PCRES 2000-045PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-399 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-047, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2000-050, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-
680 AND PARCEL MAP 29791
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-399
APPLICANT: JDD, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 25th day of July, 2000 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-399 for Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use
Permit 2000-050, Site Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791,
generally located at the southeastern corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street,
more particularly described as follows:
APN 643-020-002, 643-020-003, 643-020-004, 643-020-005,
643-020-006, &643-020 -007
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 2000-399)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit,
Site Development Permit and Parcel Map could have a significant adverse impact on
the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in
the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-
050, Site Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1 . The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791 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 2000-399.
P:\pc Res EA 99-383.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-_
La Quinta Court - JDD, LLC
July 25, 2000
2. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791 will not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791 do not have the potential
to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791 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.
5. The Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Parcel Map 29791 will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either
directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would
affect human health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2000-
399 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2000-399 for the reasons set forth in this
P:\pc Res EA 99-383.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-
La Quinta Court - JDD, LLC
July 25, 2000
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 25th day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins
NOES: None
9�IIME 0 0P1M
F-M-1-1�IINIIIIIIIIII11=1
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
IY HfRMAN, Community Development Director
of La Quinta, California
P:\pc Res EA 99-383.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional use Permit 2000-050,
Parcel Map 29791, Site Development Permit 2000-680
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southeastern corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: JDD, LLC
c/o G. J. Murphy Construction
P. O. Box 1 124
Palm Desert, CA 92261
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial, Non -Residential Overlay
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan to establish development standards for a 54,000 retail shopping
center on 5.65 acres. Plans call for four separate buildings. Conditional Use
Permit will allow motorcycle and golf cart sales on the site. Parcel Map will
eliminate previously subdivided parcels which underlie the site. The Site
Development Permit includes the submittal of development plans for the
proposed center.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Regional Commercial/Shopping Center
South: Vacant
East: Simon Motors
West: Washington Street, Shopping Center
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
A:\EACKLSTLQC399.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
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
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..
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.
Signature
Date
I0I
C
Printed Name
CITY OF LA QUINTA
For
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, 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:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to on -agricultural use?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use? (Aerial photographs)
111. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
Ill
W
3
X
X
1:1
91
X
IV
V
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Specific Plan Project Descr.)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Specific Plan Project Descr.)
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? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
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? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in combination with the known or probable
impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
X
U
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
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)? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-39)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32)
X
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? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11)
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)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-57 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial Photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
X
3
X
X
*14
I
7
0
X
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan 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, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Aerial Photo)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Aerial
Photo)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. 1
XIV. RECREATION:
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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) X
A:\EACKLSTLQC399.WPD
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? X
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126
ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Specific Plan and SDP site plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application
Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-
20)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
A:\EACKLSTLQC399.WPD
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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.
The General Plan EIR and MEA were used in analysing this
site.
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.
X
E
X
X
X
3
A:\EACKLSTLQC399.WPD
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 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
A:\EACKLSTLQC399.WPD
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 2000-399
a) & c)
Both Highway 111 and Washington Street are designated Primary Image
Corridors in the City's General Plan. This designation ensures that special
setback standards and landscaping are included in project development. In
addition, the City has adopted specific standards for the Highway 1 1 1 corridor.
The Specific Plan and Site Development Permit have incorporated these
standards, and the landscape palette of the Highway 111 design theme. This
will ensure that the impacts to visual resources are reduced to a less than
significant level.
I.d) The project site is currently vacant desert land. The project is surrounded on
three sides by intense commercial development, and the intersection of
Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1. The site is therefore already impacted by
lighting on surrounding developments. The proposed lighting on the project site
will be conditioned to conform to City standards, and will primarily occur on the
interior of the site, since the buildings ring the perimeter. The site's lighting
impacts are not expected to be significant.
III.c) The proposed project is consistent with the Regional Commercial land use
designation assigned to the site. As such, land uses were analysed as part of
the General Plan EIR. The proposed project will create 54,000 square feet of
retail commercial land uses on the site. Based on the land uses proposed, the
project can be expected to generate approximately 2,196 trips per day'. Based
on this, as shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD
thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 56.72 2.18 11.6 0.0 0.24 0.24
3
Daily
Threshold*' 550 75 100 150
Based on 2,196 trips/day and average trip length of 5.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, Sth Edition, for Specialty Retail Center.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLQC399.WPD 1
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). Recent analysis by SQAQMD has
determined that the Valley has reached attainment, and a redesignation is
pending. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests
mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following
mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval
of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded
with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLQC399.WPD 2
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall
implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation
measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall
be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at
the time of development.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, Improvements in
technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles
or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project
site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the
proposed project falls within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City
determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of
the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined
that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively
significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that
the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its
boundaries.
IV.a) The site has been previously graded, and is surrounded on all sides by either
roadways or existing development. As such, it does not represent quality
habitat, and is unlikely to support significant numbers of species. The project
occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan. The project proponent will be required to pay the mandated
$100 fee per acre prior to development at the site. This mitigation measure will
reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance..
V.b1&d)
An archaeological resource analysis was conducted for the proposed project'.
The property has been studied on three occasions in the past. As previously
stated, the site has been previously graded, and therefore significantly
impacted. The project area lies in an area where significant archaeological
resources have been located in the past. The archaeological resource analysis
therefore recommends the following mitigation measure:
1. An archaeological monitor shall be present during all grading and trenching
activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or
redirect earthmoving activities should any cultural resources be encountered.
Upon discovery of a cultural resource, work should stop in the vicinity of the
find, and a plan for its evaluation and treatment should be developed in
consultation with the Community Development Department.
2 Archaeological Advisory Group, April, 2000
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLQC399.WPD 3
VL.a) i)
The proposed project does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo hazard area. No known
earthquake fault occurs within several miles of the proposed project. The
potential impact for fault rupture is not expected to be significant.
VI. a) ii)
The proposed project occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The City has
adopted the provisions of the Uniform Building Code for this hazard.
Construction of any structure on the project site will conform to these
standards, and will reduce the potential hazard to a less than significant level.
VI. a) iii)
The proposed project does not occur in a liquefaction hazard area. The soils on
the site are loose silty sand, which has the potential to shift in a seismic event.
The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific soils analysis in
conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This
requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less
than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The site is located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils on
the proposed site are loose silty sand. As such, unstable soil conditions can
occur from improper grading or excavation. The City's standards for site
preparation shall be adhered to in all site preparation activities. In order to
reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the
applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed,
site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the
specific structure being constructed.
VIII. a)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when
necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water
system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water
quality standard to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
Although the proposed project will utilize water for irrigation and operations, the
potential impacts are expected to be less than significant. Domestic water is
provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater
from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The impacts to
domestic water supplies are not expected to be significant, since commercial
activity on the site will require smaller quantities of water than a residential or
resort commercial land use, and will therefore lower the impacts to the aquifer.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLQC399.WPD 4
Vill. c), d) & e)
Any development proposal reduces the amount of natural terrain available for
percolation, and changes drainage patterns. Construction of structures and
parking lots will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into
the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff. The proposed
project will direct surface runoff to drop inlets to be connected to an existing
catch basin in Washington Street, which directs flows to the Whitewater
Channel. The City Engineer will impose conditions of approval to ensure that
any drainage is properly treated, if needed, and that adequate capacity exists
in the City's system to accommodate the proposed project. No significant
impact is expected.
XI. a), b) & c)
The Highway 111 corridor is an impacted noise area. Noise levels along this
roadway exceed the City standard of 60 dBA CNEL level currently. All new
development of sensitive receptors is required to mitigate to the City's
standards for noise, as required in the General Plan (Table EH-1). The Specific
Plan does not call out any sensitive receptors as definite land uses for the site.
The commercial and industrial land uses proposed will be required to construct
to City standards to attenuate interior noise. Should a sensitive receptor be
proposed, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . A use -specific noise study will be required by the City if a sensitive receptor is
proposed for location within the Specific Plan project area, and within the 60
dBA CNEL noise contour. The study shall include mitigation measures, as
needed, to lower the noise levels to within the City standards in place at the
time the use is proposed.
This mitigation requirement reduces the impact of noise to a level of
insignificance.
XII. a)
The proposed project may indirectly induce growth, insofar as any City's
amenities and commercial opportunities influence a homebuyer's decision to
purchase. The housing market in the City is currently strong, and provides for
a variety of housing opportunities for all income levels. The potential impact is
not expected to be significant.
XIII. a)
The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential
impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will
generate sales and use tax and property tax. These taxes will contribute to the
City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service.
All development has an impact on governmental facilities and services. The
project proponent will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee
Program, which helps to offset roadway improvements. In addition, the
revenues generated by the site will result in sales tax for the City, which will
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLOC399.WPD 5
offset any needs for additional municipal services. The proposed project is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
XV. a) & b)
The Highway 111/Washington Street intersection was identified in the General
Plan EIR as an impacted intersection. In response to this impact, the City has
studies the intersection, and determined that a number of improvements were
necessary, including widening, which has been completed, and the addition of
super -critical intersection improvements. The project proponent will be required
to participate in this improvement, which will add a free -right turn lane at the
corner of the property. The land uses planned for the proposed project are
typical of those considered in the General Plan land use designation of Regional
Commercial, and have therefore been previously analysed in the General Plan
EIR and MEA. The project will not create any impact above those already
considered and mitigated under the General Plan review.
XVI. f)
The construction of the proposed project will have a limited impact on solid
waste disposal. However, the operators of the businesses within the center,
once constructed, will be required to participate in the City's AB 939 programs,
which are designed to reduce the impacts to landfills. The overall impacts of the
project on these services is not expected to be significant.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\EAADDLQC399.WPD 6