CC Resolution 2002-092RESOLUTION NO. 2002-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2002-056, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-
731
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-448
WG PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 181h day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on Environmental Assessment 2002-
448, for Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731, a request
by WG Properties to develop a ± 16,000 square foot commercial/office complex on
a 1.51 acre site, located ± 200 feet north of the intersection of Lake La Quinta Drive
and Washington Street, more particularly described as:
PARCEL 6 OF PM 27892, PM 182/063 OF MAPS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28th day of May, 2002 (as continued from April 23`d, 2002 and May 14ih,
2002), hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider said Environmental Assessment
and, at said hearing, did recommend certification of said Environmental Assessment;
and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community
Development Director did conduct an Initial Study, and determined that the proposed
Specific Plan 2002-056 and Site Development Permit 2002-731 could not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City
Council did make the following findings to justify their certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2302-92
WG Properties
Environmental Assessment 2002-448
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 2
1. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in
question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan
and other current City standards. The project will not have the potential to
substantially reduce or cause 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.
2. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have
potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
that wildlife depends.
3. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not
have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not
have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, to the
extent development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of
the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered
and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those
projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected
by this proposed project.
5. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit applications will not
have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or
indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to
those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General
Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human
health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The La Quinta Planning Commission and City Council have considered
Environmental Assessment 2002-448 and determined that it reflects the
independent judgement of the City.
Resolution No. Z302-92
WG Properties
Environmental Assessment 2002-448
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 3
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this case;
2. That is does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-448 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the
Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 18' day of June 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOHN111. PENin,,I 9ayor
City o La Quin a, California
Resolution No. 2002-92
WG Properties
Environmental Assessment 2002-448
Adopted: June 18, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
JUN REEK, CMC, CitTtlerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ 1, /��/E )---,
M. KATHE E JENSON, ity A orney
City of La Quinta, Califo nia
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Site Development Permit 2002-731
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
4. Project Location: ± 200 feet north of Lake La Quinta Drive, between
Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: WG Properties
78467 Highway 111
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial)
7. Zoning: CR (Regional 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.)
Review of development plans for construction of a 16,042 square foot
commercial/office complex on a ± 1.5 acre site.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Vacant M/RC land; retail use farther north
South: Vacant M/RC land
East: Low Density Residential development
West: Institutional (St. Francis church and LQAF facility)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\cklst448.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 & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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, and nothing further is required. ❑
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Preparer
Date
Community Development Dep't
C:\Wrkgrp\Casedocs\Sp056\EAdocs\cklst448.wpd
2
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 account for 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 analyses 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
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (LQ
General Plan)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
IL 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 to non-agricultural use? (EIR, LQGP)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; LQGP MEA)
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? (site not in
agricultural use)
Ill. 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?
(1990 PM 10 SIP)
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/PM10 SIP)
X
X
X
X
F7
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\cklst448.wpd
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis) X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials/site assessment) L L 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? (LQGP MEA)
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? (site conditions;
LQGP MEA)
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? (MEA,LQGP)
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? (MEA; EIR, LQGP)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; LQGP)
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? (LQGP MEA; CVFTL HCP)
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?
(CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000 - SP 2001-049)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000 - SP 2001-049)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map) X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) X
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? (LQGP;
EIR,)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (LQGP; EIR)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(LQGP EIR)
iv) Landslides? (LQGP EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (LQGP
EIR)
c► Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off -site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (LQGP EIR)
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? (LQGP EIR)
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? (LQGP
MEA)
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? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
X
S:\City C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
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; Site/project assessment)
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? (Not applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (LQGP MEA)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (Aerial data; Site assessment)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (LQGP MEA)
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? (LQGP EIR)
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? (LQGP EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan)
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site?(LQGP
EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
to control?(LQGP EIR, Lake LQ Maintenance Plan)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (LQGP MEA)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (LQGP MEA; CVFTL
HCP)
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? (LQGP MEA)
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? (LQGP MEA)
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?
(LQGP EIR)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels?(LQGP EIR)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?(LQGP EIR)
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? (Not applicable)
e1 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? (Not applicable)
X
KI
X
X
X
X
X
KI
X
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 X
infrastructure) ? (LQGP; Project assessment)
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
8
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
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? (LQGP EIR)
Police protection? (LQGP EIR)
Schools?(LQGP EIR)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities?(LQGP EIR)
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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
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? (Project
assessment)
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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (LQGP EIR)
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? (Not applicable)
X
m
e
X
X
X
X
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\cklst448.wpd
9
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (LQGP EIR)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment,
Fire/police comments)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (LQGP EIR; CVWD)
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? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments).
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? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (LQGP MEA; CVWD comments)
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? (CVWD comments)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (LQGP MEA)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce 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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
10
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 ANALYSES.
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Checklist Addendum.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
11
SOURCES CONSULTED:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
City of La Quinta General Plan, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Lake Management Plan for Lake La Quinta, 1989
State Implementation Plan for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley, November 1990.
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, Section 10A
Permit, June 1985.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ck1st448.wpd
12
Checklist Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-448
Introduction
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a proposed 16,042 square foot
office complex, to be located on 1.51 acres in the City of La Quinta. The site location
is ± 200 feet north of Lake La Quinta Drive, between Washington Street and Caleo
Bay Drive. The project site is currently vacant, with the Lake La Quinta recreation and
residential areas to the east, vacant commercial land to the south (approved for 8,500
s.f. of office and restaurant use), Washington Street, the La Quinta Arts Foundation
facility (LQAF) and Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church to the west, and vacant
commercial land to the north (proposed for a 25,500 s.f. medical office facility).
I. AESTHETICS
There are no scenic view sheds identified from the site, nor is the site directly
in line with any view windows as identified by the General Plan documents.
There will be minimal view obstruction from the proposed building at 30 foot
maximum height to residents of Lake La Quinta as there is a significant distance
between the site and any proximate residential lots. Also, the visibility lines to
the 30 foot peak building height are similar to surrounding approved uses, some
of which have lower peak heights but are sited closer to Washington Street
and/or Caleo Bay Drive.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The site is in an area identified by the General Plan EIR as being prime
agricultural soil. The soil type is of the Gilman series (GbA, GbB, GcA), which
are well drained, moderately permeable soils suitable for agriculture and
recreational uses. Development of the site will remove approximately 1.5 acres
from the City's inventory of available prime agricultural soil. However, this is
recognized as a cumulative impact due to the growth -inducing nature of impacts
associated with adoption of the General Plan, and the designation of the site in
that document for commercial land use. The property is not, nor has it been, in
agricultural production. Its location away from agriculture -based infrastructure,
in an urbanizing area, along with the small parcel size, render the site unsuitable
for such use.
III. AIR QUALITY
Development of the proposed project will not, in and of itself, have an
appreciable impact on ambient air quality. Air quality impacts for a development
of this type and scale are generally limited to short-term construction. In the
Coachella Valley, the greatest concern relative to construction emissions is
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ea2002448.wpd
particulate matter. The site has been previously disturbed in its entirety during
prior grading of Tract 24230, and is a source of fugitive dust during moderate
wind periods. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a serious non -
attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
However, in recent years the area has met criteria for reclassification to
attainment status and, in fact, SCAQMD has filed for such status recognition
from California Air Resources Board (CARB). The latest information from
SCAQMD indicates that the Valley has now moved back into non -attainment
status. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust, and is in the process of modifying
its current ordinances to improve monitoring and compliance requirements. No
grubbing, clearing, grading or land disturbance of any kind is permitted without
the review and approval of a PM 10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), as
required by Chapter 6.16, LQMC. Adherence to these requirements will ensure
that impacts to air quality from the proposal will not exceed those under the
present site conditions.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project site has been significantly impacted by prior land disturbance
activity and development of improvements associated with the Lake La Quinta
project surrounding this site. The site is isolated on the east and west by
developed roadways, with commercial lands to the immediate north and south,
and is not viable as habitat nor would it facilitate the transitional migration or
movement of species. The site is within the CVFTL habitat fee area, with the
fee having been paid as part of the prior grading of Tract 24230. No significant
stands of trees or other vegetation exist on the site, as verified by field
observation. No impacts to any biological resources are identifiable
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
It was determined during initial review that a Phase I (survey level) cultural
resource assessment would not be required for the proposed site, based upon
findings contained in previous surveys prepared for contiguous sites. As a
result, while unlikely, there is unknown potential for impacts to historic/cultural
resources. Standard monitoring requirements will be conditioned upon project
approval to ensure detection and retrieval of any uncovered resources.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed project area lies just inside the Zone III ground shaking zone. It is
close to the Zone IV designation that includes much of the Highway 1 1 1 and
northern La Quinta areas. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be
subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ea2002448.wpd
Structures already constructed within the area have been required to conform
to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones. All proposed structures
will be subject to conformance with the Uniform Building Code. The City
Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in
conjunction with the submittal of grading plans for all development proposed on
the site. Adherence to these requirements will adequately address project
impacts due to ground failure.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
There will be some increase in traffic volume associated with the project's
development (i.e. vacant to urban transition). The proposal was reviewed by the
City Public Works Department. There is shared access proposed with the
northern parcel to Washington Street, a Major Arterial under the General Plan.
Caleo Bay and 47th Avenue are designed and built as Collector status roadways,
with adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes.
No traffic issues were identified and no studies of area -wide traffic patterns or
generation were requested. No significant impacts have been identified that
would require mitigation at this time.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No mitigation beyond standard ordinance requirements has been deemed
necessary. No Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared, as
project conditions will adequately address all requirements on the project and
shall therefore serve as the monitoring for it.
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ea2002448.wpd