CC Resolution 2006-119RESOLUTION NO. 2006-119
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 2006-108 AND ZONE
CHANGE 2006-130, ANNEXATION #18
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-576
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 21 st day
of November, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the
City of La Quinta for approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for General
Plan Amendment 2006-108, Zone Change 2006-130 and Annexation #18, referred to
as the "Project" for the annexation of 11.62 acres of land located at the southeast
corner of Hidden River Road and Washington Street, and more, particularly described
as:
A.P.N: 609-040-005, 609-040-007, 609-040-023
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
171h day of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution
2005-037 recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2006-576; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et.
seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Negative
Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the 11 th day
of October, 2006 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on 10th
day of November, 2006, such notice was also mailed to all landowners within 500
feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such notice; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
-following findings to certify said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2006-119
Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18
City of La Quinta
Adopted: November 21, 2006
Page 2
1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance
with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The
Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately
describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project, and based
upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, .and the entire record of
proceeding for this Project, that there will not be a significant environmental
effect resulting from this project.
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were
identified by Environmental Assessment 2006-576.
3. The 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.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
5. The Project does 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.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
7. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant unmitigated
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or
public services.
Resolution No. 2006-119
Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18
City of La Quints
Adopted: November 21, 2006
Page 3
8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Negative Declaration and the
comments, if any, received thereon.
9. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City Council.
10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City Council decision is based upon is in the La Quinta City Hall,
Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253.
11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code § 711.2.
12. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations
753.5(d).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
Environmental Assessment 2006-576 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 and attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 21 st day of November, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2006-119
Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18
City of La Quinta
Adopted: November 21, 2006
Page 4
DON ADOLPH, Mayor
City of La Quinta California
ATTEST:
VERONICA J. WNTECINO, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Qui ta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: General Plan Amendment #2006-108, Change of Zone 2006-130, and
Annexation #18 into the City of La Quinta. A General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone
to establish pre -annexation designations for 11.3 acres for lands to be added to the City's
sphere of influence and corporate boundaries.
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Doug Evans
760-777-7125
4. Project location: East side of Washington Street, south of Hidden River Road. Assessor's
Parcel Numbers: 609-040-005 and -007
5. Project sponsors name and address:: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning:
County: Medium Density Residential (2-5 County: R-3-2,000 and R-1-12,000
dulac) Proposed: High Density Residential
Proposed: High Density Residential (up to 16 (up to 16 units/acre)
units/acre)
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 and Change of Zone are required as part of a Sphere of
Influence amendment and Annexation request to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
The pre -annexation designation being sought is High Density Residential, allowing up to 16
units per acre.
The City of La Quinta proposes the amendment of its sphere of influence, and concurrent
annexation of two parcels of land currently located in unincorporated Riverside County. The
northerly parcel, consisting of 3.79 acres, is fully developed with 72 existing apartments. The
vacant :land, 7.5 acres in size, is currently vacant. The vacant property could be developed
with up to 120 additional multi -family residential units.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Hidden River Road, multi -family residential development
South: Under construction, High Density Residential
West: Washington Street, single family residential development
East: Vacant desert lands
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE ECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upn he propf*r-bject, nothing further is required.
Signature
r ,, %
J,,✓r • '
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-4-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on aesthetics. The eventual
development of 120 multi -family residences on the southerly 7.5 acres will result in the
construction of buildings which are likely to be 2 or 3 stories in height. This is consistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance standards for the High Density Residential designation.
The site is located on a major arterial roadway, and development of 2 or 3 story buildings
will be similar in nature to development in the area. Views in this area are primarily to the
southwest. Properties to the east, developed as single family residential, will not be
significantly impacted by development to the west, insofar as their viewsheds to the
southwest will continue. In addition, the City's Zoning standards require additional
setbacks, depending on building height, in the High Density Residential zone.
Development standards and site plan review procedures will be required by the City when
development occurs on the site. These processes will assure that potential impacts
associated with the design of the project relating to aesthetics are reduced to a less than
significant level.
There are no rock outcroppings, significant trees or historic structures on the site.
The eventual development of up to 120 multi -family residential units on the property will
increase light on the site, which is currently vacant. The primary sources of light
associated with this development will be landscaping and building lighting, and lighting
associated parking and with vehicle traffic. The northerly 3.79 acres is currently
developed, and impacts associated with light will not change from current conditions. The
vacant land is located on a major arterial, which already is impacted by light sources,
primarily vehicles. The City will enforce lighting standards contained in its Zoning
Ordinance, which prohibit the spillage of lighting to adjacent properties. These standards
-5-
will assure that impacts associated with lighting will be kept at less than significant
levels.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the rc j ect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract'?' (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
Ii. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on agricultural resources. The
northerly parcel is currently fully developed, and no change will occur on this parcel. The
vacant lands is currently vacant desert lands, and no agricultural activity occurs on the
parcel. The parcels are both designated and zoned for urban residential development on
the County General Plan and Zoning maps. The City also proposes urban residential
designations. The land is not appropriate for agricultural activities, given its location on a
major arterial, with urban development surrounding it. There are no Williamson Act
contracts on either property. Commercial nurseries are located several hundred feet to the
east of the proposed annexation area. The annexation of the subject parcels will have no
impact on these nurseries. No impacts associated with agricultural resources will result
from the proposed project.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
M. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on air quality. The northerly
3.79 acre parcel is fully developed, and air emissions from this property will not change.
The eventual development of the 7.5 acres will generate emissions during construction
and operation of the up to 120 residential units which could occur on the site.
Both parcels have been considered for development in the County General Plan. The
County General Plan was part of the basis for the preparation of South Coast Air Quality
Management District plans for the Coachella Valley. As a result, ultimate development of
the vacant lands is expected to be consistent with the District's plans for the Coachella
Valley.
During construction, the vacant land has the potential to generate fugitive dust caused by
grading activities. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate
matter of 10 microns or less). Fugitive dust can be a source of PM10. Table 1, below,
illustrates the potential dust generation from the vacant land, should it be mass graded.
-8-
Table 1
Fugitive Dust Potential
(sounds Der dav)
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
7.5 26.4 198.0
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management
District, April 1993.
As demonstrated in the Table, fugitive dust will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of
significance, without mitigation. However, the City requires the preparation of PM 10
Management Plans for all construction projects. These plans include best management
practices required by the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan to reduce dust
generation on construction sites. The Management Plan for the vacant lands will assure
that impacts associated with grading of the site will result in less than significant impacts
to air quality.
The construction of up to 120 multi -family residential units has the potential to generate
up to 791 trips per day'. These trips will impact regional air quality through exhaust
emissions. The total emissions anticipated as a result of these trips are illustrated in Table
2, below.
Table 2
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day
Ave. Trip
Total
Length (miles)
miles/day
71'L
x 15
= 11,865
_
Pollutant
CO
NOX ROG
SOX PM10
Pounds
152.1
16.1 16.4
0.1 1.4
SCAQMD Thresholds of
Significance
550
55 55
150 150
URBEBMIS Version 2.2
Scenario Year 2007 -- Model Years 1965 to 2007
Pollutant - Vehicle CO NOX ROG SOX PM10
0.012920 0.001383 00 : i19 0.000115
As shown in the Table, operation of the 120 units will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds
of significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant.
1 "Trip Generation, 7 h Edition," prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 221, Low -Rise
Apartments.
-9-
The annexation will not generate objectionable odors, and will not expose sensitive
receptors to concentrations of pollutants.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(General Plan MEA 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 MEA 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 apprgved local, regional, or state
-11-
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA p. 72 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological resources.
Future development on the site will be reviewed by the City under the provisions of
CEQA. As the vacant land is not developed, this will include consideration of biological
resources. However, the vacant land is not located near an area designated for special
status species habitat, and is sparsely vegetated. It is likely that the parcel does not harbor
sensitive species.
The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and shall be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the
time development occurs, if that Plan is still in effect. If the City has adopted the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, that fee will apply.
-12-
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? C'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? (MEA 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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on cultural resources.
No further development will occur on the northerly parcel. On the vacant land, the City
will conduct review under CEQA when development is proposed. This will include
review of the project site by the Historic Preservation Committee, which has jurisdiction
over recommendations on archaeological and historic resources. This requirement of the
City will assure that potential impacts associated with archaeological and historic
resources are less than significant.
Both parcels are outside the historic lake bed of Lake Cahuilla, and no paleontologic
resources are expected to occur on the site.
Neither parcel is known to have been a burial ground or cemetery. California law requires
that any remains unearthed during grading be reported to law enforcement authorities,
who follow a strict protocol for their recovery. These requirements of law will assure that
impacts to human remains are less than significant.
-13-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on geologic resources.
Both parcels will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of an earthquake..
The northerly parcel is developed, and no further impacts are expected from that
development. The vacant land could eventually see the development of up to 120 multi-
family residential units. These units will be required to submit building plans prior to
construction. The City reviews building plans using the latest provisions of the Uniform
-14-
Building Code for seismically active areas. The plans will be required to conform to these
standards, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels.
Neither site is subject to liquefaction, due to the depth to groundwater. The area is flat,
and no landslide potential occurs. Development on the vacant land will be required to
comply with City standards to prevent erosion during construction. Soils in the City are
not expansive. The vacant land, when developed, will be required to connect to sanitary
sewer service provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD).
Overall impacts associated with soils and geology are expected to be insignificant.
-15-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project -
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two. miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ft)
-16-
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wil.dland 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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact from hazards and hazardous
materials.
Any residential project proposed on the vacant land will be added to the City's waste
franchisee's, Waste Management of the Desert, service area. Waste Management is
responsible for the appropriate disposal of the small amounts of household hazardous
waste generated in residential projects. Overall impacts are expected to be insignificant.
The two parcels are not located in an area subject to wildland fires.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there .
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. III-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. III-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
.Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
-18-
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
f)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on hydrology or water
resources.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) currently provides water to the northerly
parcel. When development occurs on the vacant land, domestic water will supplied by
CVWD also. CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has
sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. CVWD has
implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment
measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term.
The City will require compliance with NPDES standards, requiring that potential
pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters, and that storm flows be controlled
within a project site.
These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less
than significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. When development
occurs on the vacant land, the City Engineer will review and approve the drainage
analysis for the project proposed prior to the issuance of any permits. These City
standards will assure that impacts of build out of the land associated with hydrology will
be less than significant.
VIII. e)-g) Neither parcel is located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project ,
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land
Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on land use and planning.
The County General Plan currently designates the parcels Medium Density Residential.
As such, the existing apartment building is non -conforming. The balance of the property
is vacant, and under the County General Plan, could develop into up to 38 residential
units. The City proposes High Density Residential on all annexed properties, which will
make the existing apartments on the northern parcel conforming with the General Plan,
and will allow up to 120 residential units on the vacant lands. City General Plan
designations immediately to the south of the proposed annexation area include High
Density Residential, Commercial Office and Community Commercial. The proposed pre -
annexation zoning will therefore be consistent with City designations in this area.
Lands to the east, which will remain in the County, are generally designated for lower
density residential development. The City's zoning development standards, including
requirements for additional setbacks for multiple story buildings, will provide a buffer to
these land uses. Impacts associated with land use compatibility are expected to b
insignificant.
Development on both sides of Washington Street in this area is a mix of single family
residential, multi -family residential and institutional uses. Immediately to the south of the
annexation area, apartments are currently under construction within the City limits. The
development of additional multi -family dwellings on the vacant land, therefore, is
consistent with both the City's proposed designation, and the character of the area in
which the land is located. No impacts are expected.
-20-
The ultimate development of the vacant lands will not displace an existing community.
No change is anticipated to the northerly parcel, which will continue to be an apartment
project.
Future development will be required to comply with habitat conservation planning
adopted at the time that development occurs.
-21-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on mineral resources. Both
parcels are within the MRZ-1 Zone, and are therefore not considered to have potential for
mineral resources.
-22-
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 groundborne 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. I11-144 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. III-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on noise. The eventual
development of the vacant land will be reviewed under CEQA at the time that
development is proposed. The City will review potential noise impacts, and consider
noise mitigation as necessary. Further, the Uniform Building Code requires the submittal
of noise analyses for interior and exterior noise levels with the submittal of building
plans. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. Existing City
-23-
standards and requirements, therefore, will assure that impacts associated with noise will
be less than significant.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w1
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly ( for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on population and housing.
Development of the vacant land could generate up to 312 persons, based on the City's
current household size. This does not represent a substantial increase in population, and
would be absorbed as part of the City's normal growth patterns.
The vacant land is currently vacant, and an existing apartment project occurs on the
northerly parcel. The vacant land will eventually be developed for multi -family housing,
having no impact on population, and a positive impact on housing. There is no
anticipated change for the northerly parcel, which will continue to provide housing for
senior citizens as it currently does. No impacts are expected.
-25-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on public services.
The area is already served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments, on contract
to the City. Under current conditions, 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 also
serve to offset these costs. Future development on the vacant land may be required to pay
a public facilities fee, if such a fee is adopted by the City at that time.
The vacant lands will, when developed, pay the mandated school fees to offset the
impacts to schools.
The City imposes both Quimby fees and development impact fees to offset the cost of
purchase and maintenance of parks, respectively. These fees will be required for the
development of the vacant lands, and will offset the costs associated with the provision of
parks in the area.
Overall impacts associated with public services are expected to be less than significant.
-26-
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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on recreational facilities. As
stated under Public Services, above, the City will impos Quimby and development impact
fees to offset the need for additional recreational facilities caused by the development of
the vacant lands. Impacts are expected to be insignificant.
-27-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EM 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 EIR, 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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on traffic and circulation. The
General Plan EIR analyzed regional traffic not only within the City's limits, but also in
surrounding jurisdictions which affect City streets. This analysis found that the area
surrounding the proposed project will operate at acceptable levels of service at build out
of the General Plan. Although the proposed density under the City's proposed designation
-28-
would result in a small increase in the number of trips generated, this increase is expected
to be fractional. Further, the City will review the development proposal for the vacant
lands under CEQA when it is submitted, and will study traffic impacts further at that
time.
The site is located adjacent to Washington Street, on which SunLine currently provides
public transit. No impact is expected.
-29-
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.)
-30-
XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on utilities.
The eventual development of the vacant lands 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.
Water supplies have been found adequate in CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan
(please see Hydrology and Water Resources, above). CVWD will also provide sanitary
sewer services to the sites, and has sufficient capacity to serve both parcels.
The City's solid waste franchisee will service the two parcels, and haul waste to the
transfer station at Edom Hill. From this location, solid waste will be transferred to one of
several regional landfills for disposal.
Impacts associated with utilities are expected to be insignificant.
-31-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVH. 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, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological or cultural
resources. Further environmental review, or the standards imposed by the City, will
assure that potential impacts associated with development of the vacant lands are reduced
to less than significant levels.
XVH. b) The annexation of the two parcels will further the City's goals of providing a wide range
of housing of all types to current and future residents.
XVH. c) Cumulative impacts analyzed in the City's General Plan EIR were associated with
regional air quality. The City found that the ultimate development of the General Plan
overrode the potential impacts associated with air quality. As shown under the air quality
-32-
discussion above, the development of the vacant lands will not significantly impact air
quality.
XVII. d) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and
annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on human beings. The
eventual development of the vacant lands will be subject to environmental review, and
will implement any mitigation measures necessary, if impacts to human beings are
identified.
-33-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The La Quinta General Plan EIR was used in this analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable.
-34-