PCRES 2001-037PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-037
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 2000-405, FOR SPECIFIC
PLAN 2000-049, PARCEL MAP 29889 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-691
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-405
McDERMOTT ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 27`h day of July, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation on the Environmental Assessment for Specific Plan 2000-049, Parcel
Map 29889 and Site Development Permit 2001-691, a request by McDermott
Enterprises to develop a 53,500 square foot commercial and office complex on a 4.9
acre site, located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and 47`h Avenue,
more particularly described as follows:
A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 9618,
AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUARTERS
OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Community
Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment
2000-405) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan 2000-049, Parcel Map
29889 and Site Development Permit 2001-691 could not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment provided that recommended mitigation is required, and
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for
certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit
applications will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner
inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when
_ Uo
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-037
considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. The project will
not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat of a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
2. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
3. The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit
applications will not have the potential to achieve short term 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, Parcel Map and Site Development Permit
applications will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been
previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project
impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction
with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not
be significantly affected by the proposed project.
5. The proposed Specific Plan, Parcel Map and Site Development .Permit
applications will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that
are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development
of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified
which would affect human health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2000-405
and determined that it reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption
of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
Planning Commission Resolution 2001- 037
9. 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.
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 constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment
2000-405 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the
Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on
file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 271" day of March 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
<�l YJL-�-
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
IY HEf MAN, Community Development Director
of La Quinta, California
W
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: La Quinta Professional Plaza:
Specific Plan 2000-049
Site Development Permit 2001-691
Parcel Map 29889
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
4. Project Location: Southeast corner of Washington Street and 471' Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: McDermott Enterprises
P.O. Box 163
Palm Desert, CA 92261
6. General Plan Designation: M/RC (Mixed/Regional Commercial)
7. Zoning: CR (Regional Commercial)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Review of design guidelines and development standards for a ±53,500 s.f.
commercial/office complex on a t4.9 acre site; consideration of development
plans for construction of a t 5,000 s.f. permanent bank structure, along with
a t 1,440 s.f. temporary bank structure; and subdivision of ,a commercial
parcel map to subdivide t4.9 acres into 12 parcels.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Vacant M/RC land; retail use farther north
South: Vacant M/RC land
East: Low Density Residential development
West: Institutional (St. Francis church and associated parking)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405.wpd 09
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
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. n
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required. ❑
Signature
Printed Name
Date
Department
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405.wpd
10
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 account for the whole action involved, including off -site as
well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
11
CAW rkorp\EAdocs\ck1st405. wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): significant unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General
Plan EIR, Figure 4.6-1)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/photometric analysis)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: (In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland) Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? (EIR, Figure 4.1-
4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; EIR, Figure 4.1-4)
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; EIR, p. 4-19)
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? (1990
PM10 SIP)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook/PM10 SIP)
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
1:1
X
9
C:\W rkgrp\EAdocs\ckist405. wpd
In
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis) X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials) 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff;
EIR, Figure 4.4-1)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either
individually or in combination with the known or probable
impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (MEA, p. 5-2 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; EIR, Figure 4.4-1)
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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register
of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources?
ICRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge, there is high
probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically
recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?
ICRM Tech Report, 12105/2000)
9
X
X
X
X
9
X
3
C:\W rkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405. wpd
13
r
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed delineation map) I I X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? (CRM Tech Report, 12/05/2000) 1 1 X
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General
Plan Figure EH-1; EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan Figure
EH-1; 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 geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 16-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code 0 994), creating substantial risks to
life or property? (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? (MEA,
p. 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405.wpd
14
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing; Site/project assessment)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Not
applicable)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, P. 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? (Aerial data; Site assessment)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, pp. 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? (EIR, p. 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? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter)
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? ( EIR, P.
4-58 ff; Project drainage letter)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
to control? (EIR, p. 4-58 ff; Project drainage letter)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? MEA, p. 6-13)
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
C:\W rkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405. wpd
15
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
X.
XI
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, p. 5-5; CVFTL
HCP)
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? (MEA, p. 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? (MEA, p. 5-29)
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? (EIR,
p. 4-157 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels? (EIR, p. 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EIR, p. 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?
(Not applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
X
*1
X
X
0
X
N
rJ
11
X
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ? (General Plan, p. 2-14; Project assessment) X
ld
CAW rkgrp\EAdocs\cklst405.wpd
W Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (MEA, p.4-3 ff.)
Police protection? (MEA, p. 4-3 ff.)
Schools? (MEA, p. 4-9 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (MEA, p. 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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Project
assessment)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (EIR, p. 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? (Not applicable)
X
X
3
X
N
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405.wpd
9
17
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment,
Fire/police comments)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, Sunline response)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (MEA, P. 4-24; CVWD)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (MEA, pg 4-24; CVWD comments).
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (MEA, pg 4-27; CVWD comments)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (MEA, pg 4-20; CVWD
comments)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? (CVWD comments)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (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 habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ck1st405.wPd
10
18
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Checklist Addendum.
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ckJst405.wpd 19
11
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
City of La Quinta General Plan, 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, prepared by CRM Tech,
December 5, 2000.
Lake Management Plan for Lake La Quinta, 1989
Drainage Analysis letter for Palm Desert National Bank site, Dudek and Associates,
January 15, 2001.
State Implementation Plan for PM10 in the Coachella Valley, November 1990.
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, Section 10A
Permit, June 1985.
20
C 1W rkgrp\EAdocs%ck1st405.wpd
12
Checklist Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2000-405
Introduction
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for a proposed 53,500 square foot
office complex, to be located on 4.9 acres in the City of La Quinta. The site location
is the southeast corner of Washington Street and 47`h Avenue. The project site is
currently vacant, with the Lake La Quinta residential areas to the east, vacant
commercial land to the south, Washington Street and Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic
Church to the west, and vacant commercial land across 47`h Avenue to the north.
I. a-d)
There are no scenic view sheds identified from the site, nor is the site directly
in line with any view windows as identified by the General Plan documents.
There will be some view obstruction to residents of Lake La Quinta whose
units on Via Orvieto back up to Caleo Bay. A line of sight study has been
prepared by the applicant to illustrate the most proximate 2-story building to
the residential area. Based on this study, and in order to accommodate the
project objectives, the following mitigation is proposed:
1. The proposed 2 story, 5,000 s.f. office building to be located on Parcel
5 shall be limited to 28 feet in height. Specific attention to masking this
building's height with landscaping, architectural elements, etc. shall be
incorporated into any design submitted for future site development
approval.
II. a) The site is in an area identified by the General Plan EIR as being prime
agricultural soil. The soil type is of the Gilman series (GbA, GbB, GcA), which
are well drained, moderately permeable soils suitable for agriculture and
recreational uses. Development of the site will remove approximately 5 acres
from the City's inventory of available prime agricultural soil. However, this is
recognized as a cumulative impact due to the growth -inducing nature of
impacts associated with adoption of the General Plan. The property is not, nor
has it been, in agricultural production. It's location away from agriculture -based
infrastructure, in an urbanizing area, along with the small parcel size, render
the site unsuitable for such use.
Ill. b) Development of the proposed project will not, in and of itself, have an
appreciable impact on ambient air quality. Air quality impacts for a
development of this type and scale are generally limited to short-term
- construction. In the Coachella Valley, the greatest concern relative to
construction emissions is particulate matter. The site has been previously
disturbed in its entirety during demolition of the old Burkett ranch house and
C:\ W rkgrp\EAdocs\ea2001405. wpd 21.
associated structures/improvements, and is a source of fugitive dust during
moderate wind periods. The Coachella Valley has in the past been a serious
non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
However, in recent years the area has met criteria for reclassification to
attainment status and, in fact, SCAQMD has filed for such status recognition
from California Air Resources Board (CARB). The latest preliminary information
from SCAQMD indicates that year 2000 data will reflect that the Valley has
now moved back into non -attainment status. In order to control PM10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust, and
is in the process of modifying it's current ordinances to improve monitoring and
compliance requirements.
2. No grubbing, clearing, grading or land disturbance of any kind shall be
undertaken without the review and approval of a,PM10 Fugitive Dust
Control Plan (FDCP).
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the incremental increase
of impacts to air quality from the proposal will not exceed those under the
present condition on the site.
IV. a-f)
The project site has been significantly impacted by prior land disturbance
activity. A structure fire and subsequent demolition activity contributed to
disturbance of the majority of the site, along with development of
improvements associated with the Lake La Quinta project surrounding this site.
The site is isolated on three sides by developed roadways, and is not viable as
habitat or would facilitate the transitional migration or movement of species.
While the site is within the CVFTL habitat fee area, the site is not viable as
habitat for this species. No significant stands of trees or other vegetation exist
on the site, as verified in observations in the cultural resources survey. Impacts
to any biological resources are determined to be insignificant.
V. A Phase I (survey level) cultural resource assessment was prepared for the
proposed site. The assessment found that no cultural or historic value can be
attributed to the site, but that monitoring during project development activities
needs to be conducted. As a result, while unlikely based upon findings of the
assessment, there is unknown potential for impacts to historic/cultural
resources. Standard monitoring requirements will be conditioned upon project
approval to ensure detection and retrieval of any uncovered resources.
C:1 W rkgrp\EAdocs\ea2001405. wpd
22
VI. a.ii)
The proposed project area lies just inside the Zone III groundshaking zone. It
is close to the Zone IV designation that includes much of the Highway 111 and
northern La Quinta areas. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be
subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake.
Structures already constructed within the area have been required to conform
to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones.
1 . All proposed structures will be subject to conformance with the Uniform
Building Code.
2. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific
geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans
for all development proposed on the site.
This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to
a less than significant level.
XV a) There will be an increase in traffic volume associated with the project's
development (i.e. vacant to urban transition). The proposal was reviewed by
the City Public Works Department. Caleo Bay and 47`h Avenue are designed
and built as Collector status roadways, with adequate capacity to
accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes. No traffic issues were
identified and no studies of area -wide traffic patterns or generation were
requested. No impacts have been identified that would require mitigation at this
time.
zs
C:\Wrkgrp\EAdocs\ea20014O5. wpd