CC Resolution 2002-007RESOLUTION NO. 2002-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-083,
ZONE CHANGE 2001-105 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-055
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 5th day of February, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-436 for General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone
Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055, for lands bounded by Miles Avenue
on the north, Washington Street on the West, and the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel on the south; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 22nd day of January, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-436 for General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone
Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055, for lands bounded by Miles Avenue
on the north, Washington Street on the West, and the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel on the south, more particularly described as follows:
APN 604-040-012, 013, 023 and 037
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-436)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083,
Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 could have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in
the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying said Environmental
Assessment:
Resolution No. 2002-07
Environmental Assessment 2001-436
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 2
1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and
Specific Plan 2001-055 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-436.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and
Specific Plan 2001-055 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and
Specific Plan 2001-055 do not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5.. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and
Specific Plan 2001-055 will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will
not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-105 and
Specific Plan 2001-055 will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
436 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
Resolution No. 2002-07
-- Environmental Assessment 2001-436
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 3
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).
9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 75-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-436 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-436 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 5th day of February 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins, Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
"�7
STANLEY SNIFF, M yor Pro a -m
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2002-07
Environmental Assessment 2001-436
Adopted: February 5, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU NtSMGREEK, CMC, Jerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINEIJENSON, ty Attorney
City of La Quinta, Califor is
Environmental Checklist Form
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-436
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-017
City Council Resolution 2002-07
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-083, Zone Change 2001-
105, Specific Plan 2001-055
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jerrr Herman ,
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southeastern corner of Miles Avenue and Washington
Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA -92253
6. General Plan Designation: Current: High Density Residential, Park
Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park
7. Zoning: Current: High Density Residential, Park
Proposed: Tourist Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Park
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 General Plan and Zone Change are required to allow the development of the
proposed hotel and medium density residential land uses. The Specific Plan
establishes design standards and guidelines for the development of
approximately 22 acres of tourist commercial, consisting of two three-story
hotel facilities, commercial retail and restaurant uses; approximately 19 acres
of single family and townhome development; approximately 7 acres of
watercourse (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel); and approximately 6 acres
of park. Altogether, the property is approximately 54 acres in size.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Miles Avenue, Vacant, Single Family Residential
South: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Single Family
Residential
East: Vacant, single family residential
West: Washington Street, vacant
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.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 & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE 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" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
no hing further is required.
L
December 5. 2001
Signature i Date
Christine di lorio
Printed Name
CITY OF LA QUINTA
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\GatewayCkLst.WPD 2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis) .
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site
as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis,"
may be cross-referenced).
-- 5) Earlier 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
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(Visual Simulation, The Keith Companies)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Visual Simulation,
The Keith Companies)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Specific Plan document)
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?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial
photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
0
No
MMME
X
X
R.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Specific Plan document)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Specific Plan document)
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. 5-2 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. 5-2 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. 5-2 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.
5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
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. 5-2 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? (See Sources consulted at the end of this
checklist)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
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)? (See Sources consulted at the end of this
checklist)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontological Map, City of La Quinta)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (See Sources consulted at the
end of this checklist)
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? (Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems
Southwest, November 2001)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. And Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Geotechnical Engineering Report,
Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest,
November 2001)
1l
X
X
Kq
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32 and
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Southwest,
November 2001)
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)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-1 1)
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)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
-- would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
■■tee
MEMO
E
No
MEMO
Kq
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
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, page 4-
59 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, page 4-59 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 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 6-13 )
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
X.
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 costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-5)
MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary
Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December
2001)
X
X
KI
X
X
P
F.
X
n
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General
Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Revised Preliminary Acoustical
Analysis, Gordon Bricken & Associates, December 2001)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and
Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis, Gordon Bricken &
Associates, December 2001)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
In
X
X
X
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 X
facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANS PORTATION/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. 4-126 ff.
and La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban
Crossroads, December 2001)
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. 4-126 ff. and La Quinta Gateway
Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 2001)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, page 4-24)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
20)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 10
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
X
X
1�1
KI
1�
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.
None
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.
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 1 1
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM
Tech, July 2001
"Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American
Cremation Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001
"Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860,"
prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000
"Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group,
June 1999
La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads,
December 2001
Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates,
December 2001
"Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November
2001
Visual Impact Simulation, prepared by the Keith Companies, December 2001
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayCkLst.WPD 12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-436
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-017
City Council Resolution 2002-07
I. a) & c)
The proposed project occurs at a high topographic point in the city, and is
bordered on the east and north by single family residential development. In order
to assess the potential impacts to the viewshed of these single family residential
units, a visual impact simulation was conducted'. The simulations were
conducted for views from the east and south to the west, and from the north
and east to the south and west. The analysis clearly demonstrates that the
scale of the proposed project will not eliminate the views of existing or future
residential units to the surrounding mountains. The impacts of structures on the
project site will be less than significant.
III. a) & d)
Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular
emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 6,170 average
daily trips2. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout will generate
the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 223. 8.58 45.7 -- 0..95 0.95
1 6
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 6,170 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.
Visual Impact Simulations, The Keith Companies, December 2001.
2 "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December
2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD
As demonstrated above, the operational impacts associated with air quality on the
project site are expected to be -less than significant.
Ill.c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (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
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 PM10 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. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed, or chemical
stabilizer.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenue 52 and
Jefferson Street, and the retention basin landscaping shall be completed
with the first phase of development.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
S \City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 2
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
11 All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
IV. a) The proposed project is within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay fees
to mitigate the potential impact on this species. The payment of the fees serves
to mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level.
V. b) & d)
Several cultural resource studies were completed for the subject property'. The
surveys included extensive testing and the excavation of a cremation site. The
work done on the site to date has been comprehensive, but additional resources
may be buried within the project area. As a result, to ensure that the potential
impacts to cultural resources are mitigated, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
1 . During any and all earth moving activities on any portion of the project
site, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present. The monitor shall
be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource
be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for any building on the project site.
VI. a) ii)
A geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site'. The site occurs
in a seismic Zone IV. The site, as with the balance of the City, will be subject
to strong groundshaking during a seismic event. The City has implemented
standards in the Uniform Building Code to ensure the highest construction
3 "Archaeological Monitoring Report, Miles Avenue Borrow Site," prepared by CRM Tech,
July 2001
"Final Report Archaeological Mitigation of Project Effects to a Native American Cremation
Found on Parcel Map No. 26860," prepared by CRM Tech, February 2001
"Final Report Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Parcel Map No. 26860,"
prepared by CRM Tech, June 2000
"Phase I Archaeological Assessment of 54.65 Acres at the Southeast Corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue," prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, June
1999
4 "Geotechnical Engineering Report," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, November 2001.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 3
standards are applied to protect against seismic hazard. These standards are
expected to ensure that impacts associated with seismic ground shaking are
reduced to a less than significant level.
IX. b) The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone will change the
land uses on the project site from High Density Residential and Park to Tourist
Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Park. The surrounding land use
designations include Park, Low Density Residential and Watercourse. The
change in land use represents a natural extension of the land use plan, insofar
as it places more intense land use (Tourist Commercial) at the intersection of
Miles and Washington, and steps down the land use intensity as it proceeds
easterly. The Medium Density Residential will be an effective buffer to the
existing and future low density development to the east and south. The existing
High Density Residential designation is a relatively intense land use, which
would not have been buffered from the Low Density development to the east.
The proposed General Plan and Change of Zone will therefore represent a less
than significant impact on the land use pattern in the City.
XI. a) A noise study was completed for the proposed projects. The project site is
currently subject to high noise levels, and will continue to be impacted by noise
as the project build out. The noise levels will not be reduced to City standards
without mitigation.
In order to achieve acceptable noise levels for the hotels and townhomes on the
subject property, the noise study proposes several setback areas for the
construction of sound walls, depending on the site design. These mitigation
measures include sound walls and/or berms ranging from 0 to 10 feet in height,
and are variable depending on the finish grade of the individual sites within the
project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the
noise study, however, noise levels on the site at buildout can be reduced to an
acceptable level. Since no Site Development Permit is proposed at this time for
any portion of the site, and specific mitigation cannot therefore be evaluated,
the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1 . Any site development permit submitted for any portion of the site shall
either:
a) Demonstrate conformance with the mitigation measures provided
in the "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis" prepared by
Gordon Bricken & Associates on December 6, 2001; or
b) Submit a noise study specifically prepared for that site
5 "Revised Preliminary Acoustical Analysis," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates,
December 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 4
b) Submit a noise study specifically prepared for that site
development permit which demonstrates that the noise levels can
be reduced on the site to the noise standards in effect at the time
of submittal of the application.
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have a less than significant impact on public
services. All areas of the proposed Specific Plan will be served by the County
Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will
generate property tax, transient occupancy tax and sales taxes which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services.
XV. a)
The project 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 collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax will generate
revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of
municipal services. The project will be required to participate in the City's
Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs.
A traffic study was conducted for the proposed projects. The study found that
buildout of the proposed project would generate up to 6,170 average daily
trips, of which 310 would occur during the AM peak, and 465 during the PM
peak hour. The volume generated by the proposed project, combined with the
growth in traffic volumes on City streets from other project in the area resulted
in recommended mitigation measures in the study in order to maintain City
level of service standards. These mitigation measures are enumerated below:
1 . Miles Avenue and Washington Street shall be constructed to their full
half -width right-of-way with development of the first phase of the
project.
2. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Seeley Drive and
Miles Avenue in conjunction, as warranted.
3. Access to the project from Washington Street shall be limited to right -in,
right -out only.
4. Left turn pocket on Seeley Drive, accessing westbound Miles Avenue,
shall be a minimum of 100 feet in length. Left turn pocket on westbound
Miles Avenue, accessing southbound Seeley Drive, shall be a minimum
6 "La Quinta Gateway Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 5
of 150 feet in length.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts of the project
on the City's circulation system shall be less than significant.
XVI. a)-f)
The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall
impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these
suppliers will charge the businesses and residents for their services, and
provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees
will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will
mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\GatewayAdd.WPD 6
U
Q
CL
5
O
U
d
W
U
O
LL
a
CD
cc
0
Z
O
5
O
Z
W
a
w
0
N
W
Q
W
C CD
W
�--+ Z
N 0
LU
CCD
O cm
C_
-C W
cn _
cm
o �
i O
0
U 1—
U
U) � W
cv a� Z
N U Z
O
O
o a C.)
U) Q C Z
Q
CD
,• O
Z CL
O CD
Qz
C.)m
O p O
J J Z
Q O
uj O 2
MI) cc 00 a z
O
a _
a Q �
CD
W
N=
Z
C.)W
N
W Q
U = U
N W
C_
C �� Z O
LA
m
Lo uj Q
r O to J CLW
N w ~
O
aN N U ZLL
C7 � — Z
.. • • 3.. O
Oo Z Q °Q
C.)J m
W Eu J 04
U.
ao a a =W
U N W Q H LU
W
LU
m
V
Q W
J �C
CL U
M W
O=
V U
cn
+,
C
m
a)
Q
co-p
m
U
H
N
U
c
c
°C
a
c
a
co
"a
O
U
p
p
m
=
O
C
C
O
_
O
°
_
O
c
U
:
U
M
�
Z
c
j
E
}'
j E
+�-�
~
c
m
CD
U
.�
a U
.cn a
C
a
U
O
C U
O tm
O
cm
•
oLa.2
o�
o=v
O
m O
cv
CL
a.
rn0-
a- .0 a`.
a
C
O O
U.
W Z
},
N
a
O
E
N O
O
Z
L
a�
a)
a
p
O
a�
a�
a�
>
c
ag
O
N
W
W
C
=
E
E
C
>
>
E
a
O
t
O
0
U
U
U
m
U p
c
0
+�
O
H
o
N
a
W
Ocr
c
�—
—
C
C
N
M
O
O
-
�
N
W
+r
CL
_
.o
a)
Cl)
+�
Q
J
cn
L-
m
'o
Q
C
O
p.
C
U
O
N
C
cC
Q
c
N
UccQ)
C
3
o
},
CD
m
a
CL
LU
H
H
G
�
W >-
W >-
C.) co
C) m
Q W
Q W
J Y
J bC
av
aV
OV
OV
C)
V
L
O
U
L
W
cd O
cr.
O N
> C >
C)
M�- Cl)L
'
O L
U U U
>ca
O N
a
U v cCo
a .0 CL
E E
c
c
CL CL
0
>O
C U C
_Z
E
Z
E L E
s
i
Cl.a
O c o
a�
> >
c
.c
W a�
+�> 1'>
0
cn(1) cnCL)
c
a)
cr.
c c
a) a)
O_
z
o
O
Z
o •rn�
cc
co 0
N !A
>
J cc
m p
_
_oJ
a)
> >
y H
ZZ
(1)
0 0 vi
USH
ZZ
a) CO a)
0
a O
�
a O
� +,Vc c c 4-0
W
cj.nE
WE
c E E E
cc
E-0 a
E a a E a
U cco0
U00 UD
a)
CD a�
'o
Z
c
�
Z
_
c
0
Cl)O
o cn
o a� 'c >,
~
Cl)
U
O
F"
a�
N m cn 4-1
L
W
O a) O
I--
��
co
c �
��
cn
�Q c
} W
>
W
U
Q2
Q
E
Q2
o 0 a (n
cn
W
O�
°'
Wcn
.0 C > V y
E m O .�
Cl)J
Cl)cv
v�
Cl)
O
Z
t C +r M cv
° i
V
Q
W
s c
U L
v° v� >•°
C .. +-' c0 C
X
uoE Qcov
W
Q
0
W }
m
Z
Q W
�C
CJ
G WLU
O=
V V
O
4--
O
%
cn
'L
cn
'0
cn
c
O
�C
N
cv
C
ca
c
N
E
�,
C
FLU
co
U
.�
cn
C
cv
c
O
ca
�
U
i
Z
O
C
I—
O
O
+•�
C�
Y
U
U
=3
.c
s
v
CD
4-a
Cl)
U
U
�0
p
cco
ccv
CL
U
GC
L Z
J M
m O
US H
z Z
d
N
N
N
O
Cl)
c
c
c
c
•�
W
C
C
c
C
W
W
W
W
U
U
U
U
Z
C
O
O
4-0_ ,
c
L
0 •n
Z
O
I-
c
o
m
o
cca O
+�
Q
J
U
L
(1)
�
c
0
O cn
p —_ _O
y
C7W
m
cn
cn
C
N��
O
A
}a
Z
06
E
W
Q
cn `~
a
c
* i N
LL
=
U
cnCD cn �,
O c
U.
Q
U
U
C E
D
O N
co
+•
—
w�_
U +r
cv s
O
� E °
>
O +r
cn
E_
o ni
X
U O
C-
C G
J.
J.E (n