CC Resolution 2002-083RESOLUTION NO. 2002-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-058
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-450
MARVIN INVESTMENTS
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared collectively for Environmental Assessment 2002-450 prepared for Specific
Plan 2002-058 (collectively "the Project"), located on the south side of Calle
Tampico, between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive, more particularly
described as:
APN's: 770-121-001, 770-121-002, 770-121-003, 770-123-001, and 770-124-005
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 May
24, 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 June 4, 2002; 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 May
26, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk
in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
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.
Resolution No. 2002-83
Environmental Assessment 2002-450
Marvin Investments
Adopted: June 4, 2002
Page 2
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 2002-450.
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.
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.
Resolution No. Iv02-83
-- Environmental Assessment 2002-450
Marvin Investments
Adopted: June 4, 2002
Page 3
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.
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 vote to wit:
Resolution No. 2002-83
Environmental Assessment 2002-450
Marvin Investments
Adopted: June 4, 2002
Page 4
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, Mayor Pro
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
';:� '-e� _S:Z1 - 9�� - -
JU REEK, CMC, Cit Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/P, XK -�
M. KAT ERINE JE ON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-058 (EA 2002-450)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: South side of Tampico, Between Avenida Bermudas and
Desert Club Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Marvin Investments, Inc.
78-080 Calle Estado, Suite 201
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Village Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Specific Plan establishes development and design standards for the
construction of 127,500+ square feet of retail, office and restaurant space
on 5.42 acres. The project is proposed to combine single and two story
buildings, with a central drive and some on -site parking. Off -site parking is
also proposed. The project would be constructed in phases.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant lands and commercial uses, Village Commercial
South: Scattered commercial, vacant lands, Village Commercial
West: Commercial uses, vacant lands, Village Commercial
East: Vacant lands and Verizon building, Village Commercial
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
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.
11
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.
✓ Gv►�, ✓ PA v —L
Signature Date
P:\STAN\WeIIsEACkIst.WPD J 1
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\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
EIR p. III-159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
4
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
917
1:4
r
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description) X
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? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis...,
James Cornett, July 2001)
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? (Biological Assessment and Impact
Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001)
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? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett,
July 2001)
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? (Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis..., James Cornett,
July 2001)
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? (Biological Assessment and
Impact Analysis..., James Cornett, July 2001)
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? (Historical/
Archaeo-logical Resource Survey La Quinta Village..." CRM Tech,
July 2001)
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)? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey La Quinta
Village..." CRM Tech, July 2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master
Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
94
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey La
Quinta Village..." CRM Tech, July 2001)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
MEA p. 96 ff)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ("Report
on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems
Southwest, February 2001.)
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? ("Report on
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest,
February 2001.)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
("Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." Earth Systems
Southwest, February 2001.)
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? ("Report on Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment..." Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FA
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project Within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan
MEA p. 94 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-
87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit
6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
7
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�0
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
73 ff.)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan MEA p. 110 ff., Application materials)
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 land use map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
8
X
X
KI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ("La Quinta
Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, November
2001)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? ("La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact
Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 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? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? ("La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo
Engineering, November 2001)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
191
X
X
X
El
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, p. 46 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, p. 46 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p.
46 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
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
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
1:1
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-4ov cnkhst.wpd
10
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Marvin Commercial/Retail Center," prepared by
James W. Cornett, July 2001.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report La Quinta Village Project," prepared by CRM Tech, July
2001.
"La Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001.
"Report on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, February 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 chklist.wpd
11
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-450
I. d) The proposed project will be located on lands which are currently generally
vacant, and will therefore result in a new source of light. The City requires that
all projects contain exterior lighting on -site, and this project will be subject to
these regulations. In addition, the project has been designed so that much of the
on -sit parking is located on the interior of the site. New light sources will be
shielded by the buildings planned around the perimeter, further reducing off -site
impacts from lighting. City standards and the project design will lower potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of
motor vehicles. A traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project concluded
that the project will generate a total of 5,060 trips per day'. Based on this trip
generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
45 mph 149. 6.7 26.8 -- 0.67 0.67
45 1
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
Based on 5,060 trips/day and average trip length of 6 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.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM 10 concentrations in
"L_a Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 ea addend.wpd
the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a PM 10 Management 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 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. Parkway landscaping on Calle Tampico,
Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive shall be installed with the first
phase of the proposed project.
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.
V. b) A cultural resource survey was completed for the proposed project2. The survey
2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report La Quinta Village Project," prepared by CRM Tech, July
20-01.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 ea addend.wpd 2
included both a records search and field survey. The site has been previously
graded, and had a low potential for surficial archaeological resources. The field
survey confirmed that no artifacts or historically significant features were
present at the site. The study recommends, however, that the following
mitigation measure be required:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first
building on the site.
The Historic Preservation Commission during their review of the report
requested that all trenching below graded levels be monitored by an
archaeological monitor.
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 and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform
Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject
property. All buildings within the Specific Plan area 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 commercial businesses which will eventually occupy the site
will use less water than residential development. The proposed project will also
meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance.
These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. d)
The proposed project will result in buildings and parking lots on a parcel which
is currently vacant. The land in its current condition allows the free flow of
stormwater, and some ponding in this part of the City. The City Engineer will
allow all phases of the project's 100 year 24 hour storm to connect the the
-existing storm drain system. This will control the amount of runoff which exits
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 ea addend.wpd 3
the site during a storm, and should eliminate the ponding of storm water on
surrounding roadways. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These
standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with surface water to a
less than significant level.
Vlll. g)
A portion of the site (northeast corner) occurs within the boundaries of the
flooding area for the 100 year storm, as mapped by FEMA. The balance of the
site occurs within the boundaries of the 500 year storm. The City Engineer will
require that all buildings be designed according to standards for flood zones,
such as raised foundations. The building and grading plans will be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits, ensuring that the
proposed project will not be impacted by flooding in the future.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will generate noise from construction
equipment and activities. There are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent
to the proposed project however. The impacts of temporary noise at and around
the project site are not expected to be significant.
XIII. a►
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate sales and
property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be
required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or facilities.
XV. a) & b)
A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the proposed project'. The study
analyze not only traffic on immediately adjacent streets, but also intersections
further removed from the project site. The analysis found that the project would
generate 5,060 daily trips at buildout, of which 800 will occur at the AM peak
hour, and 614 at the PM peak hour. The study also found that the project will
reduce levels of service on City roadways, but not to a significant level with the
addition of off -site improvements needed to accommodate this additional traffic.
These improvements include the signalization of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue
52, and the addition of another left turn lane to Calle Tampico at Washington
Street. The project proponent will be required to participate in these projects
"4a Quinta Old Town Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, November 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 ea addend.wpd 4
through the payment of Transportation Impact Fees, which are designed to
offset costs to the City's transportation system. The City Engineer will also
review and approve all circulation plans for the proposed project as part of the
construction review process. These standards; and the recommended
improvements in the traffic study, will ensure that impacts to the roadway
system as a result of buildout of this project are reduced to a less than
significant level.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 2002-450 ea addend.wpd 5
M
U
w
0
00
N
O
i
N
O
O
N
a
v
U
N
► �
56
o
z
o
z-
z
x
�
A
U
W
d
w
d
A
U M
zA
Q
�w
O�
UU
Q
U
0
U =
o
_
0
�
=
�
U
a
cd
v
c
0=
_
on
°A
cd
0
U
O
a`n
0
O
.a
0
O
O
2
U
7
U
7
N
-
cz
=
tn
tn
E-
CA
U
U0
=
U
=
° U
U
0
CA � U
�O En E
�O
to
= U
U
aL
a
a 0.
a` o, a
cz
o`n w
aL
a
o
wZ
a.
c
c
c
cz
_
.0
•�
L
LL
E* a
O
N
L
d
H
O
O
a
>
_
Q
�
co
°
o
o
c
E
Q
on
ICI
I�
V
co
�
M I
N
��,,
a�
RS
cz
L s
d
ate.+
N
C
cd
-�
•_'
bA G.
at
._.
Cn N
W
Q
A
U
Q
W
U
W
ox
U
U
Q
0 0
W rA
w w
w
0
0 0
a
U
a
-ape M -dt� v,
U U
cC ct
on
�
C7
Z
o �
F
�
c c
o �
Q L1
a
w z
o. a
a a
o 0
zZ
Q Q
t.
E �
U A U A
0.
O
z
16.cz
�
b b
Ln
�o �oo
a�
a
a a co 'O 0 N N
4. co a ^O
'c
0
E
o�
E
d
0
Lo
i
N
O
O
N
m
N
N
C
f