CC Resolution 2001-004RESOLUTION NO. 2001-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071, CHANGE
OF ZONE 2000-096, VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AND
VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA DESIGN GUIDELINES AMENDED
BOUNDARIES
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-402
APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 2"d day of January, 2001 hold a Public Hearing and continued said hearing with
a duly -noticed Public Hearing to the 6 h day of February to consider Environmental
Assessment 2000-402 for General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Change of Zone
2000-096, and Village Use Permit 2000-04 herein referred to as the "Project" for
Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. and the City of La Quinta; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23RD day of January, 2001 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Change
of Zone 2000-096, and Village Use Permit 2000-04 herein referred to as the "Project"
for Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. and the City of La Quinta; and,
WHEREAS, said Project 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 2000-402) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact could 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:
Resolution No. 2001-04
Environmental Assessment 2000-402
Chapman Golf Development
February 6, 2001
Page 2
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed 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 by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2000-
402 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
8. EA 2000-402 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 922253.
Resolution No. 2001-04
Environmental Assessment 2000-402
Chapman Golf Development
February 6, 2001
Page 3
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-402 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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 6th day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
J N PENA, ayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN EEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2001-04
Environmental Assessment 2000-402
Chapman Golf Development
February 6, 2001
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSO , City Attorne
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Change of Zone
2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-04
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 52, east of Desert Club Dr.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Chapman Golf Development
78-505 Old Avenue 52
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Village Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Village Use Permit to allow the construction of an 8,600 square foot
restaurant, outside patio dining and associated parking and landscaping on
4.2 acres. Since the land is currently designated Low Density Residential, a
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are also required.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Currently vacant, designated for Village Commercial
South: Existing single family residential and golf course
East: Medium Density Residential north of Ave. 52; Low Density Residential
south of Ave. 52
West: Currently vacant, designated for Village Commercial
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ChapmanChecklist_EA00-407.wpd
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by
or agreed to by the applicant. 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" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
Signature
CHUSTINE DI IORIO
Printed Name
November 20. 2000
Date
CITY OF LA OUINTA
For
L0l
7
L-I
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ChapmanCheeklist_EA00-407.wpd
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration": Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
-- CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ChapmanChecklist_EA00-407.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
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 on -agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
G4
R.
ro
KI
R.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
(General Plan EIR)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) X
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.69)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 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? (General Plan EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan
EIR p. 4.65 ff.)
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,
page 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, page 4-77 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed boundary map, City of La Quinta)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, page 4-77 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI.
VH.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EK Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan, page 8-7)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
0./
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIIL 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? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Keith Companies, October,
2000)
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'? (Preliminary Hydrology
Report, The Keith Companies, October, 2000)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Preliminary Hvdrology Report, The Keith Companies, October, 2000)
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? (Application Materials)
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 costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/9
X
M
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availabilitv 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)
XL 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)
XH. 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)
XIH. 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. )
0
X
M
/V
FIR
X
/M
X
X
X
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. )
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)? (Application materials)
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)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
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 ff.)
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 4-24 ff.)
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 4-24 ff.)
X
/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1't
F.9
X
M
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 4-24 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS.
►V
KI
X
X
9/
X
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-402
I. a) & c) Avenue 52 is designated a secondary image corridor in the General Plan. This
designation requires that particular attention be placed on parkway landscaping for the proposed
project. The project has a low intensity o use, however, and provides more landscaping along
Avenue 52 than would be typical. This will reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas to a less
than significant level.
I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The project proponent will be required
to comply with the City's lighting standards. In addition, the bulk of the lighting will occur in the
parking lot area, which is bordered to the north by commercial lands in the Village Commercial
designation. No sensitive receptors are located adjacent to the proposed project. The site's lighting
impacts are not expected to be significant.
III. c), d) & e) Based on the restaurant land use proposed, the project can be expected to generate
approximately 774 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not
exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
45 mph 15.24 0.68 2.73 0.0 0.07 0.07
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 774 trips/day and average trip length of 4.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model
provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75T. *
Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the
significance of a project.
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has determined that the
Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is pending. In order to control PM10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests
mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a
PM 10 Management Plan by the City Engineer.
Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition, for single family residential.
EA 2000-399
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles
to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior
to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site
that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is
formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed
upon.
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.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from
the proposed project 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 which
may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis.
IV. a), d), e) The site has been impacted by development activity and is not located within fluvial
deposit areas. Therefore, although shown in the General Plan EIR as being within the habitat range
of the California ditaxis, its occurrence is not expected on the project site. As disturbed and isolated
habitat, the project site is not expected to currently provide a high quality environment for any
significant species.
V. a), b) & d) As previously stated, the project site has been significantly impacted. Previous
development and improvement of Avenue 52 and surrounding lands have caused significant
disturbance. Further, the area has not yielded significant archaeological resources in the past. It is
not expected that such resources shall occur on the site. Impacts to archaeological resources are not
expected to be significant.
VI. a) i) The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. The potential
impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) ii) The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has adopted
the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard. Construction of any structure on the
project site will conform to these standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than
significant level.
VI. b) & c) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area, but is composed of Myoma fine
sand, which can be unstable if not properly compacted prior to construction. The City's standards
for site preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to reduce the impacts
of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the
applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site
specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific
structures being constructed.
VIII. a) The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -site.
The water will be retained in retention basins which shall be designed to meet the standards
established by the City Engineer. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning"
devices when necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water system.
This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water quality standard to a less than
significant level.
VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts
groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The District will require the
installation of water conserving landscaping, as well as the adherence to building code requirements
for water conserving fixtures within the homes. This will reduce the potential impacts associated
with the proposed project to a less than significant level.
VIII. c), d) & e)
Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for
percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and parking areas will reduce
the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase
surface runof. The proposed project will direct surface runoff to retention basins located within the
— project. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that any drainage is properly
treated, if needed. No significant impact is expected.
EA 2000-399
3
VIII. f) The proposed project is located in a Zone AO flood zone, in an area subject to
flooding in a 100 year storm. However, as a commercial structure, the project will not place
residences in such a flood zone. The City Engineer will condition the proposed project to ensure that
the building is safe from flooding as part of the building permit process. No significant impact is
expected.
IX. b) The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from
Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. This represents a significant change in the
proposed land use for the project site. The site is surrounded on the north and west by commercially
designated lands, on the south by an arterial roadway, and on the east by Medium and Low Density
Residential lands. The isolated nature of the parcel, as well as its adjacency to commercially
designated lands, reduces the potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone
to a less than significant level. The change to the Village Commercial designation in this area is a
logical extension of the designation.
The General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone also include a parcel of land
located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, south of Calle Tampico. A series of lots, currently
designated Medium Density Residential, are proposed for Village Commercial. The intersection of
Calle Tampico and Eisenhower, which both currently carry considerable traffic, is the gateway to
the Village area. Traffic on Eisenhower is expected to continue to increase, and make residential
development more and more incompatible. The potential impacts of the General Plan Amendment
and Change of Zone on this area, therefore, are also not expected to be significant.
XI. a), b) & c)
The proposed project site is isolated, but does occur adjacent to residential
development. Although noise contours at the project site from vehicular traffic are not expected to
exceed those acceptable for commercial development, the residential lands to the east could be
impacted by construction noise. In order to lower the potential impacts associated with construction
on the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
l . All construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
2. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that noise is directed away
from the eastern side of the property.
3. Construction staging areas shall be located along the western property line.
4. All construction shall occur during the hours allowed in the La Quinta Municipal
Code.
XIII. a) The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential impacts
for all public services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will
contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to public services. All
development has an impact on governmental facilities and services. The project proponent will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway
improvements. The proposed project will be required to pay school fees in effect at the time of
development to mitigate for the impacts to schools. The proposed project is not expected to have a
significant impact on services or facilities.
XV. a) The proposed project was analysed as a Low Density Residential development in the
General Plan. A 4.2 acre area could generate up to 20 residential units, which would result in
approximately 213 daily trips. As previously stated, the proposed project will generate
approximately 774 daily trips. The increase in traffic however, is occurring on a street which is
expected to display acceptable levels of service at buildout in the area of the proposed project
(17,000 ADT, with a capacity for up to 28,000 ADT). The increase in traffic caused by the proposed
project is therefore not expected to be significant.
XVI. b), d) & 0
All development impacts utilities and service systems. The proposed project,
however, will be required to meet the standards of the City and service providers in constructing
facilities which are energy efficient and water conserving. The construction of the proposed project
will have a limited impact on solid waste disposal. However, the restaurant operator will be required
to participate in the City's AB 939 programs, which are designed to reduce the impacts to landfills.
The overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant.
EA 2000-399
5