PCRES 2001-028PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-028
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 2001-412 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2001-056 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2001-690
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-412
APPLICANT: OMRI SIKLAI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 13th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-412 for Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-056 and Site Development Permit 2001-690, generally located at the
northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly
described as follows:
APN 643-200-005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-412)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Permit 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 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056
and Site Development Permit 2001-690, 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 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in
that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental
Assessment 2001-412.
PASTANTCResO mriEA. wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-028
Environmental Assessment 2001-412
2. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 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.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in
the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
412 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
P:\STAN\PCRes0mriEA.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-028
Environmental Assessment 2001-412
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
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 2001-412 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-412 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular "meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 13th day of March, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Tyler
NOES: Chairman Robbins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Agting Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\STAN\PCRes0mriEA.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2001-412, Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit
2001-056, Site Development Permit 2001-690
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan B. Sawa, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast comer of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Omri Siklai
56 Oakmont Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Regional Commercial
0
10.
Zoning: Regional Commercial
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 the construction of a 5,532 s.f.
restaurant with attached 3,512 s.f. office building. The Conditional Use Permit is required
because of original Tract conditions. The Site Development Permit request implements the
standards of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code.
Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant Regional Commercial lands
South: Vacant Regional Commercial lands
East: Lake La Quinta recreation lot for residential development
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation site.
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) -
Riverside County Health Department, Alcoholic Beverage Control.
P:\STAN\EAC kIIst0 mri. W PD
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
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Public Services
Hydrology and Water Quality
Recreation
Land Use Planning
Transportation/Traffic
Mineral Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Noise
Mandatory Findings
Population and Housing
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.
n
u
0
i]
C
P:\STAN\EACk1iSt0Mri.WPD
Date -2I I ti `O 1
Printed Name S t a n B S a w
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 EK 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
P:\STAN\EACk1i5t0Mri.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIF, 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)
IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mifigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
K4
X
G�
►1
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials) I I X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) I I I X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 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 EIR p. 4-65 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 EIR p. 4-65 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 EIR p. 4-65 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)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Application
materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
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 EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
VI.
V II.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan 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
EIR, page 4-30 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 EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
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)
M=
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/3
9ii
91
M
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)
VHL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-13)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element)
K4
9
X
X
11
K4
12
X
X
RN
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
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)
X1. 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? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Application Materials)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Application Materials)
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? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
X
X
G4
X
M
1:1
M
X
G7
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
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)?(Application
materials)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application Materials)
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? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
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)Site
Development Permit 2001-690
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 -terns, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
GI
X
i
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR 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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 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
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-412 Omri Siklai
a) & c)
Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the City's
General Plan. This designation requires that special landscaping and building
setbacks be incorporated into project design. The Specific Plan and Site
Development Permit have incorporated these standards. This will ensure that
the impacts to visual resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not
generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for
the area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards
for outdoor lighting, (Section 9.100.150 of the Zoning Ordinance) which will
ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the project
site.
III. a1, b) & d)
The proposed project is consistent with the Regional Commercial land use
designation assigned to the site. Similar land uses were analyzed as part of
the General Plan EIR. The proposed project will result in 9,044 square feet
of restaurant and office space on the site. Based on the land uses proposed,
the project can be expected to generate approximately 537 trips per day'. 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 19.42 0.75 3.98 0.08 0.08
Daily
Threshold" 550 75 100 150
Based on 537 trips/day and average trip length of 7.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds
provided by SCAQMD, Table 6-2 for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust.
Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition, for General Office (710)
and Quality Restaurant (831).
P:\STAN\EAAdd0mri.WPD
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.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
PASTAN\EAAddOmri. W PD
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 fall 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 proposed project site has been previously graded, and does not provide
wildlife with high quality habitat. The proposed project is located within an area
of potential habitat for the black -tailed gnat catcher'. A biological resource
survey performed to assess the potential presence of this species on a parcel
of land immediately south of the proposed project in 2000, however, found that
the area was not appropriate for maintenance of the species. Also, the site has
been significantly disturbed. No further analysis is required for this species.
IV. f) The proposed project is located within the required fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringed -toed lizard, and will be required to pay the mandated fee at the
issuance of building permits. The payment of the fee will reduce the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
V. b) The proposed project site has been previously graded. Surficial artifacts are
therefore unlikely. The potential does exist, however, for sub -surface artifacts.
In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
City of La Quinta General Plan EIR, 1992.
P:\STAN\EAAdd0mri.WPD
does have a potential to impact sensitive receptors immediately east, in the
Lake La Quinta project. The Lake La Quinta development occurs in an area
which meets the City's noise standards. In addition the perimeter landscaping
proposed within the proposed project, an interior street separates the project
from the residential development, creating added separation. A wall occurs on
the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta project, which mitigates noise
impacts also. It is not expected that the proposed project will significantly
impact the noise environment in the area.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project has the potential to create temporary
construction noise impacts on the residential units to the east. In order to
mitigate these potential impacts, the project proponent shall implement the
following mitigation measures:
1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
2. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from the eastern
boundary of the project as possible.
3. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northwestern
corner of the site.
XIII. All development increases the need for public facilities. The project, however,
will generate land uses which have a limited impact on public services. The
design of the project site will be reviewed by both the Fire and Police
departments, whose conditions of approval will be incorporated into project
approvals. This will ensure that any potential impact is mitigated to a less than
significant level.
XV. a) & b)
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 analyzed 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.
XV. f)
The proposed project includes less parking than would be required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The justification provided by the applicant, as allowed in the Zoning
ordinance, allows for a reduction in parking due to the complementary uses
proposed (office use during the day and restaurant use at night); the justification --
P:\STAN\EAAdd0mri.WPD
also includes analysis particular to the up -scale restaurant use, which will
generate less demand. The potential for a shortfall can be eased through the
implementation of valet parking for the restaurant use, which will allow for
controlled parking activity. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit,
for review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the
proponent to valet parking during all times when the restaurant is open.
Failure to maintain a valet parking program shall result in revocation of
the use permit for this project.
P:\STAN\EAAdd0mri.WPD
[
j
/
\
/
\
�
�
2
\
�
a
(
/
�
]
&
/
]
4
2
2
z
c
a
w
§)/
\I
\\\/
\
/q)
e
)
\�
(
z
o .
z
a�
z
■
§
§c
®.
�
)@
j(
u
\§
2
§
E
9
/
�
)
\\
/[
��
\\
»k
k\
3/
w
j�
EL
cq
§
�)
Con
)z
7
)
//�
z
R
$
()
w
=§R
\
\
j
LLLt
)(
\u
�
ƒ
\
<
2
E
/
\
c
\
\
\
\
/
/
(
\
/)\)/
z
§
\)
C)
\)\
\)\\
\&/
/
9w
±&±k
z
\
\
\
(
\
`
\
°�
z
\{)
\
\
)
f®
§k
3
«
/
§\
»a#
S± u
u
u
u
g
u\
E
k
®
2
\
�
/
ƒ
§
t
k
\
\
}
2
)
I
&
>
2
#
<
®
g
E
)
\
\
0
4
]
§
Ca.
t
/
/
A
/
*
a.\
\
\
\
/
\�
�x
u
\§
\
2
)2
k
E
�
]
\\
.
)?
[\
E
,
±
)
2
§
)
j
§
§/
_
«
u
\
j\
\§
§
'—
cd
»5°
�
s�@
to
/
E
�
1.1
j
\/
k/
$2
/
%%
■
z
`�
(\
�
.
3\
§
�
\Lo�
/
M)
\En
2
§
)\
\
\/
=k
\�
)
�
\\
(
ge
)j/
§
-
�
/\
�
\\j
j7
\
k/
()
a
k
/{
»[
s=
§
\z
��
9
[
®
*\
{a
2
`{
c
(
c
\)
�@
Eu
§
q
j
(
u
}
u
\
j)\
/
E
� \
\\/
\
0g
\ \ \
\
}
/
§
I
E
/
ƒ
E
2
a
/
;
to/
s
k
Q
G
f
§
k
j-
t
\
M
\
t
K
E
\
j
22
�
\
\
co
}
\\
:)
\ U
�
�
}
)
E
u
2
g
*
/
E
)
j
j
)z
/
(§
E
E
E
�
\
\
\
2
2
\
.
{
(®
e
w
k
\
}
»
Q.
ƒ
\§
\
(
<
2
$
\
Q
\
\ƒ
\\
X
§
\
/
§B
\U
.
§
/
k
R
§
�
]
\\
®
*
\k
�)
e�
Ĥ
/§
/\
2
»±
§
e_
\
u2
�
\
z
_
_
§
i
/
j)
i
\E
�
2
�
§
\
u
§
/
/
E
\\
§/
£2
/
%k
t`
�
m
\\
u±
§
\z
z
�
4
)
�
§
/