PCRES 2001-090PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-090
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-077, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-100, AND ANNEXATION, ESTABLISHING
PRE -ANNEXATION DESIGNATIONS FOR 240 ACRES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418
APPLICANT: NRI, LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
COUNTRY CLUB OF THE DESERT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of June, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Zone
Change 2001-100, and annexation, generally located at the southwest corner of
Monroe Street and Avenue 52, more particularly described as follows:
APN 767-200-002, 003, 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, AND 010
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1 970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-418)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077
and Zone Change 2001-100 could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the
conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-418.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-011
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
G AW PDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-090
Environmental Assessment 2001-418
NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert
Adopted: July 26, 2001
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100
do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100
will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively
considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-077 and Zone Change 2001-100
will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human
population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been
identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
418 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
G:\WPDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-090
Environmental Assessment 2001-418
NRI, La Quinta Limited Partnership - Country Club of the Desert
Adopted: July 26, 2001
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2001-418 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-418 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None Q
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JER�`IIE Y� RM, N, Community Development Director
Cit of La Qui ta, California
G:\W PDOCS\PCResCCDEAAnnex. wpd
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-077, Change of Zone 2001-
100, Pre -Annexation land use designation and zoning
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerry Herman, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Bounded on the north by Avenue 52, on the east by Monroe
Street, on the south by Avenue 53, and east of the existing
City limits.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: NRI/LQLP
81-100 Avenue 53
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Proposed: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to assign land use and zoning
designations for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The
proposed designation is Low Density Residential. The current County General
Plan designation is 2B 2-5 units per acre.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Developed polo grounds
South: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country
Club of the Desert
West: Approved golf and low density residential development, Country
Club of the Desert
East: Vacant desert lands and agriculture
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Hazards and Hazardous
Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Recreation
Air Quality
Land Use Planning
Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
0
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
O
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an X
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature
May 24, 2001
Date
M—
O
G: \W PDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
Ill. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
hN
2
V
X
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
IV
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR,
p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
►1
X
X
M
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
91
0
X
G:\ W PDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use
map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan FIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan FIR,
page 4-30 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
X
X
01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description) I I I X
G:\WPDO CS\EAChecklistCCAnnex. W PD
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
X1. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan FIR, page 4-157
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan FIR, page 4-157
ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master
Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
KI
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklisiCCAnnex.WPD
XIII.
XIV
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan FIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
M
a
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G4
X
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
10
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
The EIR for Country Club of the Desert (SCH #99061 109) was used in the preparation of this checklist and addendum.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 99061109, Country Club of the Desert, August 2000.
G:\WPDOCS\EAChecklistCCAnnex.WPD
11
ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418
I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of
itself. Buildout of the parcel, however, will generate light, since the proposed
project will occur on a currently vacant parcel. The land use designation to be
placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which generate
low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for
outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and
contained within the site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts
of light and glare to a less than significant level.
II. c) Portions of the annexation area have been in agriculture for some time.
Annexation of the land, and the imposition of land use designations, will not
impact the agricultural use of the land. In the long term, however, the land will
be developed in low density residential land uses. This development will result
in the loss of 240 acres of agriculture in the Valley. Currently there are two
parcels (769-200-002 & 003) which are under the Williamson Act contract.
The applicant has filed a Notice of Non -renewal for these parcels. These two
parcels are isolated and surrounded by approved residential development, and
does not represent a significant change in agricultural uses. The loss of this land
will be less than significant.
III. c) & d)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Although
annexation will not cause an increase in air emissions in and of itself, the
buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the project
site is low density residential, 0-4 units per acre. At this density, a maximum
of 960 single family residences would be possible. Based on calculations
provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 960 units could generate up to
9,187 trips per day'. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the annexation
area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 284.74 10.95 58.41
Daily Threshold* 550 75 100
1.22 1.22
150
Based on 9,187 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6the Edition." Rate calculated for single family
residential, at 9.57 trips per day.
The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City has imposed
standards and requirements on development to control dust.
Although no immediate project is proposed, the disturbance of the site for
construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These
impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate
transportation measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions
shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances
in effect at the time of development.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout of the annexation area will not be significant. Moreover,
improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly
from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future are not included
in the analysis.
IV. a) The annexation area was previously studied for biological resource s2. The
biological analysis concluded that four types of habitat occur on the site: Desert
Scrub, Agriculture, Pasture and Disturbed. No species of concern were identified
in site surveys conducted specifically for Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard,
Palm Springs Ground Squirrel, Palm Springs Pocket Mouse and Flat Tailed
Horned Lizard. The area was, however, identified as having mesquite
hummocks, which provide important habitat for a number of desert species. The
proposed annexation area includes several mesquite hummocks. In order to
mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall
submit an on -site biological resource analysis identifying the total acreage
of mesquite hummocks on the 240 acre site, or any portion thereof
proposed for development.
2. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project
proponent(s) shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the California Department of Fish and Game and an appropriate non-
profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the
purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall
provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to
purchase and manage the equivalent acreage identified in mitigation
measure #1 of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural
resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. A
"Biological Assessment for the Country Club of the Desert Project," Michael Brandman Associates, May
2000,
GAW PDOCS\EAAdd CCAnnex.WPD
cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property3. The survey
found a number of resources in the area, but only very limited resources on the
annexation area property. In order to ensure that buried resources are not lost
if they occur, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all demolition,
earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to
stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A
final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department
prior to occupancy.
VI. a) i) & i0
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. The site is not subject to liquefaction°.
In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking, the
City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will impose
requirements for a PM10 management plan, which will control this hazard
(please see above). The soils on the property will also be examined through an
on -site soil analysis required prior to issuance of grading permits. These
requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Vill. b)
3
a
All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided
by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a
number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. At the time the site is
developed, the project will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will
encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. The project proponent
will also be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving
plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project will be required to meet the
requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which
requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient.
"A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Country Club of the Desert Project Area..." McKenna et. al.,
September 1999.
"Draft Environmental Impact Report, Country Club of the Desert," SCH 499061109, Impact Sciences, August
2000.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD
These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
When the annexation area is developed, impermeable surfaces will be created,
which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. Any project on the site will
be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the
City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
IX. b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The
land use designation for the subject property under the County General Plan is
2B, which allows 2 to 5 units per acre. The City's proposed designation will
therefore somewhat reduce this density, resulting in an overall reduction in
impacts from development of the property. The character of the property will
not be changed by the proposed action, insofar as residential development
would be expected to occur on this site under either jurisdiction. Finally, the
adjacent lands to the west are being developed in residential units in a low
density, and the project site will provide a logical extension of this development.
The impacts to land use are not expected to be significant.
XI. a) b) & c)
The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited
development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the site will
result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise generated by automobiles.
The proposed land use designation will result in residential land uses on the site,
which are considered sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that these sensitive
receptors are not subject to noise impacts, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
1 . Any project on the subject property shall be required to complete a noise
analysis which includes current conditions and anticipated buildout noise
levels, and which includes mitigation measures to ensure that exterior
and interior noise levels meet City standards in effect at that time. The
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
XIII. a)
Both annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential
impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will
generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund,
and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service. The project will also
be required to pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
G:\WPDOCS\EAAddCCAnnex.WPD
XV. a) & b)
The ultimate development of the subject property will result in fewer trips than
under the County General Plan designation, insofar as the City land use
designation proposed does not allow as many residential units as does the
County. Furthermore, the buildout of the project will result in improvements on
both Avenue 52 and Monroe which will improve circulation in the area. The
impact of buildout of the annexation area is not expected to be significant.
XVI. b)-f)
Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout
of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the
overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant,
insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and
provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees
will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These
fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
n--k UlonnrCXPAArArr Annov knian