CC Resolution 2002-078RESOLUTION NO. 2002-78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445
PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-068
(APPEAL), AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-733
(APPEAL).
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-445
APPLICANT: SECO/SDC, LLC
APPELLANT: LAKE LA QUINTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 4t' day of June, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-445 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 (Appeal)
and Site Development Permit 2002-733 (Appeal) to allow a one to three story, 120
room hotel, generally located east of Washington Street between Lake La Quinta Drive
and Avenue 48; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of April 23,
2002, for EA 2002-445, CUP 2002-068 and SDP 2002-733, was filed by Lake La
Quinta Homeowner's Association on May 3, 2002, in compliance with Section
9.200.120 of the Zoning Code requiring review of the appeal by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23rd day of April, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-445 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 and Site
Development Permit 2002-733, and on a 4-0 vote (one Commissioner absent) adopted
Resolutions 2002-037, 2002-038 and 2002-039, respectively, to allow a one to three
story, 120 room hotel, generally located east of Washington Street between Lake La
Quinta Drive and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows:
APNs: 643-200-002 & 003,
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 2002-445)
and has determined that although the proposed project 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 2002-068 and Site
Development Permit 2002-733, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
Resolution No. 2002-78
Environmental Assessment 2002-446
Lake La nuinta Homeowners' Assn.
Adopted: June 4, 2002
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 make the
following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project 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 2002-445.
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 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 in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
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 have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project 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 project 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 in that mitigation measures are
imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Resolution No. 2002-78
Environmental Assessment 2002-445
Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Assn.
Adopted: June 4, 2002
Page 3
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-445 and said
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, 92253.
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 constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-445 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.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-445 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 4tn day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
J01vol-a
PENO k4ayor
City Qu ta, California
Resolution No. 2^02-78
Environmental Assessment 2002-445
Lake La Quints Homeowners' Assn.
Adopted: June 4, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
J . GREEK, CMC, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATH RINE JENSor, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, Cal nia
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-068 (Appeal) and Site
Development Permit 2002-733 (Appeal), Marriott
Residence Inn.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magana, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: East side of Washington Street, approximately 400 feet
north of Avenue 48.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: SECO/SDC LLC
55550 Riviera Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Regional 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 for Hotel use. Site Development Permit to allow the
construction of a 3 story, 120 room hotel on 3.89 acre site. Site has been
previously graded, and street parkway treatments have been previously
installed. The hotel will include a separate lobby building with limited office,
meeting and public activity areas, as well as a pool and parking.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant desert lands
South: Vacant desert lands
West: La Quinta Arts Foundation
East: Lake La Quinta low density residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
S:\City Cie rk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.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
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
LJ Mandatory Findings
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
101
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
1
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
01
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.
u
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.
FE]
P:\Martin\Marriott\Appeal\ChecklistAppeal.WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1.) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -
site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
EIR p. Ill- 159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
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?
(Project Description)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
4
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
/:/
KI
l:i
1:1
X
Fri
X
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment P.
73 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? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 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? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 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 Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 73 ff.)
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?
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)?
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master
Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
MEA p. 96 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 MEA p. 96 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 MEA p. 96 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? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
Issues -(and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
6
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan
MEA p. 94 ff)
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? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff.)
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 p. III-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-
87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit
6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
a) Physically divide an established community? (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 coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
73 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff.)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
X
X
F.q
X
X
X
X
It t
X
X
X
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
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, p. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
/V
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, p. 46 ff.)
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, p. 46 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p.
46 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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, p. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, p. 46 ff.)
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?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) (cont.):
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)?
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
10
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
— SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 cklt.WPD
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-445 (Appeal)
I.d) The proposed project will be constructed on a currently vacant site, and will
therefore result in additional lighting. The City's lighting ordinance, however,
requires that all lighting be contained within the site, so that there will be no
impact to adjacent properties. Further, Lighting will occur primarily on the north
and south boundaries, in areas which will eventually be developed for
commercial projects. Only very limited lighting will occur on the eastern portion
of the site, closest to existing single family development. The impacts from
lighting generated at the proposed project site are expected to be less than
significant.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of
motor vehicles. The 120 hotel rooms could generate approximately 588 trips
per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate the
following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 21.26 0.82 4.36 -- 0.09 0.09
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 588 trips/day and average trip length of 7 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 and the need for an
EIR.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The
impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be
significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the
area. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
"Trip Generation, 6th Edition," by Institute of Transportation Engineers. "All Suites Hotel" category (311
used.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 AddenAppeal.WPD
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In
addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the
mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Caleo Bay and the
northern property line shall be installed with the construction of the first
building.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
IV. a) The proposed project is located within the required fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringed -toed lizard, and will be required to pay the mandated fee at the
issuance of building permits. The payment of the fee will reduce the potential
impacts to this species to a less than significant level.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 AddenAppeal,WPD 2
V. b) The site has been previously graded, and has a low potential for surficial
archaeological resources. There is, however, a potential that buried resources
do occur on the site which will not be uncovered until grading and excavation
occurs. As a result, the following mitigation measure shall be required:
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 prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
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. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
'requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking
are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The subject property is in a severe wind erosion hazard zone. Soils on the site
which are not properly treated after disturbance are likely to be transported by
winds in the area. The City will implement requirements for a PM10
management plan, and additional mitigation measures have been included in the
Air Quality discussion above. These mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Vlll.b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's standards for
water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in
reducing the potential impacts associated with groundwater. The proposed
project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
VIII. c)&d)
The proposed project will alter the drainage pattern in the area through grading
and covering of soil with impermeable surfaces. The City requires that all
construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will
control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 AddenAppeal.WPD 3
drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of grading permits
XI.a) The proposed project has a potential to impact sensitive receptors immediately
east, in the Lake La Quinta project. The Lake La Quinta development occurs in
an area which meets the City's noise standards. In addition the perimeter
landscaping proposed within the proposed project, and an interior street
separates the project from the residential development, creating added
separation. A wall occurs on the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta
project, which mitigates noise impacts also. Noise levels generated from the
proposed project will not impact the noise environment in the area.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project has the potential to create temporary
construction noise impacts on the residential units to the east. In order to
mitigate these potential impacts, the project proponent shall implement the
following mitigation measures:
Xlll.a)
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located in the northwest corner of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
4. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from the eastern
boundary of the project as possible.
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax, transient occupancy tax,
and a small amount of sales tax, which will offset the costs of added police and
fire services.
The project area will be required to pay the mandated school fees as
development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the
impacts to schools.
The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\2002-78 AddenAppeal.WPD 4
4-4
o
Q
�
W
�
cd
C
0
•k
~
o
a
W
x
F
o
V
x
3
0
o
z
M
on
�
O
W
Q
3
N
z
-v
O
0
a
�C
W Q
ti
w
.
ax
z
a
d
O
d
a
U
d
A
F
0-4
O
O
z
d
a
d
O
00
`O
w
N O^
a`qji
�
U W
W d
Q M
U
U
F
�
N
�
d
azo
U
o
CD
�d
oc
z
z
30
o
A
U
W
H A
W
e
G
�
U
Z
d W
� X
� W
Ox
UU
E
a
o
n
c o
0
U
U
a
o a
a
a
o
o
d
'A
vn
on
°q
,•v
v
o
°�,
GJ
O
O
U
7
V
U
y
i
rl)=�rA
C'scz
U-
.'��
CA
F
°
'A_
�
°� i o
0
U
=
U
�
�. U
U
a
a`
o,a
a o.a o`ncs
a
oG
O �
�
aoc
�
o
cz
C
w
to
to
E to
to
U
U
U
CL1
U C] W
CA
c
L
°
0-4
Cq
�+
0.4
N
>_
bn
a
cz
�-
dM
C
O
A
_.
ca
E V
a
°
U
�
on
^�
cc
N
C
cC
'O
° c
w
Q
A
U �
Z A
Q'
�U
W
O�
U U
co
c
d
0
En
En
a�
F
0
U
rn
an
co cz
COO Q.
C7
on
�
Z
o
F
Cd
N
to
C
F-1
W
�+
W Z
c
4
ZZ
Q
a
Er.
E c.
U Ca
0.
0
O
F;
W
d �
U
on
0.4
0
^o
y �
ct U
F_
c~d
U
•�
co b
cd
w
F
d
A
U 0�0
Q
W
ax
�w
O�
UU
d
0.
W
a
o
0
0
0
U
c.
Cw
o,
a
G7
0
0
0
0
F
C
C
C
c
O
O
0
0
C
C
C
G
W
�O
E
E
�
:
ZZ
Oo
Q
Q
Q
z
O
"'"
i
3
N
aci
d
d
o
0
F W
c
CA
a
0
Cd
a�
w
0
c
3
ai
N
�
m
a
a=i
to
a
3
c
0
co
rl
N
0
0
N
C
v
vi