PCRES 2001-118PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-118
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-079, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-102
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001.430
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 11th day of September, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider Environmental Assessment 2001-430 for General Plan Amendment 2001-
079, Zone Change 2001-102 for pre -annexation designation of lands located at the
northwestern corner of Madison Avenue and Avenue 60, more particularly described
as follows:
APNs 761-110-006, 761-110-008, 761-110-010,
761-1 10-013, 761-1 10-014, 761-440-003, 761-440-004,
761-440-008, 761-440-01 1, 761-440-012, 761-440- 016, 761-440-018
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-430)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079,
Zone Change 2001-102 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:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 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 2001-430.
G:\WPD0CS\PCResCoraJMtEA01 -430. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-118
Environmental Assessment 2001-430
Coral Mountain
September 11, 2001
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-102 will
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102
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 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102
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 2001-079 and Zone Change 2001-102
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-
430 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 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
G:\WPDOCS\PCResCoralMtEA01-430.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-118
Environmental Assessment 2001-430
Coral Mountain
September 11, 2001
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
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 2001-430 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 2001-430 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of September, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ES ABELS, Chairman
La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERKY HERMAN; Community Development Director
City bf La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PCResCoralMtEA01-430.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-079, Zone Change 2001-
102, 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: Northwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Proposed: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Proposed: Low Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to assign land use and zoning
designations for an annexation application to the City of La Quinta. The proposed
designation is Low Density Residential. The current County General Plan
designations are 3A (0.4-2 units per acre) and Planned Residential Reserve (0-5
units per acre). County Zoning is currently W-2 and RA (Residential Agriculture).
The land under consideration consists of approximately 40 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan
South: Levee, vacant desert lands, Travertine Specific Plan
West: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan
East: Vacant desert lands, approved Coral Mountain Specific Plan
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Local Agency Formation Commission
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst Coral Mt.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.
Deter
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
urination To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
here will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
ode by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
e prepared.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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
alyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
y 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.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
ecause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
ursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
IR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
othing further is required.
August 10, 2001
Signature Date
For the City of La Quinta
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
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
liscussed 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\EA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd
3
Potentially
Potentially significant Less Than
Significant Unless significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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)
X
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
(General Plan FIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
X
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
X
materials)
II. 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) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map) X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
M. 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) I I I I X
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an I I I I
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD, CEQA
Handbook) X
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 X
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description) I X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? I I I I X
(Project Description)
G:\WPDOCSTA Chklst CoralMt.wpd
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan EIR,
p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
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.)
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:
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst Cora1N t.wpd
VII.
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.)
in) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
I) 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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd
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)
VHI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assess. 5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
GAWPDOCSTA Chklst Cora1Mt.wpd
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157
ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan, Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chkist Cora1Mt.wpd
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
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)
G:\WPDOCS\EA Chklst CoralMt.wpd
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
V4
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General X
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- X
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?
X
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)? I I I X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS.
►ON
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
None
G:\WPDOCSTA Chklst Coralklimpd
10
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
G:\WPDOCS\EA ChkIM CoraIMt.wpd
I1
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-430
I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of
itself. Buildout of the 40 acres, however, will generate light, since the buildout
of the area could generate up to 160 dwelling units. The land use designation
to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which
generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's
standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed
downward and contained within the site. These standards will mitigate the
potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
Il. c) This portion of the annexation area consists of 40 acres. An additional 342
acres occurs west and north of the subject parcels. The 40 acres are divided
into 12 lots. The land is designated in the County General Plan for either 3A
(0.4-2 units per acre, or Planned Residential Reserve, which allows 0 to 5 units
per acre. Zoning on the parcels is either W-2 or RA (Residential Agriculture),
which encourage residential rather than agricultural land uses. At buildout of the
annexation area, which would be designated Low Density Residential, a total
of 160 single family units could occur on the site. Current development consists
of a few single family residences and vacant desert lands. The acreage is
already subdivided, generally in parcels of 5 acres or less. An approved Specific
Plan for residential and golf course development occurs on the north and west.
This parcelization, and the approved Specific Plan, are not conducive to
agricultural activities, insofar as the parcel size is too small to accommodate
significant agricultural activity, and urban development is planned in the
immediate future. The impacts to agricultural land uses from annexation of the
area are not expected to be significant.
III. c) & d)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Annexation will
not increase air emissions, but the buildout of the project will. The proposed
land use designation for the subject properties is low density residential, 0-4
units per acre. A maximum of 160 single family residences could be built within
the area. Based on calculations provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers,
160 units could generate up to 1,531 trips per day'. Based on this daily trip
generation, the potential impacts associated with vehicle traffic generated from
the properties can be calculated. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the
annexation area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for single _
family residential, at 9.57 trips per day.
G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoralMt.WPD
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Pounds per day)
Ave. Trip
Total
Total No. Vehicle
Trips/Day
Length (miles)
Miles/Day
1,531
X 6 =
9,186
PM10
PM10
PM10
Pollutant
ROC
CO NO Exhaust
Tire Wire
Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph
826.74
21,495.24 4,409.28
91.86
91.86
Pounds at 50 mph
1.83
47.45 9.73
0.20
0.20
Threshold
75.00
550.00 100.00
150.00
Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos, ctalytic.
The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (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 parcels for
construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM10. 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 PM10 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. Exiting 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.
G:\WPDOCS\EA Add Cora]Mt.WPD
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an
on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of
the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that
a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of
each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded
with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and 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) Annexation of the parcels will not have a significant impact on biological
resources. The parcels are isolated, and some have been developed. Prior to
development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential as habitat
for sensitive species, as part of individual project approvals. Should the parcels
be identified as being likely habitat, the City's General Plan requires that
biological resource analysis be performed. The resulting reports, if any, will
include mitigation measures for any identified species.
G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoraIMt.WPD
V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural
resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. Prior to
development on the parcels, City staff will review the area's potential for
cultural resources, as part of individual project approvals. Should on -site surveys
be necessary, the City's General Plan requires that cultural resource analysis be
performed. The resulting reports, I any, will include mitigation measures for any
identified species.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. The project area may be subject to liquefaction'.
In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking and
liquefaction, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the
associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will
require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with
the submittal of grading plans for specific projects. This requirement will ensure
that impacts from ground failure or liquefaction are reduced to a less than
significant level.
VI. c) The soils for this area will be examined through an on -site soil analysis required
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects.
These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
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 properties are
developed, individual projects will be required to retain storm flows on -site,
which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. Developers
or land owners will also be required to implement the City's standards for water
conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, all future projects will be required to meet
the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which
requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient.
These existing City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
IX.b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The
land use designation for the subject property is under the County General Plans
3A and Planned Residential Reserve. The City proposes a Low Density
Residential designation for the properties, which is of similar character to that
2 City of La Quinta General Plan, Exhibit EH-1.
G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoralMt.WPD
currently in place under the County. The lands to the north, west and
southeast are planned for four units to the acre and golf course development,
which is also compatible with the proposed land use designation. The
annexation and ultimate development of the properties represents a logical
extension of the City's urban boundary, insofar as properties to the west have
been developed, and the City's growth will be accommodated in this area. The
impacts to land use are not expected to be significant.
XI. a) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited
development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the 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. The City requires the preparation of
noise analyzes when projects are proposed adjacent to major roadways. At the
time that individual projects are proposed, the City will review the potential
noise impacts associated with the properties, and require analysis if it is
necessary. The reports resulting from this analysis will include mitigation
measures if required.
XIII. a)
Both annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential
impacts for police and fire services, and schools. The property, once developed,
will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General
Fund, and offset the potential impact to police and fire service. The individual
projects to be developed in the future will be required to pay school fees. The
ultimate development of the annexation area is not expected to have a
significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XVI. b)- f)
Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate buildout
of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the
overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be
significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services,
and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection
fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project.
These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
G:\WPDOCS\EA Add CoraIMt.WPD