CC Resolution 2001-052 Puerta Azul EA 2001-414 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA Q. UINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-076, ZONE
CHANGE 2001-099, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-053, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30096
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-414
APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 15t~ day of May, 2001 hold a duly-noticed Public Hearings to consider a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on the Environmental Assessment
2001-414 for General Plan Amendment 2001-076, Zone Change 2001-099, Specific
Plan 2001-053 and Tentative Tract 30096 herein referred to as the "Project"
for Puerta Azul Partners L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
-- did, on the 24th day of April, 2001, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-414 for General Plan Amendment 2001-076, Zone
Change 2001-099, Specific Plan 2001-053 and Tentative Tract 30096; and,
WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of 'q'he 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 2001-414) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental ~mpact could be fi~ed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
-- the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
Re~olution No. 2001-52
Environmental AsNurnent 2001414
May 15, 2001
Page 2
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as
no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2001-
414 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
8. EA 2001-414 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the'~City's
independent judgment and analysis.
9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 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.
Re~olulJon No. 20~1-52
May 15, 2001
Page 3
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-414 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development
Department and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Ouinta
City Council held on this 15th day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff
NOES: Mayor Pe~a
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None ~~
City of La Quinta, California
A3-rEST:
JUROR EEK, CM~,~
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
IV1. I~ATHERINE JENS~, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, Calffornia
Environmental Checklist Form
-- 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-076, Change of Zone
2001-099, Specific Plan 2001-053, Tentative Tract
Map 30096
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: West side of Madison Street, north of Avenue 58, and
south of Airport Blvd.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Puerta Azul Partners, LLC
17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., Suite 100
Portland, OR 97227
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Tourist Commercial
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning: Current: Tourist Commercial
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
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 allow clustered resort
residential units at a density of approximately 6.5 units per acre on a 19.64 acre
parcel. Specific Plan to establish development standards and guidelines for the
construction of resort residential units, a central recreational and open space
area, two pools, a clubhouse and associated facilities. Tentative Tract Map to
divide what is currently one parcel into 128 numbered lots, and lettered lots to
allow for streets, driveways and common areas.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North, west and east: Existing PGA West development; golf course and
residential
South: Vacant desert lands designated for single family residential development.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
S:\CiW Clerk\Resolutions\Peso52 EACklst.WPD
1
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 Ha:tuttis and Hazardous [--] Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportalion/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a sigrfificant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
' t-1
1 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 Co) 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.
Fred Baker. Principal Planner CiTY OF LA OUINTA
P:\FRE DX ~ tort aAzulEACklst .WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
'1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
-- each question. A ~No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Decla~ation: 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 XVIll, "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 EI~ 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
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Reao52 EACklst. WPD
3
lsmes (and Supporting Information Sources): ~ Mm~ta lm~a~ tm~,~
Would the proposal result in potential mapacts involving:
~. AESTHE~r~cs: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5) X
b) Damage scomc resources, including, but not limited to, t~es, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X
site and its sl~rl'oundhags? (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) X
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 Assessmem Model propared 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 Farnfland, Unique Farmland. or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agxicultural use, or a Williamson
Act con~xact? (Zomng Map) X
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)
X
AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air qualiw management or air pollution con~'ol
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) X
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook) X
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria polhitant for which the projec~
region is non-attainment under an applicable federa~ or state ambiem
air quali .fy ~tandurd (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA X
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Specific Plan Project Descr.) X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
4
e) Create o~Y~-'tionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Specific Plan Project Descx.) X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOIIRCES: Weald the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse unpaot, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any. spo~es identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
sllccial statlls species ill local or regiollal plaiis, policie$, or regn|atioll8,
or by the Califorrna Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substamial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional planK.
policies, regulations or by the California Department offish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 rE)
c) Adversely i%pact 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 interroption, or other
means? (Mas~er Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 fi)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife enmdors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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)
13 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
plan, Natural Conservation Commumty 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 si~t, ntficance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the Caifforma Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources?
(Historic/Archaeological Survey, CPM Tech, September 2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~onificance 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 spoOal and pamcular quality, such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly assooated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CPM Tech, September X
2O00)
c) Disturb or deslxoy a unique paleontological resource or site? X
(Paieomologic Assessment, San Bernardlno Museum, August 2000)
-- d) Disturb any human rel~lalns, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Historic/Arehacological Survey, CRM To:h,
Septeraber 2000)
S:\City C[erk\Resolutions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
5
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of hias, mjuD,, or death revolving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ~SUed by_ the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault7 (General Plan ElK Exln3ait 4.2-3, page 4-35) X
ii) Strung seismic ground shaking7 (General Plan ElK page 4-30 ff~) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liqucfactiun?
(Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001 )
iv) Landslides? (General Plan ElK page 4-30 fi)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or thc loss of topsoil? (Creotechnical X
InveStigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001)
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 X
colhpse? (Gentechnical Invemgation, Sladden Engineering, January
2001)
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? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January
200])
e) Have softs incapable of adequalcly supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers arc not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a sigmficant hazard to the public or the environment through
thc routine transport, use, or disposal of haTurdous 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) Reasonub~ be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quaint 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 14aTardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an arrport 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 area7 (General Plan land use map)
$:\Cit¥ Clerk\Resolutions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
6
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ahahip; would the
pr~t result m a safety h~ard for people residing or working m the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair xmplementafion of or physical .ly interfere with an adopted
~mergency response plan or ~mergeney evacuation plan? (Masler
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
h) Expose people or structur~ to the risk of luss, i~juxy or death
illvolving wLldlnnds fires, including where wildlancls ~ adjacent to
urbanized areas or whexe re'dentes are intermixed with wil~ands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Wo~ld the project:
a) Violale Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
smadards or waste discharge reqmrements? (Master EnV~Onmental
A~sessreent 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 clmp to a level
which woulQ not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
penmts liave been granted? (General Plan EIK page 4-57 ff.) X
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
reanner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
__ site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, Maimero, Smith & Assoc., March X
2001)
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? (Preliminmy Hydrology X
Study, Maini~ero, Smith & Assoc., March 2001)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to contxol?
(Preliminary Hydrology Study, Maiinero, Smith & Assoc., March X
2001)
f) Place housing within a 10o-year floodplain, as ~ on a federal
Flood Ha?atd BOUltdary or Flood Illsllrance Rate Map or other flood
ha?ard clelilleation reap? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? 0Vlaster Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
DeSCnlYdon) X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
7
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (tilclnding, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning X
ordinance) adop~:l for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Envtronmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any. applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- X
5)
MIIN~ERAL RESOURCES: Wtmld the project:
a) Result m the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified IvlRZ-2 by. the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state7 (Master Enmmnmental
Assessment 5-29) X
b) Result in the loss of aVmlabili .ty ofa locally-mqOOrtant mineral
resonrce recove _fy site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan7 (Master Envn'Onmental Assessment 5-29) X
XL NOISE: Wo~ld the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in exce&s of
standards established in tl~ local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies7 (Noise Assessment, Wieland X
Associates, March 2001)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of exCeSS~e grmmdborne
vibration or gmundborne noise levels7 (Noise Assessment, Wieland
Asso~tates, March 2001 ) X
c) A substantial temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicini .ty above levels existing without the project7 (Noise
Assessment, Wieland Associates, March 2001) X
d) For a project located within an aLrpOrt land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
exCeSmve levels7 (General Plan map)
POPULATION AND ltOUSING: 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/nfrastructnre) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing hoUSing, necessitating the
construction of replacemem hoUSing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
constnlctian of replacement hOUSing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
$:\City Clerk\ResolLrtions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
8
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project ~ 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
cons~uctian of which could cause significant environmm,aal 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. ) X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) X
X1V. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of exialing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials) X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
consU'uction or expans~an of recreational facilities which might have an
-- adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) X
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity oftha 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 imerseclions)? (Traffic Impact X
Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulative .ly, a level of serx~ice
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo X
Engineering, December 2000)
c) Result in a change in air traffic paUerus, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that resul~ in substantial safety
risks? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 200~)
d) Substantially increase haTards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersecUous) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equlpment)?(Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December
2000)
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)? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo
Engineering, December 2000)
$:\Cir¥ Clerk\Resolutions\Re$o52 E~,CkI~.WPD
9
UTII~I'flKS A.ND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Woald the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Consol Board? (General Plan MEA, pg. 4-24 ) X
b) Require or result m the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expan~on of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant enXarOnmental effects? (General Plan X
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result m the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of ex~tmg facilities, the conslzuction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, X
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
exisang entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded X
entitlements ne~cled? (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 conUml~nents? X
(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
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- X
sustmning levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commUmty,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or alinfinate rrnpOrtant examples of the major pericnts of
Califorma history, or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, bm
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that
the mcremantal 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)? X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly.?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, progxam EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately ann .lyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaralion~ 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.
$:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
10
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli~ were within the scope of and
ad~lll~l~ly analy'z~d ill 811 earlier document pm~mm to applicable legal S~anrlamlS, and state whether such effects were
add~ssed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) l~itigafion measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
miligation 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.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Puerta Azul Vacation Villas Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000
Noise Assessment and Noise Control Recommendations, Wieland Associates, Inc., March 2001
Preliminary Hydrology Report, Mainiero Smith and Associates, March 2001
Geotechnical Investigation Puerta Azul Resort Development, Sladden Engineering, January 2001
Paleomologic Assessment Puerta Azul Specific Plan, Section of Geological Sciences, San Bemardino County
Museum, August 2000
__ Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Former La Quinta Art Park, CRM Tech, September 2000
S:\City Clerk\ResolLrtions\Reso52 EACklst. WPD
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 200%414
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. c) & d)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The
proposed General Plan amendment and Change of Zone will result in a
change from Tourist Commercial to Medium density residential. Generally,
tourist commercial land uses generate higher numbers of trips, and therefore
higher concentration of air pollutants, than residential land uses. The traffic
study prepared for the proposed project estimates that the project at buildout
will generate 1,630 trips~. As shown in the Table below, the project will not
exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50mph 63.1 2.43 12.9 -- 0.27 0.27
5 5
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,630 trips/day and average trip length of 7.5 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 is 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:
TraflSc Impact Analysis, prq~ared by Endo Engineering, December, 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Resio52 EA-Add.WPD
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.
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 2,5 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.
S:\Clty Clerk\Resolutions\Re$io52 EA-Add. WPD
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 Genera~ 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.
V. b) A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject
property. The survey found no resources 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 Historic
-- Preservation Commission recommends the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving
and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or
redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final
report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior
to occupancy.
V. c) A paleontologic resource survey was prepared for the project site3. The survey
report states that the probability of paleontologic resources is high on the
subject property. The report recommends the following mitigation measure to
mitigate the potential impacts to paleontologic resources on the site:
1. A qualified paleontologic monitor shall be present during all earth moving
and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or
redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final
report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior
to occupancy.
2 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, September 2000.
Paleontologic Assessment, Puerto Azul Specific Plan, prepared by the San Bernardmo
County Museum, August, 200~.
S:\City Clerk\Rosolutions\Resio52 EA-Add.WPD
VI. a) i) & ii)
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 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 will be sufficient
to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
A geotechnical analysis was performed for the proposed project4. The study
found that the site is composed primarily of silty sands. Sandy soils must be
properly compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The
geotechnical engineer recommends the over-excavation of the project site to
mitigate this potential impact. The following mitigation measures will be
required in order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site:
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.
2. Remedial grading, including over-excavation to a depth to be specified by
the project geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer, and
recompaction shall be required for all building areas on the proposed site.
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.
G-eotechnical Investigation, prepared by. Sladden Engineering, January, 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Resio52 EA-Add. WPD
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 X 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 preliminary drainage study completed for the proposed project includes
recommended retention area sizes on the proposed project site. 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.
XI.a) b) &c)
A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis
found that noise levels will exceed the City's standard and that mitigation
measures will be required. Noise impacts exceeding the City's standards will
also occur during construction activities. Construction and operational mitigation
measures are offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts
from noise are reduced to less than significant levels.
I. Noise barriers of a minimum of 9 feet in height will be constructed along
-- the eastern property line, and along the north and south property lines to
a distance of 80 feet from the eastern property line. In order to meet the
City's standards, this height level shall be achieved by a combination of
walls and berms, with walls not to exceed 6 feet in height.
2. All residential structures shall be constructed to achieve an interior noise
level of 45 dBA CNEL. The level of construction improvements required
shall be determined with the completion of precise grading plans.
3. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
Xlll. 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 property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund,
and off-set the potential impact to police and fire service. 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.
Noise Assessment and Noise Control Recommendations, prepared by Wieland Associates, March.
2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Resio52 EA-Add.WPD
XV. a) & b)
A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed project~. The analysis found
that the proposed project will generate approximately 1,630 trips per day at
buildout. The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at
acceptable levels of service, with or without the proposed project. Ultimately,
the intersections of Madison with Avenue 54 and 58 will require improvement,
with or without the project. In order to mitigate the project's impact on these
intersection, the following mitigation measure shall be required:
1. The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program.
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.
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, December 2000.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\Resio52 EA-Add. WPD