CC Resolution 2002-035RESOLUTION NO. 2002-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 FOR
CAPITAL- IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2001-14. FIRE
STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 5th day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-440 for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14
located on the west side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th day of February, 2002 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-440 prepared for Capital Improvement Project 2001-
14; and
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 2001-440)
and has determined that although the proposed located on the west side of Adams
Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue could have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in
the Conditions of Approval for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of
all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1 . The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 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 2001-440.
Resolution No. 2002-35
Environmental Assessment 2001-440
City of La auinta Fire Station
Adopted: March 5, 2002
Page 2
2. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 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 Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 does not have the potential
to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 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 Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 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-
440 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
Resolution No. 2002-35
-- Environmental Assessment 2001-440
City of La Quinta Fire Station
Adopted: March 5, 2002
Page 3
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 corrept and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment._
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-440 fir the
reasons set forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 5th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH J PENA yor
City,f a Quin alifornia
ATTEST:
J . GREEK, CM , Jerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-35
Environmental Assessment 2001-440
City of La Quinta Fire Station
Adopted: March 5, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. ICATHERINL� JENSON, e
Attorhey
City of La Quinta, Californ
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Capital Improvement Project 2001-14
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Hartung, 760-777-7000
4. Project Location: West side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low 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.)
Design approval for construction of a 7,800 square foot fire station on 1.4
acres of currently vacant land.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Public Park
South: Church
West: Low Density Residential
East: Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
SACity Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
1
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
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Lj Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
0
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.
101
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 furtherAs required.
'gnatur Date
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPO
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) "Neaative 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 I.mpact." 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\FireStEACkIst.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 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)
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACklst.WPD
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K4
KI
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? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM Tech, January
2002)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
5
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 Resources
Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM Tech,
January 2002)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM
Tech, January 2002)
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,
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? (General
Plan MEA, page 6-2 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan 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 page 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
X
R.
R.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
6
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 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.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fq
SACity Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
7
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)
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 2-1 1)
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?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17, Project
Description)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (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, page 6-
17, Project Description)
X
X
X
KI
R.
P.,
X
X
KI
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
8
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)
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:
K4
X
0
0
e
KI
X
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
9
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, page 4-126
ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, 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, page 4-
20)
SACity Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1:1
K4
1Ll
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.
19
X
X
X
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.
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
11
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
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site on Adams Street,
prepared by CRM Tech, January 24, 2002.
S:\City Clerk\FireStEACkIst.WPD
12
w
A
F
A
IZA
U�
a�
�W
Ox
UU
-oti
�
o
U
to
a
`l
o
0
U
O'
U
p
U
U
to
o
cd
'b
L7
a
o
.,
1-4
to
w+
o
o
o
0
z
F
cl
r.
N
U
U
~'
v
on
U
+O
o
' ..�
.O
�O
o
...�
O
a,
a
as
a
a,A
A
a
o�
wz
zz
tv
Cd
cl
ag
0
0
U
0
U
o
Ca
Q
A
W
QG
v
�
�
bA
G
bA
C
CU
C
U
U
U
a1
W
GA
0
0-4
clN
d
a�
E
c
cl
�
N
34
�
a
o
X
a�
"C
cis
et
O
m
'C
U
Q
a•�, 3
�
o
a
�
�
�
CIS
N+C4
C13
3cl
Q.
14
a
0
a
W
m
LL
0
0
cc
U
Ll
H
A
U �
A
a
� W
ox
UU
CIS
a�
N0
i
cl u
.
C U
Cd
O
F
�
O
U
U
a�
O
a
AG
O�
z
zo
o
z
o
A
cd
O,
UA
FZ
O
o
�
U
�
cl
U
F
O «i
U
o
•� U
F
A
U�
A
a
� W
ox
UU
F
rA
cri
rA
�
0-0U)
�
0.-0
0-0�
(�
rA
r
Q
O
rA
�
O
G
O
F
i
v
v
V)
O
O
U
O
U
U
C4
O�
z
15
zz.03
M
cl
cl
ct
c0„ O
a.
A
Q
Q
W�
AG
U
U
to
-o
-c
^O
�
z
rn
a
rA
a
'C c
-Y.d
V)
C
c
,
cd �
rA
w
«t
��'"
�O
.�.iclO
O
En
-
�•i
W
a
0
c�
.Y
Q
W
CD
LL
0
0
V)
a)
cc
Y
U
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-440
Ill. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed fire station will
generate dust, which could contribute to the PM10 problem in the area. In order
to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on
development to control dust. The contractor hired by the City 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. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
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 construction of the fire station will not be significant.
S:\City Clerk\FireStEAAdd.WPD
V. b) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property'. The
assessment found no surficial deposits either on the site or previously recorded
on adjacent or nearby parcels. The report concludes that development on the
site is likely to represent no impact on archaeological deposits, but recommends
the following mitigation measure, since no trenching was undertaken on the
site:
1. Should any archaeological resource be identified during earth moving
activities on the site, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be brought
in to identify and catalogue the find. The monitor shall be empowered to
stop or redirect activities on the site until it has been appropriately dealt
with. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the fire
station.
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. The fire station 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 PM10 management plan, and additional mitigation
measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above. These
mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
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 development of the fire station will require domestic water, although this
will be less than typical residential development, since the fire fighters will be
few in number. The City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and
on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated
with groundwater will be implemented on the site. The City will also require that
the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance are
implemented. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site on Adams Street,"
prepared by CRM Tech, January 24, 2002.
S:\City Clerk\FireStEAAdd.WPD
Vill. c)-d)
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. These standards will reduce
the potential impacts associated with drainage to a less than significant level.
XI. a)
The noise levels at the project site are predicted to exceed 60 dBA CNEL at
General Plan buildout. The fire station is not, however, a sensitive receptor. The
station, however, will be located in an area which is primarily residential in
nature, and will generate short term temporary noise which is not typical of a
residential area, namely in the form of sirens, loudspeakers, and truck engines.
These noise generators are temporary, and will not have a significant impact on
the overall noise environment. In addition, the site will be walled on all sides.
These noise generators could, however, pose an annoyance to surrounding
residents. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation
measures will be implemented:
1. Loud speakers and/or alarm bells shall not operate outside the fire station
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
2. Fire trucks shall not idle in the back (west) of the fire station.
Maintenance and cleanup which may require idling shall be performed
either in the vehicle bays with the westerly roll -up doors down, or in the
front (east) driveway.
These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with on -
site noise to a less than significant level.
XI. c) Noise levels will also be affected by construction activities on the site. The
noise created by the construction activity, particularly that of trucks and other
mechanical equipment, could impact residential development adjacent to the
site. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
1 . All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating
mufflers and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located as far as practical from adjacent residential units.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with
noise at the subject property to a less than significant level.
S:\City Clerk\FireStEAAdd.WPD