CC Resolution 2003-028RESOLUTION NO. 2003-028
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463
PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463
APPLICANT: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 20" day of May, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-463 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-073 and Site
Development Permit 2002-755 to allow a street closure of the Washington Street
frontage road, the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention
areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres, generally located t 600 feet
south of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highland Palms Drive, more
particularly described as follows:
APN: 643-090-026,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 22"d day of April, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-463 for Conditional Use Permit 2002-073 and Site
Development Permit 2002-755 to allow a street closure of the Washington Street
frontage road, the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention
areas, and an additional entry, and recommended that the City Council approve the
project; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirement of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as a ended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Commu ity Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-463)
and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been
determined;' and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to certify said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2003-028
EA 2002-463 / St. Francis of Assisi
Adopted: May 20, 2003
Page 2
1. The proposed 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 2002-463.
2. The proposed 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 in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the
project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
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 in that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project
that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, in
that mitigation measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce
impacts to less than significant levels as identified by the Environmental
Assessment.
5. The proposed 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 proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that will reduce affects associated
with human health, risk potential or public services to less than significant levels
as identified by the Environmental Assessment.
7. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record, that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Resolution No. 2003-028
EA 2002-463 / St. Francis of Assisi
Adopted: May 20, 2003
Page 3
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-463 and said
Assessment reflects the independent judgment 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, 92253.
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-463 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department and attached hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-463 reflects the independent judgment
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 20" day of May, 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
(L 6L
DON ADOLPH, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2003-028
EA 2002-463 / St. Francis of Assisi
Adopted: May 20, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JUN EEK, CMC, City
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JEN , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Street Closure, Frontage Road, and Conditional Use
Permit 2002-073, Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Martin Magana, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: West side of Washington Street, approximately 600 feet
south of Highland Palms Drive.
APN: 643-090-026
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino
1201 East Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA
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.)
The street closure is proposed to eliminate the existing frontage road east of
the Saint Francis of Assisi church property, as part of the Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Permit applications discussed below. The street
closure will extend only from Highland Palms Drive southerly to the existing
Washington Street.
The Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit is required to allow
the construction of additional parking, retention basins, landscaping and
lighting, and an additional site entry for the existing Saint Francis of Assisi
church, as a first phase of expansion of the church property. Future plans
may include the construction of a meeting hall, a rectory, new church,
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
1
conversion of the existing church into a meeting hall, youth center, play field,
education center and ancillary facilities including a new project entry and
landscaping areas. These land uses will be reviewed separately in the future,
and are not included in this analysis.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Existing church, single family residential
South: La Quinta Arts Foundation property, partially developed
West: Santa Rosa mountains
East: Washington Street, Vacant Community Commercial lands
1. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
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
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
�l
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.
FE-1
SACity Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
2
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.
IN]
Signature Date
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 analyses 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,
SACity Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
3
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.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Aerial photograph)
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)
11. 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, Property Owner)
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?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
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:
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
4
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Unless
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
Impact
X
X
In
E4
X
X
X
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, 2002 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological
Survey," AMEC, February 2003)
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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological
Survey," AMEC, February 2003)
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? ("St. Francis of
Assisi Expansion... Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003)
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? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion....
Biological Survey," AMEC, February 2003)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ("St. Francis of Assisi Expansion... Biological
Survey," AMEC, February 2003)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
--- other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
X
X
1k
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
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? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report,"
CRM Tech, August 1999)
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)? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report,"
CRM Tech, August 1999)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ("Archaeological Testing and
Mitigation Report," CRM Tech, August 1999)
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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 Exhibit
8.1)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
SACity Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
6
X
F.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 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)
Vlll. 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-187 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? (Project Preliminary Grading
Plan)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
`1
X
KI
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
7
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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
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 6.6)
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)
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. 74 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 p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Parking
lot-- no ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.)
S:\City Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
8
X
R
X
X
X
K4
X
X
R.
ri
X
*1
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? (General Plan land use map)
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.,
application materials)
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, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 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)
X
KI
n
X
X
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
9
XV.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
XVI.
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 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, p. III-29 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? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
Description)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 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. 58 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. 58 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. 58 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. 58 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
In
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
10
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 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 ANALYSES.
X
X
Q
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.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
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.
SACity Clerk= EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
11
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Saint Francis of Assisi Expansion Project Biological Survey," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, February,
2003.
"Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report Parking Lot at St. Francis of Assisi Church," prepared by CRM Tech,
August, 1999.
SACity Clerk\CC EA 02-463Checklist.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-463
I. a), b) & c)
The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit is for the
construction of a parking lot only. The parking lot will consist of paving,
landscaping and lights. No structures are proposed. There will be no impact
on a scenic vista.
I. d)
The project will generate light from parking lot lighting. The City's dark sky
ordinance will be applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed
project site. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other
properties, which will mitigate the potential impacts associated with the
project. The potential impacts associated with light and glare are not
expected to be significant.
II. a)-c►
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject
to Williamson Act contracts.
III. a), b)
The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will allow
the construction of parking spaces in an area currently used as a temporary
parking lot. No new structures are planned, therefore the number of trips will
not increase at the site, since the capacity of the existing church building will
not change.
Ills) & d)
The construction of the proposed parking lot will generate dust, which could
impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -
attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 5.51 acres of
land. Cut and fill is expected to be balanced. This has the potential to
generate 145.46 pounds per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the
site. The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of
PM 10. These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities:
Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing,
revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving,
chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to
initiation of any earth moving activity. 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. Landscaping of the Washington Street
parkway and the retention basins shall be completed immediately upon
completion of precise grading of the site.
PAMartin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
III. e)
IV) a)
8. The areas identified as Phase II or greater on the site plan shall be
landscaped and irrigated with either sod or hydroseed, or desert
wildflower mix prior to completion of the parking lot.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards
included in the 2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley.
The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable
odors.
A biological resource survey was completed for the proposed project'. The
biological resource survey identified three species of concern which could be
affected by the proposed project: the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, the
round -tailed Ground Squirrel and Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The impacts
associated with the Fringe -toed Lizard shall be mitigated through
implementation of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan, and the required payment of $ 600 per acre for the 14.66
acres of habitat to be disturbed. The site is also likely habitat for the Round -
tailed Ground Squirrel, which is one of the species included in the Coachella
Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, impacts to the
squirrel will require mitigation. Finally, the toe of slope at the western
boundary of the project site is the edge of critical habitat for Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep, a federally listed endangered species. Although no lambing
areas are known to occur above and west of the project site, construction
activities at the site could have an impact on such a lambing area, should
development of the site not occur immediately. Mitigation measures will be
required to ensure that there are no impacts to bighorn sheep resulting from
implementation of the proposed project, or subsequent phases of the project.
Mitigation measures for all species are listed below:
"Saint Francis of AmiBi byamion Project Biological Survey," prepared by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Feb
PAMartin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
1. To mitigate for the potential impacts to Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard habitat, the project proponent shall pay the $600 per acre
mitigation fee for the 9.45 acres of land being disturbed for the
parking lot prior to the issuance of grading permits. Subsequent
phases of development may also be required to pay the fee, should the
HCP be in effect at the time of development.
2. In order to mitigate for potential impacts to Round -tailed Ground
Squirrel, the project proponent shall contribute a fee of $600 per acre
for the 9.45 acres of currently undisturbed desert lands on the site,
prior to the issuance of grading permits. Subsequent phases of
development will be required to either contribute similar amounts for
the area of vacant desert land being disturbed, or to contribute the fee
imposed by the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation
Plan, when adopted.
3. The construction area shall be clearly delineated to keep project
impacts off of adjacent native habitat. The project proponent shall
cause the project boundaries to be staked and roped off or fenced at
the edge of the 14.66 acre project area.
4. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the area within the boundary of
the 14.66 acre construction site.
5. Wherever possible, existing roads and access routes should be utilized
to access the site during construction, rather than constructing new
ones.
6. Vehicle and equipment staging shall be limited to existing disturbed
areas and cleared areas.
7. Non-native plant species (especially Oleander), shall not be used on
the project landscaping. The project landscaping plan shall be
reviewed by a qualified biologist and approved prior to the installation
of any landscaping on the site.
8. Domestic pets shall be prohibited on -site during construction.
9. Should the project proponent wish to begin construction between
January 1 and June 30 of any given year, the project proponent shall
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
confer with the California Department of Fish and Game prior to any
ground disturbing activity, to determine whether a lambing area occurs
immediately above the project site. Should a lambing area be
identified, the project proponent shall implement mitigation measures,
as required by CDFG. Should the initiation of construction occur
between July 1 and December 31 of any given year, no contact with
CDFG shall be required.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts of
the proposed project will be less than significant.
V. a)-d)
A cultural resources survey was conducted on the project site'. The cultural
resource report identified and recorded two potentially significant sites within
the 29 acre site. RIV-6135 was fully excavated, and found not to be
significant under the requirements of CEQA. RIV-6134, however, has been
recorded but not investigated. In order to assure that there are no significant
impacts to cultural resources, therefore, the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented.
1. A Phase II cultural resource analysis shall be required for site RIV-6134
prior to any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of that site
location.
2. 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.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV 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 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
"Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report Parking Lot at 8t Francis of Ami8i Church," prepamd by CRM
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
VI. b)
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is in an
area subject to landslides, due to the adjacent mountain slopes. The parking
lot construction will not result in any structures, so the potential impacts
from rockfall are not expected to be significant.
The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be
subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be
required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above,
to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will
lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than
significant level.
V1. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development
proposed by the project proponent. The project proponent will be required to
submit a site -specific geotechnical study at the time of building permit
issuance. These standards will lower the potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site
flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm
on -site. The proposed project will be required to conform to this standard,
which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
The proposed project will result in the construction of parking lot, and no
immediate expansion of church facilities. There is therefore no impact to
groundwater from this phase of the project. Future phases will be reviewed
individually, and if they include structures, will be analysed for their impacts
to groundwater resources.
IX. a)-c)
The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for
the project site, with approval of a and Site Development Permit Use Permit.
The project will not divide an existing community, or conflict with a land use
plan or with a habitat or natural community conservation plan.
X.a) & b)
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to
contain resources.
XI. a) & b)
The construction of a parking lot will not expose people to either high noise
levels or groundborne vibration, since they will not remain in the area, and
since no equipment which might cause vibration will be constructed.
XI. c)
The construction of the project will generate noise from construction
equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the north and south of the
site at some distance. The construction will be a sufficient distance away
that noise levels at the residential property lines should be well below City
maximum permitted standards.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of a
parking lot to serve the existing church. No impacts to population and
housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public
services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire
Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will
generate property and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police
and fire services.
XIV. a► & b►
The construction of a parking lot to serve the existing church will not impact
recreational services.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed parking lot will not generate additional trips on Washington
Street, since no additional structures will be constructed at this time. Future
development of structures on the site will be analysed as those projects are
proposed. The parking lot will be required to meet City standards for such
facilities. No impact to circulation is expected at this time.
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not
create any hazardous design features. The site plan includes parking
requirements generally in conformance to the City's standards. The site plan
provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form
of bus stops will be implemented throughout the area based on General Plan
policies and programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The parking lot will require a small
amount of electric service to power parking lot lighting. No significant
impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project.
XVII. a)
The proposed project has the potential to impact the habitat of sensitive
species without mitigation. The mitigation provided in Section IV), above,
reduces these potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d)
The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due
to air quality impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella
Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM 10, which can cause negative
health effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures
to reduce the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level.
P:\Martin\CUP 02-073 St. Francis\EAAddendum.doc
Q
Q
a�
a
UU
U
C
C
�
C
�
a
U
.:�
...+
0.4
o
O
O
me-O
C
C
C8
.9 g
.�
8.a
a
8.a �a
a
u
o u
u
u
u
CL
.
C
C�
Z;l
V
Z;l
U
oo
d
a
a
WN
_
�
C
C
C:
0
r h
cL
•�
�
ap
C
C C
79
a
a
72
A
-�
A
a I
��
a
U
a
o�
U U
Ur
do-2
G
c
c
c
�c
c
0
�
`-
O
�
rCccc...1��1
v
v
0
�
'2
ro
ro
c
'�
a
a
0-•
`w
re
.�
-9
_3
.9
a.
La
e
z
�.tb
o
nb
ob
o
U
c
ob
00
0
0
0
0
r,
O
o
`0
0
a
a
z
0
c
c
c
a. c
o
CL
o
a
O
a.
o
Q.
0
>
>
a
0
a�
a�
E5
r�
da
cfl
c�
O
U d�
O
U
O
U
O
U
o
'd
re
z -
O
c�
r—
v
O
w
cfl
c
c
O
`
r
v
no
E-
90
�
2-8
c
9
O
O
0
5
O
c
yOO
wop
O
'uop O
c...
c
0
LM
-U
c
eo
LPL
�.i
cn
c�
O
N
O
a
D
cc_
r
a