CC Resolution 2001-008RESOLUTION NO. 2001-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-050, VILLAGE USE
PERMIT 2000-005 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29909
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6th day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-406 prepared for Specific Plan 2000-050, Village
Use Permit 2000-005 and Tentative Parcel Map 29909, located on the north side of
Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive; 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 2000-406 prepared for Specific Plan 2000-050, Village
Use Permit 2000-005 and Tentative Parcel Map 29909, located on the north side of
Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive, more particularly
described as follows:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:
770-020-001 & 770-020-002
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-406)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
included in the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 2000-050, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of
all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2001-08
Environmental Assessment 2000-406
Santa Rosa Plaza
February 6, 2001
Page 2
1. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29909 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigable impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2000-406.
2. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29909 will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
Population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29909 do not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29909 will not result in impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29909 will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan, as
proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time
of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
Resolution No. 2001-08
Environmental Assessment 2000-406
Santa Rosa Plaza
February 6, 2001
Page 3
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-406 for the
reasons set forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department, with the deletion of Planning Commission recommended Condition
#15.A. of the Specific Plan.
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 Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: Council Member Adolph
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH J. PENA, Wkyor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU REEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2001-08
Environmental Assessment 2000-406
Santa Rosa Plaza
February 6, 2001
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-- C
nM. JENSON, i Att rney
yoaQuinta, California
7
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005,
- Parcel Map 29909
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Calle Tampico, between Desert Club and
Avenida Bermudas.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC
P. O. Box 1503
Palm Desert, CA 92261
6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: 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.)
Specific Plan to establish development standards for 217 hotel rooms, and
49,160 square feet of retail and office commercial space. The hotel includes
conference and spa facilities, as well as 72 "casitas," which are on an adjacent
parcel but not an integrated portion of the hotel. The Village Use Permit is for
review of the hotel portion of the project only. The Parcel Map will create a total
of 11 lots, for each of the buildings within the project.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel
South: Three retail commercial lots are developed at the southwestern
corner, including convenience store and restaurant. Calle
Tampico, Village Commercial land, currently vacant also occur to
the south.
East: Desert Club, Village Commercial land currently vacant, and
Medium Density Residential land built out for a school.
West: Avenida Bermudas, Village Commercial and Medium High
Residential lands, currently vacant.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEACkist1 .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
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
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 a
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact,, or "ess ❑
mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzedtinlansearlier 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 r
g p oposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
11
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
OHRISTI M DI IORIO
Printed Name
Date
CITY OF LA OUINTA
For
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEACkist.WPD
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1 . A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the 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 1 5063(c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses 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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEACkist.WPD
3
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?
IL 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? (Site Visit)
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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
051
X
X
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application Materials)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Application Materials)
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 FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
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
FEIR, p. 4-67 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 FEIR, p. 4-67
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 FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Municipal Code)
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? ("Limited Archaeological Testing on TPM 29909,"
prepared by CRM Tech, December 2000)
KI
1'/
*51
91
X
9
X
X
Q
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)? ("Limited Archaeological Testing on TPM
29909," prepared by CRM Tech, December 2000)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Limited Archaeological
Testing on TPM 29909," prepared by CRM Tech, December
2000)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-39)
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 FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-34 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 FEIR, p. 4-34 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)
EV
X
X
X
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-1 1)
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)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
0
X
Q
X
X
Q
X
L4
0
a
►Lq
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial Photo)
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. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
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.)
X
X
X
X
KI
X
KI
X
X
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? (Land Use Map)
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? (Land Use Map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Aerial Photo)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Aerial
Photo)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XV. TRANS PO RTATIO N /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)? (Traffic Study prepared by
Korve Engineering, 1 1 /2000)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(Traffic Study prepared by Korve Engineering, 1 1 /2000)
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 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
X
H4X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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.
19
91
X
E
- 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.
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.
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-406
a) & c)
Calle Tampico is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The
corner of Avenida Bermudas and Caile Tampico is also identified as a Secondary
Gateway Treatment in the General Plan. The proposed project includes the
required setbacks and landscaping for such designations.
The proposed office and retail commercial buildings are proposed for single and
two story construction. The hotel building, however, is proposed for 6 stories,
with a total height of 78 feet. The Village Commercial standards in the
Development Code allow up to 35 feet, plus added height for uninhabitable
projections. The Specific Plan can modify such standards, and proposes to do
so in this case. The proposed project is located in the Village, which is generally
flat, and benefits from exceptional views of the mountain which surround it.
The line of sight studies shown in the Specific Plan, though "not to scale" can
be interpreted, showing significant grade differentials (10 feet or more).
Analysis of the grading plan, however, shows that the grade differential from
Calle Tampico to the Evacuation Channel is no more than three feet. From the
Duna La Quinta subdivision, the project will create a substantial blockage of
views to the west and south, which are the primary mountain viewsheds in the
City. The visual impact of the building, therefore, will be significant. In order to
mitigate this impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . The overall building height for the hotel shall not exceed 55 feet, or a
maximum of 4 stories.
I. d) The project site is currently vacant desert land, and is in an area of the City
which benefits from low lighting levels. The project proponent shall be required
to meet the standards of the Municipal Code regarding lighting. All lighting
fixtures shall be required to be flush mounted, down -lights. These conditions of
approval will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
III. a) e)
The uses proposed in the Specific Plan are to be consistent with the Village
Commercial land use designation in the General Plan. As such, land uses were
analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project will create
50,000 ± square feet of retail commercial land uses, and up to 217 hotel
rooms. Based on the land uses proposed, the project can be expected to
generate approximately 2,959 trips per day'. Based on this, as shown in the
Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
"Traffic Study," prepared by Korve Engineering, November 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 1
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
35 mph 81.9 4.25 10.1 0.0 0.33 0.33
8 2
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 2,959 trips/day and average trip length of 5.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75*F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
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 PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. 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.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 2
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
1 1 . All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate
transportation measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions
shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances
in effect at the time of development.
The proposed project includes the possibility of restaurants, which could result
in cooking odors. These odors will be transient, and should not be considered
objectionable. No other objectionable sources are anticipated for the project site.
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 the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project
site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the
proposed project falls within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City
determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of
the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined
that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively
significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that
the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its
boundaries.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 3
IV. a) The site has been significantly impacted, and is surrounded on all sides by either
roadways or existing development. As such, it does not represent quality
habitat, and is unlikely to support significant numbers of species.
V. a) & b)
An archaeological resource analysis was conducted for the proposed project'.
This included on -site testing, which uncovered no archaeological resources. The
archaeological resource analysis therefore recommends the following mitigation
measure:
1. Should any grading or earth moving activity on the site uncover an
archaeological resource, all construction activity shall cease until an
archaeological monitor has been retained by the project proponent. The
monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect earthmoving
activities. A plan for its evaluation and treatment should be developed in
consultation with the Community Development Department. The monitor
shall file a final report with the Community Development Department.
VI. a) i)
The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. No known
earthquake fault occurs within several miles of the proposed project. The
potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) i0
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 impacts to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The soils on
the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic event.
The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical
analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below).
This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a
less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils
on the proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly
compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's
standards for site preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City
Engineer. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site,
2 "Limited Archaeological Testing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 29909," prepared by CRM Tech,
December, 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 4
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 structure(s) being
constructed.
VIII. a)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. 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)
Although the proposed project will utilize water for irrigation and operations, the
potential impacts are expected to be less than significant. 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 use of water
within the hotel and casitas will be slightly greater than the balance of the
commercial site. The project proponent will, however, be required to implement
the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures, and water tolerant
landscaping. These regulations will reduce the potential impacts 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 lots will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into
the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed
project will retain 100 year storms on site, and will also provide an overflow
connection to the Calle Tampico storm drain. The City Engineer will impose
conditions of approval to ensure that any drainage is properly treated, if needed,
and that adequate capacity exists in the City's system to accommodate the
proposed project. No significant impact is expected.
XI. a), b) & c)
The proposed project occurs in a relatively quiet area of the City. The
construction of the hotel and casitas represent sensitive receptors. They are,
however, located at least 600 feet north of Calle Tampico. The project will be
required to maintain exterior and interior noise standards which meet or exceed
the Municipal Code standards, including construction improvements if
necessary. The impacts potentially created by noise are not expected to be
significant.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 5
XII. a)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as the commercial
land uses and hotel will require employees. The housing market in the City is
currently strong, and provides for a variety of housing opportunities for all
income levels. The potential impact is not expected to be significant.
XIII. a)
The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential
impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will
generate sales and use tax and property tax. These taxes will contribute to the
City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service.
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. In addition, the
revenues generated by the site will result in sales tax for the City, which will
offset any needs for additional municipal services. The proposed project is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XV. a) & b)
A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project3. The traffic analysis
found that the project will generate 2,959 average daily trips at buildout. The
traffic study found that the project would not have significant impacts on traffic
and circulation, with the inclusion of the following mitigation measures:
1. Prior to the third phase of construction, the project proponent shall
construct, or shall cause to be constructed, a longer left turn pocket on
southbound Desert Club at Calle Tampico. The length of the pocket shall
be determined by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to the third phase of construction, signal timing adjustments and/or
phase revisions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be
completed.
3. The project proponent shall participate in the signalization of Eisenhower
and Calle Tampico. Such signalization shall be complete prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits for phase 2 of construction.
4. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase of the project,
the City Engineer shall review the potential impacts generated by that
phase, and determine whether timing adjustment and/or split phasing
must be completed.
3 "Traffic Study," prepared by Korve Engineering, November 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 6
XVI. f)
The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact on utilities
and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these
services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge
the business operators for their services, and provide improvements to these
services as needed.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\SP2000-050SantaRosaEA Addendum.WPD 7