CC Resolution 2007-054RESOLUTION NO. 2007-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-109
AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2006-086
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-578
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 19" day of June, 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2006-578, prepared for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to consider changes in policies and standards associated
with the southeast portion of the City, relating to the design of small subdivisions;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 24' day of April, 2007, and continued hearing on the 81" of
May, 2007, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to consider changes in policies and
standards associated with the southeast portion of the City, relating to the design
of small subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Negative Declaration in compliance
with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 at. seq., (CEQA
Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a public hearing notice on the 31" day of
May, 2007 to landowners within 500 feet of the project site, which notice also
included a notice of the public hearing date for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intent to adopt the Negative
Declaration in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 8, 2007, and further caused the
notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines; 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 certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2007-054
Environmental Assessment 2006-578
Adopted: June 19, 2007
Page 2
1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to thehealth, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2006-578.
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. The changes to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance will have no impact on biological or paleontological resources.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed amendments will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat
on which the wildlife depends. No development is contemplated as a result
of the amendments, and further environmental review will be undertaken
when a development project is proposed.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by
providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed amendments 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 amendments.
6. The proposed amendments will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The
proposed amendments do not have the potential to adversely affect human
beings, as no development is proposed.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the
amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution No. 2007-054
Environmental Assessment 2006-578
Adopted: June 19, 2007
Page ,3
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-
578 and said Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment
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).
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 bathe 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 2006-578 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2006-578 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 19th day of June, 2007, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2007-054
Environmental Assessment 2006-578
Adopted: June 19, 2007
Page 4
h...) (it. f'L' .
ONADO H, M r
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
Veronica J. Mon bind, CM(
City of La Quiniffi, California
(City Seal)
n77:Tell /: I7eFIMlax ;DI I T A
M. UrrhElIlht JENSON, Cit A omay
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Project: title: General Plan Amendment 2006-109, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2006-086,
to establish goals, policies and standards for the Southeast Policy Area
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3.
:1
5.
6$I
Contact person and phone number: Les Johnson, Planning Manager
760-777-7125
Project location: Those lands within the City limits south of Avenue 52
Project sponsor's name and address:
General plan designation: Various
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Zoning: Various
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 General Plan Amendment will establish policies regarding land use for residential
subdivisions. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment will set standards associated with
development of these subdivisions. The GPA and ZOA will establish standards for the
development of lands 10 acres in size or less into residential subdivisions to assure high
quality development at a density consistent with development patterns in this area.
The policies proposed for the General Plan address the development of high quality, low
density residential projects consistent with proximal large lot development outside the City in
the southeast area.
The changes proposed to the Zoning Ordinance will establish standards, based primarily on
performance standards, to govern the development of parcels 10 acres or less in size.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
The Southeast portion of the City is characterized by existing single family subdivisions, golf
country clubs and scattered vacant lands.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leas
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
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
effect on the
red.
: effect on the
-ause revisions in the
. A MITIGATED
i the environment, and
:ant impact' or
lent, but at least one
xsuant to applicable
-es based on the earlier
,L IMPACT REPORT
addressed.
effect on the
)een analyzed
arsuant to applicable
at earlier EIR or
i measures that are
ti 12 0
Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the 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 XVH, "Earlier Analyses," maybe 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 measure:
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measure:
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fron
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for th(
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information source:
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepare<
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages when
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used a
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, lea(
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project',
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
-3-
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)-d) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact o
aesthetics, visual resources or light and glare. The eventual development of subdivision
of this size will require review under CEQA to assure that these individual development
will not significantly impact aesthetics, visual resources or light and glare.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
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.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
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)
11. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
agricultural resources. Should any of the lands proposed for development contain
agricultural activities; the impacts of that development will be analyzed at that time.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
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 PM10 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)-e) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact c
air quality. Individual projects will be reviewed for air quality impacts at the time they ai
proposed. The City will continue to impose SCAQMD requirements and standard
including the preparation of PMIO Management Plans on projects when they grac
property. Should any other impacts be identified at the time of project developmer
mitigation measures will also be developed.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
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?
(General Plan IVIEA p. 72 ff.)
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?
(General Plan NMA p. 72 ff.)
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? (General Plan
MEA p. 72 ff.)
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? (General Plan
MEA p. 72 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA p.
72 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other ap )roved local, regional, or state
-7-
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA p. 72 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
biological resources. Future development proposals will be reviewed by the City under
the provisions of CEQA. The proposed southeast policy area is not located within thi
mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. If the City has adopte<
the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan when projects are proposed, that fee wil
apply.
-8-
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 ' 15064.5? ("A Phase I
Archaeological Survey Report...," L&L
Environmental, December 2003)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? ("A Phase I
Archaeological Survey Report...," L&L
Environmental„ December 2003)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? WA Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? ("A Phase I Archaeological
Survey Report...," L&L Environmental,
December 2003)
V. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
cultural resources. Most of the City contains archaeological resources. The policy area is
generally within the boundaries of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is likely to contain
paleontological resources. Therefore, development projects will be required to undertake
analysis under the provisions of CEQA to determine project impacts, if any, and tc
propose mitigation measures as required.
in
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
d) 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?
(Building Code)
e) 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 EIR)
VI. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact c
geology and soils. The policy area is in an area of the City subject to liquefaction, due i
proximity to groundwater. Individual development proposals will be required to prepa
geotechnical studies for their parcels prior to construction, and/or as part of the CEQ
review process. These analyses, as well as the City's implementation of the Unifor.
Building Code in place at the time each development is brought forward, will analy,
impacts and propose mitigation measures where necessary.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the roiect:
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 fareseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environtent? (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
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fi)
-11-
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)
VH. a)-h) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
hazards and hazardous materials. The eventual development of subdivisions in the polic,
area will result in single family homes which will have limited need for hazardou
materials. The area is generally not subject to wildland fires. These issues will bi
addressed under CEQA for each proposal as it is brought forward.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VHL HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -•• Would the project.
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. II1487 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 .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? (General Plan
EIRp.111-87 ff)
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?
(General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
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? (General Plan
EIR p. RI-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-13-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VHL a)- g)) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
hydrology or water resources. The eventual development of any parcel within the polio;
area will be reviewed under CEQA, and impacts associated with water quality, water use
or storm flows will be analyzed at that time. The City implements water-conservinj
building and landscaping requirements, and will impose these requirements on future
projects. The City also requires that project retain the 100 year storm on site, so as not tr
impact down -stream properties. These requirements and standards will be implementer
as individual projects are proposed in the policy area.
-14-
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 vrith any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
land use and planning.
The proposed policies and development standards will affect only vacant lands, and will
therefore not divide an existing community.
The proposed amendments are being added to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance tc
assure that remaining developable lands in the southeast portion of the City build out in E
manner which is consistent with the more rural, less dense development currently existin€
to the east of the City limits. The amendments will not impact the underlying density of
any parcel. They will instead assure high quality development which integrates oper
space and landscaped areas to assure that urban densities do not occur in this portion o:
the City.
The policy area is not within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizarc
Habitat Conservation Plan fee area. Should the City have adopted the Coachella Valle
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan at the time that future projects are proposed
those projects will be subject to the provisions of the Plan.
-15-
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 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
mineral resources. Lands in this area of the City are generally designated in the MRZ-
Zone, and are therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources.
-16-
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? (General Plan EIR p. III-
144 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
EIR p. III-144 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR p. 1II-
144 ff.)
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 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact or
noise. Individual projects will be reviewed under CEQA at the time they are proposed
However, the policy area is in an area of the City which is expected to have limiter
growth in traffic, and the development standards proposed, including the provision o
landscaped setbacks, will help to attenuate noise levels at individual homes in the future.
-17-
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)
XIL a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact o
population and housing.
The proposed amendments will have no impact on the underlying density of the land
which generally allow up to four units per acre. Therefore, the amendments will nt
induce an increase in potential population in the area. The policies and standards will on]
impact vacant lands, so they will not displace either housing or people.
-18-
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) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
public services. The area is already served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire
Departments, on contract to the City. Impacts to public safety would remain the same.
Upon build out of the vacant lands, impacts on public safety services will increase
somewhat, however, the City will collect development impact fees to provide for
additional facilities for police and fire, to offset the costs associated with these services
and the property tax and sales tax generated by the homes and their residents would alsc
serve to offset these costs. Future development on the vacant land may be required to pa}
a public facilities fee, if such a fee is adopted by the City at that time.
Future subdivisions will, when developed, pay the mandated school fees to offset thi
impacts to schools.
The City imposes both Quimby fees and development impact fees to offset the cost o
purchase and maintenance of parks, respectively. These fees will be required for th,
development of subdivisions in the future, and will offset the costs associated with the
provision of parks in the area.
-19-
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 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
recreational facilities. As stated under Public Services, above, the City will impos
Quimby and development impact fees to offset the need for additional recreations
facilities caused by development in the area.
50102
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
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 EK 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 EK 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)? (Tentative
Tract Map 31087)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Tentative Tract Map 31087)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Tentative Tract Map 31087)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact of
traffic and circulation. The General Plan EIR identified relatively low long term traffi
volumes in this area of the City, due to the lower densities proposed. However, individua
projects will be reviewed under CEQA for traffic generation, adequate parking, saf
design, and the availability of transit facilities. These analyses will include
quantification of impacts, and the imposition of mitigation measures where necessary.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. 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)
_22_
XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
utilities. The eventual development of subdivisions in the area will result in a need for
utilities. All service providers will charge connection and service fees to the developers
and residents of the vacant lands. These fees are designed to provide for the expansion of
service as need arises. These needs will be assessed in individual project related CEQA
reviews.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVIL 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 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact c
biological or cultural resources. Further environmental review, or the standards impose
by the City, will assure that potential impacts associated with development 4
subdivisions in the future are reduced to less than significant levels.
XVII. b) The -amendments will support the City's goals of providing a wide range of housing of a
types to current and future residents.
XVII. c) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have not increx
cumulative impacts as defined in the General Plan EIR, insofar as the underlying densitii
of affected parcels will not change.
-24-
XVII. d) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment will have no impact on
human beings. The eventual development of individual subdivisions will be subject to
environmental review, which will implement mitigation measures as necessary, if impacts
to human beings are identified.
-25-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ/
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). hi this case a discussion should identify the following of
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The La Quinta General Plan EIR was used in this analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were withii
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on th
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatiol
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from th
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-26-