CC Resolution 2004-009 Jefferson Square EA 2002-462RESOLUTION NO. 2004-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2002-754.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462
APPLICANT: JEFFERSON-WARING, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 4' day of November, 2003, and the 20" day of January, 2004, hold a duly
noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-462 to allow a
t 102,402 square foot Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on a 10.7 acre
site, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring
Drive, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 604-070-003,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 10' day of June, 2,V' day -of June, 9" day of September, and
the 14" day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-462 to - recommend to the City Council
certification of said Environmental Assessment to allow a t 102, 402 square foot
Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on a 10.7 acre site; 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
2002-462) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, mitigation measures have been
imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels,
therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be
certified and filed; 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 justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2004-009
Environmental Assessment 2002-462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
January 20, 2004
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' mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project that would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels, as identified in Environmental Assessment 2002-
462.
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 the project site has already been
graded due to construction of an adjacent residential subdivision.
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 the Environmental Assessment did not identify
any wildlife resources on the site.
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 the project is consistent with the long-term goals of the General Plan,
and is currently designated for neighborhood commercial development. The
project is on the northern boundary of the City, in an area which, is rapidly
urbanizing, and therefore represents a logical extension of development.
There is no potential for the project to achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals.
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 in that they are
developing as designated under the General Plan.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the
Environmental Assessment did identify impacts and with the mitigation
measures imposed on the project, impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Resolution No. 2004-009
Environmental Assessment 2002.462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
January 20, 2004
Page 3
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
8. The City Council has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-462 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 2002-462 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and, as stated in the Environmental
Assessment on file in the Community Development Department and .attached
hereto.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-462 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 January 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2004-009
Environmental Assessment 2002-462
Jefferson -Waring, LLC
January 20, 2004
Page 4
6-0sala 1444.-e&
DONALD ADOL H, Ma r
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN REEK, CMC, Cit erk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
//,/)/ /6z__' -
M. KATHRAINE JENS , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2002-062, Site Development Permit 2002-754
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: Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive
APN: 604-070-003
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jefferson -Waring, LLC
Edward Barkett
2800 W. March Lane, Suite 250
Stockton, CA 95219
6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood 7. Zoning: Neighborhood
Commercial Commercial
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The project site consists of 10.7 acres at the southwestern corner of Fred Waring Drive and
Jefferson Street.
The proposed Specific Plan is required to establish the design standards and guidelines for a
commercial development of up to 116,500 square feet on a 16.7 acre site. The site plan within
the Specific Plan shows a 102,402 square foot project, consisting of seven building areas. The
project will include a 50,000 square foot supermarket, an 18,500 square foot drugstore with
drive -through, in -line stores associated with supermarket and drugstore, a gasoline service
station at the corner of Jefferson and Fred Waring, two 5,000 square foot free-standing
buildings, a 7,200 square foot freestanding building, ancillary facilities and associated
parking.
The Site Development Permit implements the Specific Plan, and allows the construction of
the shopping center.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Fred Waring Drive, Low Density Residential development
South: Low Density Residential development
West: City Park, Low Density Residential development
East: Vacant desert lands in the City of Indio
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-2-
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
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
X 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 project proponent. 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" impact 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
impo
yed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
-3-
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 referenced 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for 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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
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.
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.
-4-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Aerial
photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a), b), c) Both Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are designated as Primary Image Corridors
in the General Plan. In addition, the intersection is designated for a Secondary Gateway
Treatment. Since the location is a major entry to the City both from City streets and from
the I-10 Interstate freeway, its aesthetic value is significant. The Image Corridors in the
City were established to preserve aesthetics, reduce urban visual clutter, and improve the
quality of life in the City. The proposed Specific Plan meets the standards for height and
setbacks in Image Corridors, and impacts are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The west elevation, which represents the back of the market, drug store and in -line shops,
faces a City park and residential development beyond. This side of the buildings, as the
"back of house," shows no significant architectural detail or articulation to relieve the
monotony and improve the aesthetic appearance of the structure from a public place. The
aesthetics can be improved through architectural details which will provide some
architectural interest. Without mitigation, these potential impacts could be significant.
-5-
In order to reduce aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. The west and south elevations (per Figure 13 of the Specific Plan) shall be redesigned
to add building articulation, to include at a minimum, stone veneer to the bottom of
the facades, to relieve the architectural monotony of the current design.
2. The same level of architectural detail applied to the facade of each building or series
of buildings shall be applied to each elevation. Particular care shall be taken with all
building elevations with exposure on either Jefferson Street or Fred Waring Drive.
These were approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 2003.
I. d) Lighting within the proposed project will include parking lot and security lighting. The
City's standards will apply, which require that all light be contained within the property
on which it is located. No spillage onto adjacent residential and park lands will be
permitted. These standards will ensure that impacts associated with on -site lighting are
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide.
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
II. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert lands, which has been previously
graded. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the parcel. The proposed project will
have no impact on agricultural resources.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
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 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not generate emissions in excess of South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria pollutants (see below) and
therefore will not obstruct implementation of applicable air quality management plans.
III. b) & c) The proposed project will impact air quality from two primary sources: the generation of
vehicular traffic to and from the site; and the generation of dust during the construction
process. Both these potential impacts are addressed below.
The proposed project will result in the generation of 2,713 trips at buildout '. Based on
this trip generation, the SCAQMD has established formulas to calculate emissions, which
are shown in the Table below.
"Jefferson Street/Fred Waring Drive Intersection Analysis," letter report, prepared by urban Crossroads, February,
2003.
-7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total
Length (miles) miles/day
2,713 x 10 = 27,130
Pollutant ROC CO NOX PM10 PM10. PM10
Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Pounds at 50 mph 5.39 140.14 28.75 - 0.60 0.60
SCAQMD Threshold 75 550 100 150
(lbs./day)
Assumes 2,713 trips/day and average trip length of 10 miles. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G
Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75 F, light duty autos catalytic
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in
determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution
from the proposed project are not expected to be significant.
The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could impact residents
both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The site is also in a very severe wind hazard
area (General Plan Exhibit 8.4), which increases the potential for the generation of PM10
as a result of grading activities at the site.
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 10.7 acres of land. This has
the potential to generate 282.48 pounds of fugitive dust per day during the grading of the
site. Since the site will be mass graded and then built in phases, potential also exists for
on -going fugitive dust for unbuilt areas. The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much
stricter measures for the control of dust both during the construction process and as an
on -going issue. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the
proposed project. These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
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
-8-
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
r-- wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street
shall be installed immediately upon completion of precise grading of the first
phase of development.
8. All portions of the site not part of the first phase of development on the site shall
be landscaped or chemically stabilized within 30 days of the termination of mass
grading on the site. The project proponent shall submit a landscape or stabilization
plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to
the issuance of any grading permit on the site. As development occurs, only that
building area or pad location shall be disturbed. Phases not yet under construction
shall be maintained in a stabilized or landscaped condition until constructed upon.
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 notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
III. d) & e) The proposed project will have little parking adjacent to residential dwellings. The
buildings on the site will shelter the residential units from pollution being generated by
automobiles.
-9-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
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, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
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. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
-10-
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat. Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The project site has been previously and recently graded, and does not have potential as
habitat for species of concern. No impacts to biological resources are expected to occur as
a result of development of the project.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Government Code
Sec15064.5 ("Interim Cultural Resources
Report, Hotel 111 Project Site," CRM Tech,
December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing
and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate
Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5?
("Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111
Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and
"Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at
La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August
2, 1999.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? "Interim Cultural Resources
Report, Hotel I I I Project Site," CRM Tech,
December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing
and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate
Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.)
V. a) - d) The project site has been previously and recently graded. No impacts to cultural or
paleontologic resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
-11-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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,
X
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
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
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
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
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. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for
construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. A
geotechnical study will be required for the construction of the proposed project. The risk
of liquefaction on the site is considered low.
-12-
VI. b) The site is located in a very 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.
VI. c)-e) The soils on the subject property have a low expansion probability, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code. The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the
development proposed by the project proponent. The soils will require over -excavation,
as required in the City's standards for construction under the Uniform Building Code.
These standards will ensure that the stability of the soils is mitigated. The project will be
connected to sanitary sewer provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, and will not
rely on septic tanks.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled 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)
-13-
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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
X
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
X
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed project will include typical commercial development found in a
neighborhood shopping center. The proposed gasoline service station will be required to
meet regional, state and federal standards for storage of gasoline products, and will be
subject to on -going jurisdiction of these outside agencies. Should any of the businesses
which locate in the center wish to store or transport hazardous waste, they will be
required to secure all necessary permits from the Riverside County Health Department
and other agencies, as needed, to allow for such storage or transport. The standards
imposed by these agencies will lower the potential impacts associated with hazardous
materials to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
-14-
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
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 (e.g., 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-187 ff.
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Grading,
Site Hydrology)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
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 Grading, Site Hydrology)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (Project
Grading, Site Hydrology)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area 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 flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
-15-
VIII. a)- 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 includes an underground retention system, to be located beneath the parking lot.
The retention basin will be fed by a series of pipes. The City Engineer will review all
proposed plans for the system, and approve them prior to the initiation of any
construction of the site. The City Engineer will also require regular scheduled
maintenance of the system to assure its proper functioning. The City Engineer will also
require the use of water purifying devices, to ensure compliance with NPDES standards
for the underground retention basin. These City standards will lower the potential impacts
associated with on -site flood control to a less than significant level.
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. As
a commercial project, the buildout of the proposed project will generate a lower need than
residential projects of similar size. The proposed project will be required to implement
the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which
both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also
meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These
standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. f) & g) The proposed project does not occur in a 100 year flood plain and does not propose
residential development, and will therefore not place housing or other structures in such a
flood plain.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
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 purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.)
-16-
IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant, and designated for commercial
development. The construction of the proposed project will not divide an established community. The
project site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and
will be required to pay fees in place at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant/developer
will have to enter into a restricted covenant between the City and the applicant/developer for some
means of compensation, in order to allow the building to be constructed where proposed. The covenant
shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Council, at the expense of the applicant, and with no use of
public funds.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource 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
X
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.)
X. a) & b) The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain mineral
resources.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (MEA p. 111 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
-17-
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project. vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
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)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed project is located at an intersection which does and will generate relatively
high noise levels. Commercial development, however, is not considered a sensitive
receptor, and the potential impacts at the center are expected to be less than significant.
The site is, however, adjacent to existing residential land uses on its south boundary.
Residential land uses are considered sensitive receptors, and noise levels must meet the
City's standards for such uses. The proposed project will include buildings along the
south side which will be the back of businesses.
The primary potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project and adjacent
residential land uses will be associated with vehicular noise. The loading and unloading
of trucks at the back entrances of the shops in the Shops 1 and Shops 2 building could
potentially result in temporary noise levels in excess of the City's standards. These are,
however, temporary and occasional impacts, which are not expected to be sustained for
long periods of time. Of particular concern would be impacts during the quieter evening
and night-time hours. A short-term inconvenience and nuisance could occur without the
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
The project proponent shall include prohibition on deliveries to Shops 1, Shops 2
and Pad C during the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. in the project CC&Rs. A copy of
the CC&Rs shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
-18-
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and
activities. The residential land uses occurring on the south property line will be impacted
by construction noise. In order to assure that these residents are not significantly
impacted by construction noise, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. Construction staging areas, and stationary equipment such as generators and
service areas, shall be located in the northern half of the site.
2. The construction hours stipulated in the City's noise ordinance shall be strictly
adhered to.
XI. b), d) & e) The project land uses are not expected to generate groundborne vibrations. The project
site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ft
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
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
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The site is currently vacant, and will not displace existing housing or people. Although
the project will create some jobs, the number is not expected to be significant, and will be
absorbed in the normal growth of the community and surrounding communities. No
impacts to population and housing are expected to occur as a result of the proposed
project.
-19-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
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)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
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.
The proposed project will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate
potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project will be required to
participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or
facilities.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
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
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will result in the construction of commercial retail buildings, which
will not impact recreational facilities in the City.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
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
X
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
X
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)
-21-
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-b) The proposed project will generate 2,713 trips per day. The City has approved a General
Plan Amendment, which redesignates Fred Waring Drive to a major arterial from
Washington to Jefferson, to bring it into conformance with the Regional Arterial
Program. These improvements include the construction of three through lanes, dual left
turn lanes, a deceleration lane, a dedicated right turn lane and a bike lane on Fred Waring
heading east. In addition, Jefferson Street will include three through lanes, two
deceleration lanes, and a bike lane heading south. These improvements will assure that
the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service.
XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The proposed project design currently exceeds
City standards for parking, and does not include unsafe design features. 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.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS --Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
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.)
-22-
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
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) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) .
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project 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.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay
connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate
future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with
utilities at the site.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
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
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
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
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The project site has been previously graded, and does not contain potential habitat for fish
or wildlife. The construction of the proposed project will not degrade the quality of
habitat in the area. Nor will the project have any impact on cultural resources.
XVII. b) The project is consistent with the long term goals of the General Plan, and is currently
designated for neighborhood commercial development. The project is on the northern
boundary of the City, in an area which is rapidly urbanizing, and therefore represents a
logic extension of development. There is no potential for the project to achieve short term
goals to the disadvantage of long term goals.
-24-
XVII. c) The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The project is
consistent with that analysed in the General Plan EIR. Buildout of the General Plan in this
area was found to be less than significant, with mitigation. The mitigation measures
imposed with adoption of the General Plan, combined with those imposed on this project,
will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVII. d) The project has identified impacts associated with aesthetics, noise and air quality, which
all affect human beings. However, a number of mitigation measures are proposed which
reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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. .
Not applicable.
-25-
►�
c�
0
w
a�
ti
w
0
O
M
V >
N
O
•�
a�oUO
O
'zz
a
� w
O
'aQ
H
��o
A
O
I
cf)a
a
'
d
a
d
I
i
O
>
C:)
N h
O�nAN•��
G
r~ E
°z�
o
z
a�
A
U
W
d
W
A
z�
�A
a
U
UU
aH
y
CA
'O O
O
cd
cz
by
72
co
C
4
iFi
•b
on a
:a
U
C
od
c
C
z
O
O
O
O
c
0'
Cd o
c
c
O bo
L c
O to
a
O b0
g
o v
w
U
a�
C
v
a�
0 C
�. b
o
�'o
�•�
a
cs: b)
a o
aU
a
S.
a
�ba
are
a
d
a
O
v
C
ooi
a
E aG'i
oz
VA
UAEA
UA
UA
w
0 0
0.
0 o
a a.
o o
+-
aD
dU
to
C
A A
A A
A A
A A
U
U
U
m
zo
_
we
b
A
0
y
cd
N U
N
E
E�
~
F
Lr
3 o
U
C''.
�,
O
H
v� 0-4
°
�•
o
c
o
a�
.c
HE
U
❑o
cda�
Lv
a
�'
t=
�,
Cd
A
x
3
v
co O
U
U
V
cc
L.
cl
a' a�
C.M.
C6 ;C7
UO
''"
'$
•=
�
o
0
0
�
o
�
=��
a
o
•`=U
" o
u b
^, rA
cnAu>v�v�.5
y
°
U rA.
U.�
uCA
e n
o
cis
H a
a
A
a
a
w
A
a
A�
�
�
a�
a
as
aoi
a°i
a°i
a
c
a°i
v
a°i
8
y o
�
O
ca
G
C
G
C
b
b
C
M U A
U
c
U E
-
a
¢
b
b.
a
ti
b4
p
V
R
dQ
0
°
"
3
�'
A
p V
cis
00be
e�
'�
0
c
Ma.
y3
as
y °
3
''� y
°
a°i
P�
3
�
O
.� a
��o
$,00
3
-
�
�N 0
a0.4
Gw
uu
§
�
�
�
2
U
cn —
M
§
o
/
�
/�
\
0,
§
R .§
C
Q
a
�
�
§
�
o
E
k
E
/
®
7
§ §
t
/ cd
0
§
/
0 E
_
cz§
k §�
.%
§
ƒ ƒ ƒ
e o
u
2 w§
C
« 2
.
2
0 o
/
a
o k
0
k.2
4;
U
JIu
) 2 sma.
0