Loading...
CC Resolution 2001-028RESOLUTION NO. 2001-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-055, APPEAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409 APPLICANT: SPRINT PCS WIRELESS APPELLANT: STEVE DAVIS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 3`d day of April, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-409 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 (Appeal), a request to install a Sprint monopalm antenna and related communication equipment within the La Quinta Hotel complex at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of February 13, 2001, for EA 2001-409 and CUP 2001-055, was filed by Steve Davis on February 28, 2001 in compliance with Section 9.200.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requiring review of the appeal by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13'hday of February, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-409 for Conditional Use Permit 2001 -055, and on follows: a vote of 5-0 adopted Resolutions 2001-015 and -016, more particularly described as APN: 658-190--011 Portion 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 2001-409) and has determined that although the proposed Conditional Use Permit 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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, Resolution No. 2001-28 Environmental Assessment 2001-409 Sprint PC Wireless April 3, 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 certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 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 2001-409. 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 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. Resolution No. 2001-28 Environmental Assessment 2001-409 Sprint PC Wireless April 3, 2001 Page 3 8• The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-409 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 2001-409 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 2001-409 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 3'd day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None J.ENA , yor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2001-28 Environmental Assessment 2001-409 Sprint PC Wireless April 3, 2001 Page 4 ATTEST: JU ES EEK, CMC, rk City o La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: aZ.KA—THERINE JENSON, y At ney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 1 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 2• Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: 49-499 Eisenhower Dr., within the La Quinta Hotel. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Sprint PCS Wireless C/o David Leonard Associates 1223 University Ave., Suite 240 Riverside, CA 92507 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7• Zoning: Tourist 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.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 65 foot high "monopalm" antenna adjacent to La Quinta Hotel Administrative offices. The antenna will be camouflaged by artificial palm fronds, and will integrated into the project's existing landscaping scheme. 9• Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The proposed site will be entirely surrounded by La Quinta Hotel facilities. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing ap proval, pproval, or Participation agreement.) G:1 WPD0MEACklst-Sprint. WPD Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: potentially affected by this The environmental factors checked below wpact" as ould be p project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Im indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project T ON D1NOT rhave a epared significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA11 ffect on the environment, I find that although the proposedeffect in this case becausehave a gev. o sein the project have be 11 there will not be a significant e made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, ppl at least one cable legalestandards,ect 1) sbeen adequately and 2) has been analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable ed sheets. addressed by mitigation measures based PORT is requiearlier red, but it must anaysis as lyze ze ohe nlyon lthe effects An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA ❑ that remain to be addressed. adequate in an earlier EIR I find that althoughlh significantseffects (a) have beenanalyzed sign, adegect on the environmen , because all potentiallytier 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 prof nothing further is req�uir I Dat S ma une i�rl A-)6 1--i �I =�'� /U For ` Printed Name G:\WPDOCS\EACklst-Sprint.WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are. adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each queston. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact ion does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis).e.g.thImpact" 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" an EIR is required. entries when the determination is made 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency PP ies where they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier y must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where process, an effect has been adequately analyzed nn anaearliert to hEIRor negative declaration. Section 15063 c , D . tiering> program EIR, or other CEQA ( )(3)( ) Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checkli substantiated. appropriate, st references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where riatinclude a reference to the page or pages where the statement is 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\EACklst-Sprint. WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historicbuildinff.gs within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial adversely affect day or nighttime views light the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of agrConservation as an andnWould the project: impacts on cultureand farm 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 loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural usa? (Aerial photographs) in Potentially Potentially Significant S sn han Thant No Significant Unless Impact Mitigated impact Impact III. the significance criteria established AIR QUALITY. Where available, 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 thresholds for zoneprecursors)? releasing emissions quantitative (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 habit modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans policies, or regulatioi or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 f, 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 Garr or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR P. 4-65 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan EIR P. 4-65 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation regional, or state habitat conCommunity Plan, or other approved local, servation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historica 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? (Application materials, General Plan EIR P. 4-77 ff) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to ppoattalinvolvsubstantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, e on th i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault as as delineated issued by the State recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 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 Plar 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°0 subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating eats Offsubstantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tank or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: ic or the ta) Create a signhe routine transplort uscant eordd sposal othe flhazardous mat r als environment through (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 Material, Listing) e) For a project located within a airport land use plan or, where such 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 peop 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 dischargeer Environmental requirements? (Mast Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantial 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 of site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 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? (Master Assessment 6-13) Environmental e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local 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. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Result in the lossof ility of a t classified known would be of value to the classified MRZ-2 by he StateGeologist nts of the state? (Master Environmental region and the reside Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral , specific resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, or other land use lan (Master Environmental Assessments 5-29) plan 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 planornoiseMaterials)ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Application b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive Materialsb rne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Application c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Application Materials) 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�peOPl�ication Materials)g or in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Application 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: for a) Induce substantial onewation growth in an area, either homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through proposing General example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) . Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Application Materials) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. 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 t capacity ratio on roads, or congesti materials) on at intersections)?(Application b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Application Materials) 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)? (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)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction Of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? page 4-27) (General Plan MEA, XVII. d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new 4 or expanded janded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, Pa. 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 f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity t( accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) 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 connec projectt'probableprojects, t and the effects of utureproject�is of other current ? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used wherepursuant 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 earer easure document s based on purthesuant earlier anapli able legal standards, and state whether such effects were to addressed by mitig r Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. F were incorporated or refined from the earlSignificant wlier document and the oextent toewhich they address mitigation measures site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. IF 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 Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-409 ng VI. a) ii) The proposed project nited in a Zone oundshak ngl grthe event 1of anne. The area is subject to s gficantg earthquake. The City, in order to mitigate such impacts, has implemented the standards of thesupport w th inm Building Code, which earthquake zones The requires added structural proposed project will required reduce heoconform to those standards. This potent al for impacts from seismic mitigation measure groundshaking to a less than significant level. VIII. g) The proposed project is being developed entirely within the existing La Quinta Hotel. The area is, however, in a zone which is prone to flooding, and is designated as an A flood zone. As a developed property, the hotel has implemented flood control measures to ensure that flooding on the site is controlled. The proposed project will be required by the City Engineer to conform to on -site drainage designs, and as such willnot impact expected to be lessgthan significant. hazds on the site. The impacts ex to structures is p G:\WPDoCS\EA-Adden-Sprint.WPD