CC Resolution 2001-016RESOLUTION NO. 2001-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-075,
ZONE CHANGE 2001-067, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-051,
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-007 AND VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30043
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411
APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORP.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 6th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 for General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone
Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting
Tract Map 30043 located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle
Tampico, more particularly described as follows:
APN 773-022-014 and 773-022-032
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 27th day of February, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 for General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone
Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting
Tract Map 30043 located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle
Tampico and unanimously recommended Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1 under
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-017; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-41 1)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075,
Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and
Vesting Tract Map 30043 could have a significant adverse impact on the environment,
there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation
measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of
approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed;
and,
Resolution No. 2001-16
Environmental Assessment 2001-411
KSL Development Corp. - Vista Montana
March 6, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying said Environmental
Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067,
Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map
30043 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated
impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067,
Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map
30043 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067,
Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map
30043 do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on
environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067,
Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map
30043 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively
considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly
affected by the proposed project.
Resolution No. 2001-16
Environmental Assessment 2001-411
KSL Development Corp. - Vista Montana
March 6, 2001
Page 3
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067,
Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tract Map
30043 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human
population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been
identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001 -411 and
the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. 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 2001-41 1 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-411 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 6th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
Resolution No. 2001-16
Environmental Assessment 2001-411
KSL Development Corp. - Vista Montana
Mach 6, 2001
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Peria
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
J'a. REEK, CMC, Cit9-et c
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AKATHE NE JENSON ity Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
w
JOH J. E4A,aor
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-075, Change of Zone
2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use Permit
2001-007
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: Northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: KSL Development Corporation
55920 PGA Boulevard
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Village Commercial & Medium High
Density Residential
Proposed: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Village Commercial and Medium High 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.)
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to change Medium High Density Residential
land to Village Commercial on a portion of a 33 acre site. Specific Plan to establish design
guidelines and development standards for 227 whole ownership single family dwellings
with the leasig potential of 365 guest rooms, 20,000 square feet of retail commercial,
20,600 square feet of corporate office space, a 40,000 square foot distribution center and
630 employee parking spaces. Village Use Permit for review of the development plan for
the residential guest room buildings and the 20,600 s.f. Corporate office building. Vesting
Tract Map to divide the land into 16 lots and 17 lettered lots.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel, golf course at Duna La Quinta
South: Calle Tampico, generally vacant Village Commercial lands
East: Vacant Village Commercial lands, recently approved for hotel and
commercial development
West: Eisenhower Drive, golf course
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.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
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services
Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Noise Mandatory Findings
Population and Housing
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 DECLAP-11TION will
be prepared.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1-1
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.
C ❑
Signature Date
Christine di Iorio CITY OF LA OI TINTA
Printed Name For
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.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 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). 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
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Ckist.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? (Application
materials)
H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
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)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials)
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
91
X
►j
I.1
X
X
X
X
4
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) I I I 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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1 / 17/01)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (LSA, letter report,
1/17/01)
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? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," CRM Tech,
1 /8/2001)
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)? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing
Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1N
X
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
VI.
VII.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and
Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
6
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 6-11)
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)
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? (Preliminary Hydrology Report, MDS Consulting, 1/17/01)
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, MDS Consulting, 1/17/01)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(Preliminary Hydrology Report, MDS Consulting, 1/17/01)
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)
M
X
X
//
X
R.
0
II@
KI
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description) r I I X
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
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? (General Plan Land Use Element)
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)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA,
1/16/01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? ("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA,
1/16/01)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ("Noise
Impact Analysis," LSA, 1/16/01)
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? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
IN
M
X
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
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)
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)?("Traffic Impact
Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo
Engineering, 1 / 16/01)
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? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
►.1
X
X
X
X
F3
R.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
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)
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 ANALYSES.
X
X
X
X
11
X
M
F�
FIq
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.
No earlier analyses 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.
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
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.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," prepared by CRM Tech, January
8, 2001.
"Vista Montana Village Use Permit Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering,
January 16, 2001.
Letter Report regarding biological resources prepared by LSA, January 17, 2001.
"Vista Montana Development Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by LSA, January 16, 2001.
"Preliminary Hydrology Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, January 17, 2002.
G:\WPDOCS\VMEA Cklst.WPD
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-412
Vista Montana
I.a)&c)
Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive are both Primary Image Corridors in the
General Plan. In addition, the intersection of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico is
designated for Primary Gateway Treatment, and the intersection of Calle
Tampico and Avenida Bermudas is designated a Secondary Gateway Treatment.
This designation requires that special landscaping, building heights and building
setbacks be incorporated into project design. The Specific Plan and Village Use
Permit have incorporated these standards, with the exception of building height.
The proposed residential project is planned for a maximum 37 foot height,
which is 2 feet above the height limit in the Village Commercial Zone. In order
to" mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1. The maximum building height in the residential component of the
proposed project shall be 35 feet.
I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not
generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the
area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for
outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and
contained within the project site. These standards will mitigate the potential
impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
III. a), c) & d)
The proposed project is consistent with the Village Commercial land use
designation assigned to the site. The northerly one-third, currently designated
for Medium High Density Residential, is proposed for Village Commercial
designation. A high density residential project on this site would generate a
comparable number of trips as the residential component of the proposed
project. Similar land uses were analysed as part of the General Plan EIR. The
proposed project will result in 227 whole ownership single family dwellings with
the leasing potential for 365 guest rooms, 20,000 square feet of retail
commercial development, 20,600 of commercial office development, a 40,000
square foot distribution center, and an employee parking lot. The traffic study
prepared for the proposed project estimates that the project at buildout will
generate 4,370 trips'. As shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed
any SCAQMD thresholds.
1 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
45 mph 215.12 9.65 38.59 -- 0.96 0.96
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 4,370 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 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). 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.
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.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded
with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall
implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation
measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall
be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at
the time of development.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from 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 fall 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.
IV. a) A biological survey was conducted for the proposed project2. The survey found
that the site provides poor habitat due to previous disturbances on the site.
Although common species were found at the time of the survey, no threatened
species are expected to occur on the site. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
2 Letter report prepared by LSA, January, 2001.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
V. b) A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject
property3. The survey and testing found that no resources occur on the site. The
report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered
during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site.
VI. a) i)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. In order to mitigate and protect the City from this
hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated
construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that
impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. This
mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts 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,
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
3 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report, prepared by CRM Tech, January,
2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water
quality standard to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided
by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a
number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project will be required to
retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into
the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's
standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project
will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that
landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce
Potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots,
will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain
event. The project site is located in an AO Flood Zone. The project will,be
required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the
City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. f) & g)
The proposed project is located in an AO flood zone. The City Engineer will
require that all structures on the site are constructed above the potential flood
level in this zone. This standard will serve to mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
XI. a) & c)
A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project4. Noise impacts
exceeding the City's standards will occur during construction activities. At
buildout, however, the proposed project will meet the City's current exterior
noise standard for sensitive receptors. Construction mitigation measures are
offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from noise
are reduced to less than significant levels.
1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
4 Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, January, 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
2. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northern portion of
the site.
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 project will also be
required to pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XV. a) & b)
A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found
that the proposed project will generate approximately 4,370 trips per day at
buildout. The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at
acceptable levels of service, with or without the proposed project. Minor
alterations to lane geometries will be required to accommodate the project, and
are listed below under mitigation measures. The study further found that
signalization would not be necessary for either the project entrance on Calle
Tampico or that on Eisenhower Drive. The following mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
1. Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will be fully improved to their
General Plan half -widths adjacent to the project site.
2. All project exits will be STOP sign controlled.
3. The project proponent will contribute his fair share to the signalization of
Eisenhower and Calle Tampico.
4. The project proponent shall provide lane geometries as depicted in Figure
VI-2 of the Traffic Analysis, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential
impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
XV. d)
The project proposes a right -in, right -out access onto Calle Tampico, between
Avenida Bermudas and the primary site access. The distance between these
drives may not be sufficient to allow for safe ingress and egress. In order to
ensure that this potential impact is mitigated, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
XV. f)
1 . A right -in, right -out access on Calle Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas
and the primary access point to the project, will be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Said access point shall meet all City standards for separation between
driveways. If these standards cannot be met, the access point shall not
be permitted.
The commercial retail component of the proposed project includes the potential
for restaurant land uses. The parking on this portion of the site, however, has
been calculated for general retail use, which is much less stringent than
restaurant use. Should large portions of the retail square footage be dedicated
to restaurant use, the site would have insufficient parking. In order to mitigate
this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . Restaurant use within the Commercial Retail component of the proposed
project shall be limited to 5,000 square feet gross floor area.
XVI. a)-f)
The construction of the proposed project will have an impact on utilities and
public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services
is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the
business operators for their services, and provide improvements to these
services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required of the project
proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate
the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\VM EA Add.WPD
H
N
M
O
N
CIS
0
r,
It
O
N
N
O
M
W
F
A
0
U
H
cd
U
-o
c�
a�
Q
a�
U
W
w
0
CAD
U
co
U
t
O
%/
N _
O
o o
U Ncd
M
a m a
C
Cd U i
�
Q
a� U a
0M
C
�
F
N
oOz
d
U
w
d
Ew-
d
A
w
U
O
U
U
w
F
" O
U �
� o
A. N
"O
G7
0
F
x
O
Ecd
a
� o
a
� U C
o
z
N
z
�
i 0
y
cd
o
' a
=
bo
9
w
W
b o bn
.5
q
to
N
U�
Ca
W
W
00
U U
F
C7
F
G4
O�
a�
mo
z~
oz
0
w
z
�
F
O
Ha
�
w
d
A
Ut
qA
/E
o*
Q�
�
e
\
2
Cd
/
e
d
k
/
En
/
7
/
$
k
/
5 0
U
to
o
(
/
to
o
§
S
�
�
]
�
§ 2 �
�
rn
§
.�
.�
«
•§ (ƒ
ƒ
�
( /
� § § �
k
(
� A
\
\
/ 2
2—
� /
o
&
o ed
cd
k
Q Q U
U
3
3
$ U c
�
O
�
k
§
t
�
•
a
v �
a
\
2
\ S
ƒ
$ 2
c °
'f k
2
/
/
t
cl/
\
f
7
w
�
•
Q
c
E
$
\
b
3
[
k
\
.§
ƒ
/
o
/
� 7
as
Q.
r
w
F
Q
A
U �
zA
aU
w
OV
W
�Fy
U
C7
a
o�
a�a
� O
zz
op
00z
o
W
U
H
d�
I
O
cl. �
O
o
w
F
Q
A
aq
U
zo
Zr�
aU
w
ox
UU
wo
43
-6 m
O
U
� o �
N N
cl �
U O
U cl
G7
c
cl
0
A
a
Wz
p
o
0.0
z
0orA
A
o�
U A
O
4
o
w
a
"tj
cl
U
ocl
o
Cn
W
O OLn
W
U
d
ME
w
Q
A
U
OTC
d AA
� W
� w
O�
UU
w
U
a.
o
c
0
U C
F
.b
� �
o
0
0
a
Wz
a�
b
cn
zz
w 03
U A
�yU
`q
o
o
cticd �.
W
N
Cl y
a„
N
s
�Cf
� �
z
.>
N
En
0 0o
W
Qn
W
� o.
U
a Q
C7
t E
o .�
Ln
a
3
mollolml
U
oho
WA
aU
ox
U U
w
E�
c�
z
H
a
oz
w�
a
as
zec
oz
ao
o�
O
�
O
O
�
Q
A
Qa
Q
>4-1
�
W
N
d
u
c.
�.
gg
=
d
z
w
d
'
A
Um
.a dC
U
w
OV
bA tom,, %b
U
w
0
GJ
U
cl
U U U
O
0
p
a
w
�a o
0-4
z~
a
3Q
go
w �b
U a �
H
w
clng
ccl to to
w
C/I
Q
a
3 o 0
A y,
_
wat
>
_
0.
W
U
� o � . ►.
Cd M
. d
o
WCD.•�
_
7
>C'
a
O
i o
aria
ci. �oES
C
A
ax
JaC
OV
OVV
a
z
�
wz
wz
Op
cC
c
z
z
o
O
A
O
O
w
F
d
w
F
A
d
A
zA
z�
WW
S AA
1W
aU
�w
OV
CV
F"
F,
V
U
_
Cy
a
u
o
Hr
U
�
F
�
�
O
U
C
0
a
wz
a
�z
z zcl
z
a
ao
b
as
z
U
4r
z
°
z
H
°W
C
c
o 0
o
o
0.
t
��
A
Q
o
0-0
2
�-W
¢
o
0-4
to
to
G
W
cn
>
z
a
U
�°
�
a
�,
w
ID
_Enrr
Ln
a
h7
d
�C
z
O
a
z
o
a
z
:.
a
3
0
O
W
w
F„
w
F.
d
G
d
Ca
W �
A
� WAx
OV
ODU
F
E'"
a�
c
G7
CIS
0.0
U
r
0
o
w a
a
�
a
a�
pro
mo
0-0
zz
A
cz
rA
r
v �
ai
N
z
a
z
cl
Cd
d
,
Cd
o
W
s�
U
En
z
—CR
cd
w
W
o
W
1
a
o,
W
f�
o
a
W
i
F■
Cd w
W
p"
c
cn
W
C
yC
v
a
OC1
O
CZ -o
C>�,
A.
x
z
rel
w
H
�
�
Z
�Q
o =
Qu
/
k k k
w
a � �
u u u
�
7
'ICI 7
# � �
o / o
\
§ § 8 8
/ \ j
0 rA
/ 34-1 /rn
0\:
k
§
2Z
/
k
of
n
� § m
k
Z
�
k
®
7E!
Cd
c
"a
�q
E
clk
f .
rA 3�
k
k
«
\ .)
.
k /
m
c
8 £ f
)
k •\ /
tv
/ A ¢
*
/
?
2
J w
c
w
\
/
�
w
F
Q
C
U�
zA
a�
�W
00
UU
W
U
F
a
o�
wz
a o�
mo
zz
00
z
�
rA
�W
0-4
Cd
cn
t
to
cn
�W
w
xcn
a
o
¢
z