CC Resolution 2007-076RESOLUTION NO. 2007-076
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR THE LA QUINTA COUNTRY
CLUB SPECIFIC PLAN 2007-082 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2007-885.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2007-584
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 7" day of August, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request
by La Quinta Country Club to adopt Environmental Assessment 2007-584, prepared
for Specific Plan 2007-082 and Site Development Permit 2007-885, known as the La
Quinta Country Club clubhouse, located north of Avenue 50 and east of Eisenhower
Drive, more particularly described as:
APN: 658-190-002, 658-190-003
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 1 CI`" day of July, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and
recommended certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment 2007-584, prepared for Specific Plan 2007-082 and Site Development
Permit 2007-885, known as the La Quinta Country Club clubhouse; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an
Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2007-584) and has determined that, although
the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project approval) will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -
significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should
be adopted; and,
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 adoption of said Environmental
Assessment:
�A
Resolution No. 2007-076
Environmental Assessment 2007-584
La Quints Country Club
Adopted: August 7, 2007
Page 2
1. The proposed applications 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
2007-584.
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. Development of the site has the potential to impact
cultural and paleontological resources. However, the mitigation measures
included in the project approval will reduce these potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
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. The site does not contain significant biological resources.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by
providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. 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. The project is consistent with the
General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project
has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise
impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
development of the site will generate PM10; however, several mitigation
measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality have been incorporated
into the project approval.
Resolution No. 2007-076
Environmental Assessment 2007-584
Le Quinta Country Club
Adopted: August 7, 2007
Page 3
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2007-584 and said
Assessment reflects the independent judgment 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 753.51d►.
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Planning 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 constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2007-584 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file
in the Planning Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2007-584 reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 71'' day of August, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Kirk, Osborne, Mayor Pro Tem Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Adolph
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, Ma r Pro Tem
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2007-076
Environmental Assessment 2007-584
La Quints Country Club
Adopted: August 7, 2007
Page 4
ATTEST:
i i � .
1 //7 VEROB ICA J. MONTECINO, CM , City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. %ATF&MNE JENSbh, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Specific Plan 07-082, Site Development Permit 07-885, La Quinta Country Club
Club House
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact person and phone number: Jay Wuu, Assistant Planner
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. APN Portions of
658-190-002 & -003.
5. Project sponsor's name and address: La Quinta Country Club
P. O. Box 99
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General plan designation: Golf Course Open 7. Zoning: Golf Course Open Space
Space
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.)
The Specific Plan has been prepared to establish the design guidelines and standards which
would allow the reconstruction of the Country Club clubhouse and associated facilities. The
La Quinta Country Club is fully developed, with the clubhouse building having been
demolished, due to unsafe structural conditions, in 2006. The proposed project would result in
the construction of a new 42,872 square foot clubhouse, a 8,094 square foot maintenance
building and a 6,665 square foot cart barn, parking areas for 214 vehicles, two tennis courts
and driving range facilities. The total project area consists of 19.2 acres.
The Site Development permit establishes the design of these facilities, and will allow the
construction of the facilities.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Golf Course and Low Density Residential homes
South: Avenue 50, Low Density Residential homes
East: Low Density Residential homes
West: Madison Eisenhower Drive, Low Density Residential and Tourist Commercial homes
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving s
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on th
following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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
X 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 project proponent. 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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 potenially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or GATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, an (b) h been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE CL TIO including revisions or mitigation measures that are
impos on h ro0� pr 'ect, nothing further is required.
Signature
�—/6-U7
Date
-2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for 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 tc
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatior
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatior
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated of
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
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 ,
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 o:
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-3-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa(
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit
X
3.6 "Image Corridors")
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph; Site Inspection)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently developed with land uses consistent with tho:
proposed. The existing clubhouse and associated facilities, which are locatt
immediately east of Eisenhower Drive, will be demolished. The proposed project wi
reconstruct the clubhouse at a distant of 135 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, and the ca
barn at a distance of 80 feet from the roadway. The clubhouse is proposed to be or
and two stories, to a maximum height of 44 feet, with a tower element extending to _°
feet (at the northeast comer of the clubhouse. The cart barn is proposed to be 17 feet
height. Parking and landscaping areas will be located adjacent to Eisenhower Driv
The proposed maintenance building will be located at the corner of Avenue 50 ar.
Eisenhower Drive. The maintenance building is proposed to be 22 feet in height.
The project site is located on a Primary Image Corridor (Eisenhower Drive), as define
in the General Plan. The designation prohibits the construction of buildings in exce;
of 22 feet within 150 feet of Eisenhower Drive. The proposed cart barn ar
maintenance building meet the height restrictions. The proposed clubhouse, howeve
will extend to a height of over 30 feet within the 150 foot setback. However, tl
structure will be located a distance of 135 from Eisenhower, and will incluc
intervening landscaping and hardscape which will reduce the visual impact within tl
corridor area. Furthermore, the primary views in this area are to the south and ew
whereas no significant viewshed occurs to the cast.
The original clubhouse and other facilities are similar in scale, although larger in mas
than the proposed project. The land uses proposed are identical to those current.
52
occurring on the property. Therefore, development of the proposed project is not
expected to significantly impact the visual character of the area.
There are no significant scenic resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic
resources are expected to be insignificant.
Impacts associated with scenic vistas are expected to be less than significant.
d) The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation,
primarily from car headlights and tennis court lighting. The majority of activities at the
site, however, will be during daylight hours. The City regulates lighting levels and
does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. The City standard,
combined with the nature of the land use proposed, will assure that impacts are less
than significant.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
ff.)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection)
II. a)-c) The project site is located in the City's urban core, and is fully developed. Nc
agricultural lands or Williamson Act contracts occur on the property, or in the vicinit}
of the property. Lands surrounding the project site are designated for urban
development. The development of the proposed project will have no impact or
agricultural resources.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa(
Impact,
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
X
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
X
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo)
III. a)- c) The development of the proposed project will result in air quality impacts associate
with construction of the facilities. No impact will result from operation of the projec
insofar as the clubhouse facilities and maintenance buildings already occur on the sit
and the new facilities will not cause any increase in activities on the property.
The proposed project will result in remedial earthwork on the property to address sc
stability issues (please see the Soils and Geology Section, below). The site h
previously been graded for the original facilities. The Tables below illustrate tl
potential impacts associated with fugitive dust, and cumulative grading equipment ar
grading worker trips emissions.
0
Table 1
Fugitive Dust Potential
(nounds Der dav)
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day)
26.4 506.9
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook,' prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management
District, April 1993.
Table 2
Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary
(Dounds Der dav)
ROG CO
NOx
sox
PM10
Equipment Emissions
Workers' Vehicle Emissions
105.19
12.86
- 3.34
85.90
0.36
8.50
0.00
3.67
0.03
Total Construction Emissions
12.86 108.53
86.26
8.51
3.70
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00
As shown in Table 1, fugitive dust emissions during the grading of the site will exceed
SCAQMD thresholds of significance, which establish a limit of 150 pounds per day.
However, the City will require, in conformance with the requirements of the 2003
Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan, the preparation of a dust control plan,
which is required to include best management practices to reduce the amount of
fugitive dust generated during grading. The dust management plan will also include
provisions for the relocation of 30,000 cubic yards of fill proposed to be removed from
the existing driving range area, and moved to the parking area on the western boundary
of the project site. This component of the project is likely to include site watering and
watering of soils in transit. These City requirements will reduce impacts associated
with fugitive dust to less than significant levels.
Table 2 demonstrates that the grading equipment and worker trips during the grading
process will not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts are therefore
expected to be less than significant.
III. d) & e) The project is not expected to generate objectionable odors, nor will it expose resident,,
to concentrations of pollutants.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impac
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General
Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
MEA, p. 78 ff.)
-8-
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is fully developed, and has been since 1959. Ornamental
landscaping occurs throughout the site, which will be removed, relocated or reused
within the proposed project. This landscaping is likely to provide habitat to common
species which typically occur throughout La Quinta. No special status species are
expected to occur on the site. There is no riparian habitat on the project site, nor are
there any wetlands in the area. The proposed project is not expected to have any impact
on biological resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject;
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123
ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to'15064.5? (General Plan
MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V.a), b) & d) A Phase I cultural resources study was prepared for the project area. The stud)
identified no resources on the property, but did identify a number of recorded site:
within one mile of the proposed project. The study concludes that the current
developed nature of the site, and the dense landscaping which therefore occurs, may be
obscuring subsurface resources. These resources could be uncovered during project
grading activities. This would be a potentially significant impact which would require
mitigation, as follows:
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, gradin€
and excavating activities for the proposed project. The monitor shall bf
empowered to stop and relocate activities, should resources be identified on thf
site. Such resources shall be inventoried, studied and removed, according t(
current professional practice. A final report of all monitoring activities shall bE
submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days o.
completion of all monitoring activities on the site.
1 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Specific Plan," prepared b;
CRM Tech, March 2007.
-9-
With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to historical ar
archaeological resources will be less than significant.
The site is not known to contain human remains. Should such remains be identific
during grading, California law requires that the contractor contact law enforcemej
authorities, who are responsible for identifying the remains, and determining whethi
they have the potential to be Native American in nature. The proposed project will t
subject to these requirements, assuring that any impacts associated with humz
remains on the site will be less than significant.
V. c) The proposed project site lies within the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancia
lake Cahuilla. The study conducted for the proposed project determined that potenti.
sensitivity for such resources range from low to high2. The study found that the soi
below those excavated for the original project may contain Quaternary Iakebc
sediments, which could harbor resources. The potential impacts associated wii
paleontological resources in these soils could be significant. In order to assure th
potential impacts associated with paleontologic resources are mitigated, the followir
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. A paleontologic monitor shall map site soils and determine which areas a
likely to contain paleontological resources. The monitor shall be on -site durir
ground disturbance of these areas. The monitor shall be empowered to redire
activities, and shall quickly salvage fossils where identified. All resource
recovered shall be properly documented and curated. A report of monitorir
activities shall be provided to the Planning Department within 30 days of tl
completion of ground disturbing activities.
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associate
with paleontologic resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Specific Plan," prepared 1
CRM Tech, March 2007.
-10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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
invglving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
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 MEA Exhibit
6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
X
6.4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil?(General Plan MEA
Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property
(General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and thf
City in general, are located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong
groundshaking during an earthquake, as evidenced by the damage to the origina
clubhouse due to the Borrego Earthquake of 2005. At that time, it was found that the
soils on the site were subject to subsidence or settlement. Since that time, extensive
-11-
soil investigation has occurred at the site 3. The first study was completed to evalual
soils conditions on the site associated with the original clubhouse. This investigatic
determined that a lateral separation was occurring within the facility, and that distre!
was evident in the walls and flatwork which surrounded the facility. The study ah
identified perched groundwater at a depth of 45 to 68 feet in the area, and a depth 1
groundwater of about 110 feet. The study concluded that land subsidence due 1
withdrawal of groundwater in the area was the cause of the significant settlement beir.
experienced at the original clubhouse. As a result of these findings, and further dama�
in 2005, the clubhouse was demolished.
The findings of the previous analysis, and the circumstances surrounding the origin
clubhouse's demolition, resulted in additional specialized geotechnical engineerir
being performed for the proposed project. This analysis, conducted in 2007, h,,
determined that in order to assure that the structure is not subject to settlement, shoul
additional subsidence occur on the site, a specialized foundation system, consisting
a mat foundation supported by columns of soil cement 4 feet in diameter is require,
This recommendation will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer ar
Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits on the site, assuring th
the foundation system provided for the new structure will not result in an unsa:
structure in a 'Lone 4 seismic area.
The proposed project will be subject to wind and water erosion during the constructic
process. Wind erosion will be controlled by the Dust Management Plan required fi
the project, and further discussed in the Air Quality Section, above. Water erosion
the City is controlled through the implementation of the requirements of the NPDEI
which requires the implementation of best management practices through
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The SWPPP must incluc
provisions for the on -site control of surface water, to assure that pollutants, silts ar
sediments are not allowed to enter surface water off site. These requirements will 1
approved prior to the issuance of grading permits, and will assure that the impac
associated with water erosion are reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed project is not located adjacent to any hillsides. There will therefore be r
impact associated with landslides.
The proposed project will be connected to CVWD sewer systems, and will therefor
not require septic tanks.
Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant.
3 "Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Distress to Clubhouse Facility," prepared by Earth Systems Consultants, Janua
2000; "Proposed Foundation System for La Quinta Country Club," prepared by Advanced Geosolutions, In
January 2007; and "Infiltration/Percolation Testing" letter report, prepared by Sladden Engineering, April 2007.
-12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS NND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials')
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 arid, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? (Application materials)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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
X
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
X
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
-13-
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The development of the proposed project will result in the storage of chemicals, of
and fertilizers associated with the maintenance of the golf course and equipment on tl
project site. This storage and use, however, is regulated by the County and the Fig
Department, which will be responsible for issuance of permits for the proposed projec
In the past, these activities have not resulted in any significant issues at the project sit
and none are anticipated from the re -construction of facilities. Impacts are expected 1
be less than significant.
The proposed project is not located within proximity of a school, or of an airport i
airstrip. The project is located in the City's urban core, and is not subject to wildlar
fires. The site has been in operation for a number of years on existing City roadway
and will not affect emergency response plans.
-14-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
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 (e.g., 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-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in it manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
X
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-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
X
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
15-
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a)-g) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water Distrit
(CVWD). The project site already consumes domestic water for the same facilities
are contemplated for the proposed project. The CVWD has prepared a Watt
Management Plan, which included use at the project site, and which indicates that
has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVW]
has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishmel
measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficiel
landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficia
fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within tl
clubhouse.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standard
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These Ci
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less thz
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. A hydrology stu(
has been prepared for the proposed project4. The analysis included a review of curre.
conditions, and a determination that the current driving range area will be re -graded
create a retention basin with a capacity of 2.24 acre feet, to store the 100 year storr
All on -site drainage will be directed to this basin, through surface flow and pipes. Tl
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations associated with this system will be approved 1
the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading permits for the project site. The
existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City
requirements for flood control.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
4 "Preliminary Hydrology Report La Quinta Country Club — Club House," prepared by MDS Consulting, April 2007.
-16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AAID PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
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
purpose of avoiding; or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit
2.1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74
ff.)
IX. a)-c) The proposed project has operated as a clubhouse, maintenance facility and cart bam
since the 1950's. The proposed project is consistent with these land uses. There is no
existing community, other than the existing country club, which would be impacted by
the proposed project. The project site is designated for the land uses proposed. The
project site will be subject to the requirements of any Habitat Conservation Plan in
place; at the time that building permits are issued.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource 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
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
17-
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The site is fully developed in urban land uses. There will be no impact to miner
resources as a result of the proposed project.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impa(
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
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. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 1 I ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
111 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project will result in the replacement of existing facilities. No increase in
membership or overall activity at the site is expected as a result of implementation of
the project. Therefore, the project will not result in any change in the noise
environment at the site. The project is not considered a sensitive receptor, and is to be
located at a distance of at least 135 feet from the Eisenhower Drive right of way. In
addition, a wall and berming are proposed along Eisenhower. The majority of the
facilities will be oriented away from the roadway, and toward the golf course.
Therefore, long term noise levels are expected to be essentially unchanged from the
current conditions at the site.
Construction of the clubhouse, cart barn and maintenance facility will result in
temporary noise from construction equipment. The clubhouse is to be located south of
existing residential development. Existing residential development to the east of the
project site will not experience construction noise, but will experience noise from the
re -grading of the area. These impacts will be limited to the daytime hours prescribed
for construction in the City's Municipal Code. In addition, the walls which separate the
homes from the clubhouse and driving range area will provide noise attenuation for the
residents. As a result, it is expected that the temporary impacts associated with
construction at the site will be less than significant.
The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impac
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
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.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed clubhouse is being designed to accommodate existing membership, at
is not planned to allow for additional members. As a result, the project will not indw
any growth.
The site has previously been developed for the uses currently planned, and the proje
will not displace any persons or housing units.
No impacts associated with population or housing are expected.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Public services are already provided to the project site for the existing and previously
existing facilities. No increase in services is expected, since no increase in membership
will occur as a result of the project's re -construction.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impac
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project is the reconstruction of previously occurring private recreation
facilities which will once again be available for members. No impacts to existir
recreational facilities are expected.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
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. 1II-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
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
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application
materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Application materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Application materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project will result in the re -construction of existing facilities. Projeci
entry drives are proposed for the same locations as they currently occur. Project traffic
generation will remain at the same levels as they currently are, since membership wil:
not be increased by the proposed project. The site is within the service area of SunLinf
transit, whose routes occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. The site is locatec
on existing City streets, and will continue to be accessed for emergency purposes fron
these streets. No impacts associated with traffic and circulation are expected
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impac
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-24-
XVI. a)-g) The project area is currently served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. CVWD's
treatment plant has sufficient capacity, and has the ability to expand its capacity as
demand rises.
CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan incorporared the proposed project in its
analysis, since the project existed at the time it was prepared. In addition, the District
has sufficient water supplies, or plans for addition to its water supplies, to serve the
proposed project and other projects in its service area in the long term.
The proposed project's hydrologist has designed storm drainage on the property to
retain the 100 year storm, as required by the City. The City Engineer will review the
plans to assure that storm flows are adequately contained, prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
Domestic waste will be collected by Burtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burtec
currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is
transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands
and l:l Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed project.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impac
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
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
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
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
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The development of the proposed project has the potential to impact archaeologic
and paleontologic resources. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Stu(
however, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels.
XVII. b) The proposed project continues an existing land use which was included in the la
use map and analysis for the General Plan.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this ar(
Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, as t
proposed project will result in the re -construction of facilities which currently,
recently occurred on the site.
XVII. d) The proposed project will generate fugitive dust and construction noise. Howev
neither of these impacts will be significant.
-26-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
-27-
\
r\
\/
\\
\
(
]
§\
\
/\
\
�
/
ƒ
3
g
O
CD00
i
J
NE{7]
S�r•a
\
k/)k/
.
«z
}
/j
\\
/\
}
\�
;
\U
a 0
§
§
\ ƒ
j
�
f /
\ 2
k2
k )
ƒ \
k§
z2
3 I
\{ \0
2
&
\° \\
u
jam(
/
§
§�
00 \0
|E ;§�
\/
®
/\ ))\
b
]
�
b�
\]
\/
2
a w
§
u
[ [
% #
/
�
/ f
& &
\ /
(§
k k
%2
>- 2v
E
uo uc
(
&
\ a
@
u
.
\\ \D
[fib
00
00
;; ;§,
§
/
) to
\
\ \[
\ 0
®
)\ \\