CC Resolution 2002-081RESOLUTION NO. 2002-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002-106, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2002-730
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443
APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 161h day of April, 2002, hold a duly -noticed and continued said Public Hearing to
the 41h day of June, 2002 to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-443 for Zone
Change 2002-106, and Site Development Permit 2002-730 herein referred to as the
"Project" for Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and continued
said Public Hearing to the 23`d day of April and subsequently continued said Public
Hearing to the 141h day May to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-443 for
Zone Change 2002-106, and Site Development Permit 2002-730; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for Environmental Assessment 2002-443 prepared for Change
of Zone 2002-106, and Site Development Permit 2002-730, located on the South Side
of Avenue 52, East of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
APN's: 772-300-002 & 772-300-003; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notice of its intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on
March 25, 2002, to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public
entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the
public hearing before the City Council on April 16; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of its intention to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun on March
25, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk
in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
Resolution No. 2002-81
Environmental Assessment 2002-443
Adopted June 4, 2002
Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.
Page 2
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on May 28, 2002, did
consider the Project and recommended to the City Council certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June
4, 2002, on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, during which public
hearing testimony and other evidence was received.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the Council.
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-443.
SECTION 4: The 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.
Resolution No. 2002-81
Environmental Assessment 2002-443
Adopted June 4, 2002
Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.
Page 3
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The 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 Project.
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 9: The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Council.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6
in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
Resolution No. 2002-81
Environmental Assessment 2002-443
Adopted June 4, 2002
Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.
Page 4
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby certified and
adopted.
SECTION 16: The Community Development Director shall cause to be
filed with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA Guideline §
15075(a).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 4th day of June, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: Council Member Adolph
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH% PENA, I�/I�ay�r
City o a Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU REEK, CMC, CI y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-81
Environmental Assessment 2002-443
Adopted June 4, 2002
Clubhouse Associates L.L.C.
Page 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KAT ERINE JE ON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-084, Change of Zone 2002-106,
Site Development Permit 2002-730, Clubhouse Apartments.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location:
South side of Avenue 52, approximately
600 feet east of Jefferson
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Clubhouse Associates, LLC
160 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: High Density Residential
7. Zoning: Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: High Density Residential
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to change the density of the
property from 4 units per acre to up to 16 units per acre on a parcel of land
approximately 10 acres in size. Site Development Permit to allow the
construction of 149 apartments and ancillary facilities.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Avenue 52, Low Density Residential
South: All -American Canal
West: Vacant Neighborhood Commercial, recently approved
for a shopping center
East: All -American Canal, Single Family Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
PACEQAchetkliAEA 02-443wpd
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
Determination
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
LiPopulation and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
(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��
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.
AN
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,
nothing further is required.
El
March 7.2002
C—liggriatured- Date
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\C1ubAssocCk1st.WPD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
Issues land Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit CIR-5)
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? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
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)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
Potentially
Potentially Signfficant Less Then
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Kq
L
X
X
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1)
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 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)?
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Lakebed Delineation Map)
X
X
X
1�
X
9
X
X
M
►�
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
5
VI
VII
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological
Associates, July 2001)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit
6-2, page 6-7)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
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? ("Geotechnical
Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential Subdivision...,"
Sladden Engineering, August 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.)
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)
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)
X
Q
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
6
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? .(General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 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)
VIII. 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.)
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-
30 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 4-30 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 4-30 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)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
7
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan
Project Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-5)
X. 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?
("Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared
by Gordon Bricken & Associates; General Plan MEA, Exhibit
6-4, page 6-17)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
("Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared
by Gordon Bricken & Associates; General Plan MEA, Exhibit
6-4, page 6-17)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, Pg 6-17)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan map)
X
N
Fl
X
X
X
R3
X
X
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.wPD
8
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. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, pg 4-126 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
I1
I9
X
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\C1ubAssocCk1st.WPD
9
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service stan,+ard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
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, page 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, pg 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing 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)
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
10
*4
X
X
X
X
X
X
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
-- of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-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
1:1
Q
X
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D)• In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
11
Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates,
NOVEMBER 29, 2001.
Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Clubhouse at La Quinta...," prepared by W & S
Consultants.
Traffic Impact Analysis letter, dated February 12, 2002, prepared by Wildan.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocCklst.WPD
12 .
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-443
I. a) & c)
The proposed project includes one, two and three story buildings. The three
story buildings are proposed on the boundary of the site adjacent to the All -
American Canal (buildings 1, 2, 2.13 and 4). The height of these buildings is
shown to reach 40 feet. However, the buildings will never be adjacent to
other development, insofar as the All -American Canal will always provide a
buffer to development on the south. The buildings will be at least 200 feet
from any development to the south, and probably more when setbacks are
added to those properties. This distance reduces the potential impacts
associated with the structures to a less than significant level.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation
of motor vehicles. The 149 apartment units could generate approximately
5,500 trips per day'. Based on this trip generation, the project at buildout
will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 198.8 7.65 40.7 -- 0.85 0.85
7 9
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 5,500 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75°F. " Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
As demonstrated in the Table above, the proposed project will not exceed any
threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air
quality relating to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
Traffic Analysis letter dated February 13, 2002, prepared by Wildan.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\CIubAssocAdd.WPD
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 PM 10 can be mitigated by the
mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Perimeter landscaping on Avenue 52 and the
retention basin landscaping shall be completed with the first phase of
development.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from buildout will not be significant.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\C1ubAssocAdd.WPD
V. b) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property2. The survey
-- found three prehistoric sites and one isolate on the site. As a result, the report
recommends the imposition of the following mitigation measure:
1. A Phase II testing program shall be conducted on the subject property.
The findings of the Phase II testing shall be compiled into a report to be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code
requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation
of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of
grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will
implement requirements for a PM 10 management plan, and additional mitigation
measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above. These
mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Vill. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which
extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's standards for
water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in
reducing the potential impacts associated with groundwater. The proposed
project will also meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
Vill. c)&d)
The proposed project will alter the drainage pattern in the area through grading
and covering of soil with impermeable surfaces. The City requires that all
construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will
control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's
drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
2
"Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Clubhouse at La Quinta...," prepared by W & S Consultants.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD
XI. a)
A noise study was prepared for the proposed project3. The study found that
noise levels of 69 dBA CNEL could be expected at 100 feet from the center line
of Avenue 52. Since the project proposes sensitive receptors, namely
apartments, for the site, mitigation is required to reduce the impacts,
particularly to first floor units near the Avenue 52 right-of-way.
1. A 5 foot tall barrier, either in the form of a wall or berm, or combination
of both, shall be erected along the entire length of the property on
Avenue 52, and for a distance of at least 200 feet along the western and
eastern property lines. The wall shall have no openings or cutouts,
except drain holes, within the 5 feet of height.
2. Construction of all units shall conform to the recommendations made in
the "Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments...," prepared by
Gordon Bricken & Associates, November 2001.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will also generate temporary high
noise levels which could impact residential development to the south and east.
In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located in the northwest corner of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XIII. a)
The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City
contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services. The project area will be required to pay
the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the
students generated, and offset the impacts to schools.
3 "Acoustical Analysis The Clubhouse Apartments...," prepared by Gordon Bricken & Associates, November
2001.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD
XV. a)
The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site development is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
A traffic analysis letter was prepared for the proposed project`. The letter finds
that the potential additional traffic generated at the site will not represent a
significant impact on the City's roadway system. Further, the City's General
Plan EIR and associated traffic study included analysis of this property for High
Density Residential development. The project falls within the parameters of the
EIR, and will not further impact the roadway system. Impacts are expected to
be less than significant.
4 Letter dated February 12, 2002, by Wildan.
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ClubAssocAdd.WPD
N
O
O
O
O
M
N
z
a
U
Q
a
a
d
i�
N N
� � O
N fV CA
o
N
N
O
o
a � �
�Uq
moo �o
C7 o rr� .-
a
zo
z
a
A
U
W
d
F
A
'
U�
Zo
d
A
�W
OV
U
W
a�
W
y
V
U
ec
� o
�
E15
0
U
a
a
c a
�
►.r
�
a a
E•� v�
v�
OD
G
�
�
'C
�
•O
O
O
on
4"
O
O
�
4r
O
U O
O
Z
F
O
O
U
y
=
O
U
N
=
O
w °�U
O
U
C U
U
w�
O
ZZZ
a
W
a
�
OD
to
w �
C
G
a
W
W
Al
~
E a ;°
=e
U
U
U
GA
U A mIrl
pq
N
z
L�r
ICI
0
0
d
W
E
v
4,
i„i
o
0
•v
H
or.
o
c
L
3
U
C1
w
d b0
C
�.
d
H
�0-4
.rn
d
'O
CA
v
•+''
_
0
d
5
N
-
C
3
'G
>
OD
w
A
e�
.o
h
i
H
°
U
� �
U
o
�
U
O
.O
a
go
5
o
z~
oz
o
O
UA
A
U�
�A
w
OV
U
F
o
0
o
c
o
0
0
0
H
U
U
U
A
a
cn
zz
°O
0.
W
4)
A
A
A
A
rx
b
bo
4.
O
p V
O
a�
a
°�
W
�d
40.
kf) -
p
V
C
U
w
DC
o"g
U
o
0
..a
N
a
is,