were analysed in the General Plan EIR, as the land use proposed is less than the previously approved medium density residential designation on the property. The City found at that time that although the potential impacts associated with air quality in the City could be considerable, the potential benefits of buildout of the General Plan outweighed these potential impacts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and adopted in conjunction with the certification of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR included a number of mitigation measures to assist the City and project developers in reducing potential impacts associated with air quality. In order to lower the potential impacts associated with air quality emissions, mitigation measures have been provided below. The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (Particulates of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM 10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -9- The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading conditions, this could result in the generation of 24,658 pounds per day, for a limited period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. 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 the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on- going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site. 8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on all perimeter streets (Avenue 58 & 60, Madison and Monroe) shall be installed immediately following mass grading of the site. The golf courses shall be landscaped immediately upon completion of finished grading of the site. Whenever possible, portions of the golf course which have been graded shall be seeded while other portions still under construction are being completed. 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 11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2002 PM 10 Management Plan. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -10- 12. An air quality monitor shall be on site during all grading operations. The monitor shall be empowered to implement the most stringent control measures, as prescribed in the 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan when necessary to keep fugitive dust to a minimum. 13. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the General Plan EIR shall be applied to the proposed project during both construction and operation. III. d) & e) The development of the site will not subject people to significant pollutant concentrations, nor will it create objectionable odors. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X 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? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X 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? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X L.ado ted Habitat Conservation Plan, SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -12- Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Letter report by LSA, October 10, 2003) IV. a)-f) There are 587 acres of the proposed Specific Plan area which have previously been surveyed for biological resources, and 355 acres which were surveyed for this project application. The biological resource analysis completed for the additional acreage being incorporated into the plan focused on the presence or absence of burrowing owl. The survey found no evidence of burrowing owl on the property. The survey found the presence of fossorial burrows adequate for occupation by burrowing owls. As such, the site, although not currently occupied, includes appropriate habitat for the species. Since construction of the proposed project will occur after the 30 day limitation placed on the current survey, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing. activity on the site, the project proponent shall cause the site to be surveyed for presence of burrowing owl in the fossorial burrows located throughout the property. The surveys shall be conducted according to the protocol in effect at the time. The survey results shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site. Should burrowing owl be identified on the site, a program of passive relocation shall be implemented and documented prior to the issuance of any grading or grubbing permit. The site is located outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard habitat conservation plan. No other conservation plans occur in the City. 2 "EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta; and letter report prepared by LSA Associates, dated October 10, 2003. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 ("Draft Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, November 2003.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("Draft Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, November 2003.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ("General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Draft Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, November 2003.) V. a), b) & d) Cultural resource surveys have previously been completed for the proposed project site'. The 1998 survey included lands originally in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, including lands to the west of Madison Street and north of Avenue 60. The 2003 report included testing and mitigation for lands between Madison Street and Monroe, including lands which, had previously not been part of the Specific Plan areas. The 2003 report, which included extensive investigation of four recorded sites, previously identified, were excavated. The resulting curation and documentation of the sites, currently under way, will complete the previously imposed mitigation measures for this portion of the Specific Plan, with the exception of on -going monitoring, which should occur during all earth moving activities, and is included in the mitigation measures below. Areas to the west of Madison Street have been surveyed but not investigated, and mitigation measures for those areas must still be implemented. These areas include petroglyphs, artifacts and pottery sherds. The significant sites identified on the west side of Madison Street in 1998 were: CA-RIV-37, CA-RIV-193 North, CA-RIV-193 South, CA- and CA-RIV-6122. All these sites must be investigated, recorded and curated prior to any activity in this area, in order to preserve an adequate record. Mitigation has been included below. "Cultural Resources Report Coral Mountain Project," and "Draft Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report Coral Mountain Expansion," prepared by CRM Tech, September, 1998 and November 2003, respectively. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -14- 1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. V. c) The site is outside the historic lakebed for ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not expected to contain resources. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a) i), iii), iv), b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it subject to landslides or liquefaction. Although the project will be connected to the sewer system, the soil in the area is not expansive, and would support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -16- VI. a) ii) The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California Building Code which is intended to lower the potential impacts associated with groundshaking to less than significant levels. Residential and golf -related structures will be required to implement the most recent building codes in place at the time of construction. The City Engineer will require site -specific soil analysis for each phase of development, to assure that the construction of the structures occurs on properly excavated and compacted fill. These City standards will assure that the impacts associated with seismic activity are reduced to a less than significant level. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled 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 X 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 X 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 X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -18- evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The construction of residential, commercial and golf -related uses on the proposed project site will not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. The City implements the standards 'of the Household Hazardous Waste programs in place through its waste provider. The golf course will be regulated in its use and storage of fertilizers, pesticides and cleaning products as well as the commercial sites by County agencies. These regulations and standards ensure that impacts to surrounding areas, or within the project itself, are less than significant. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff. c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Specific Plan) d) Substantially alter the existing X 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? (Specific Plan) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Specific Plan) t) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -20- Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which is required to prepare a water supply assessment for the proposed project. The assessment will be based on the factors published by the CVWD for different land uses, and the acreage involved, as shown in the table below. Coachella Valley Water District Annual Consumption by Development Tvne Development Type Annual Consumption Water Usage (ac-ft/ac/yr) Acres Golf Course Developments 7.36 497 3,657.9 Residential 6.09 435 2,649.1 Commercial 4.81 10 48.1 Total 69355.1 The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which, will result in a surplus of water in the long term. These measures, combined with the measures imposed by the City and discussed below, assure a long term water supply for the proposed project. The project proponent will also be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The Coachella Valley Water District will impose conditions of approval for the treatment of wastewater from the facilities constructed on the project site. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and has been designed to include retention areas within the project. The City Engineer requires that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site, and this will be accomplished in the golf course and landscaped areas of the project. These City requirements are expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. e)-g) The construction of the proposed project will not have an impact on the City's storm drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year storm area. SACity ClerklResolutions12003-124 EaChkLst -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X 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 purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.)_ IX. a)-c) The proposed Specific Plan will result in the construction of residential units, golf course facilities and commercial development consistent with surrounding development in the. area. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change lower the overall density of the project to Low Density Residential, in keeping with surrounding designations. The commercial component of the site is a smaller site than the previously approved site and will cause less impacts by proving a shopping area closer to the residents, thereby .reducing traffic trips. The proposed project will not conflict with General Plan designations or policies, with exception of the Major Community Facility site. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the Major Community Facility designation shown on the General Plan Land Use Map on the north side of Avenue 60, between Madison Street and Monroe Street. The applicant will have to demonstrate, from Riverside County Fire Department, that a Fire Station is not required and that the closest station can serve the project. Otherwise, the applicant will have to provide a one acre site for a future Fire Station on the property. Overall, the project is expected to represent an extension of the existing development in the area. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Project description) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Project description) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The proposed Specific Plan will include residential, golf course and commercial uses in a master planned community, to be located away from area roadways. The individual developments within the project will be required to submit evidence of compatibility with noise standards in the City prior to issuance of building permits. Overall noise impacts to the residents of the project area are expected to be less than significant. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -24- The project will generate higher noise levels during all phases of construction. This noise generation, however, will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, and entirely within the master planned community. As phases of the residential development are built and occupied, there is a potential for impacts when construction occurs adjacent to the occupied portions of the site. In order to assure that impacts to the incremental increase in occupied dwelling units and commercial sites is less than significant, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. All construction activities shall occur during the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. All stationary equipment shall be placed as far away from existing residential development as possible once construction begins on the project site. 3. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with well maintained and operative mufflers. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The proposed project will reduce the potential number of residential units on the project site, by reducing the land use and zoning designations from Medium Density residential to Low Density residential. The project site is currently vacant or in agriculture, and there will be no displacement of housing as a result of the proposed project. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 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, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract: Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax which, will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. The proposed project includes two golf courses and landscaped open space areas, which will provide internal recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X 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 X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project includes two golf courses, a swim and tennis club and landscaped open space areas with walkways and trails, which will provide recreational opportunities for the residents and lower the potential impacts to City facilities. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X 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 EI& p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EI& p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Project description) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -29- XV. a)-g) The proposed project site has been studied extensively for traffic impacts4. As stated in the Air Quality section above, the maximum potential number of daily trips which could be generated by the project is 19,362, and the actual total is likely to be up to 25% less. The location and sizing of roadways established in the General Plan included the proposed project, as it had been approved prior to its adoption. The roadways in the area are predicted to operate within acceptable parameters at buildout of the General Plan. Access points to and from the site will be controlled, and limited along Madison, Avenues 58 and 60, and Monroe. Specifically, access will be limited to two primary access points on Madison, a secondary access point on Monroe, and one access point each on Avenue 58 and Madison for the neighborhood commercial properties. Additional service entrances are proposed on Avenue 60, Madison and Avenue 58, but will not be open to the public. Individual project proposals will be evaluated to assure that accesses and turning movements are adequate to ensure safe circulation from the project onto City roadways. All City roadways will be constructed to General Plan standards. Access from the commercial parcels will be limited, and required to meet the City Engineer's standards. Limited turning movements and restricted access have both been implemented by the City Engineer to reduce potential impacts to public roadways. 4 "EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -30- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to -serve the*project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -31- XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land uses considered in the General Plan resulted in a higher density, and these were found to result in adequate levels of service. It is therefore expected that the less intense development of the proposed project will lower potential impacts to utility providers for the project site. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X 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 X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site will be surveyed to assure that no burrowing owl occur prior to construction. The site has been identified as having significant cultural resources. However, mitigation measures included above will assure that these potential resources are protected, and that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -32- XVH.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing and recreational opportunities for City residents. The reduction in density resulting from the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a parallel reduction in long term impacts to the City's infrastructure and services. XVH. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will reduce those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole. XVII. d) The proposed project has. the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, and the site will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause negative health effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. The impacts are not expected to be any more than those identified in the General Plan EIR, which included analysis of more intense development at the project site. Noise impacts are those associated with construction, and have been mitigated above to less than significant levels. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. '`— Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. "EIR for Coral Mountain Specific Plan" and associated addenda, certified by both the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. 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. Not applicable. SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2003-124 EaChkLst -33-