PCRES 2002-059PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-059
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-736
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-451
APPLICANT: TENET CARE CALIFORNIA, INC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 28th day of May, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2002-451 for Site Development Permit 2002-736 herein
referred to as the "Project" for Tenet Care California, Inc; and,
WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2002-451) to evaluate the
potential for adverse environmental impacts; 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 Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the
proposed Project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat on which the wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health,
risk potential or public services.
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-059
Environmental Assessment 2002-451
Adopted May 28, 2002
5. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d).
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2002-
451 and the comments received thereon, that the Project will have a significant
impact upon the environment.
7. EA 2002-451 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
8. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this Project
is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253.
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 certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-451 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 28th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Abels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-059
Environmental Assessment 2002-451
Adopted May 28, 2002
P��
JACQU S ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
iY HEF NTAAAN, Community Development Director
of La Quinta, California
P:\PC Reso & COA\PC RESO EA 2002-451.wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Site Development Permit 2002-736, Medical Clinic and
Outpatient Surgery Center
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: East side of Washington Street, between Avenue 47 and
Avenue 48
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tenet Care California, Inc.
13737 Noel Road
Dallas, TX 75240
6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
7. Zoning: Current: Community Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The applicant proposes the construction of a 25,486 square foot single story
medical clinic to include examination and diagnostic facilities (MR[, Cat Scan,
X-ray and similar services►, operating rooms and recovery facilities for out-
patient surgery. The project is located on the east side of Washington Street,
between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. Access will be taken from Washington
Street and from Caleo Bay.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Commercial (bank under construction)
South: Vacant lands, Community Commercial
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation
East: Single family units, Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or _
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
P:\FRED\TenetEAChklst.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
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 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
?o�i.
Date —T
J
C
IEI
P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD
2
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 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 analysis 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
PAFRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD
3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan EIR p. III-159 ff.)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR p. III-159 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 non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (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)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
14
X
FA
X
X
0
14
X
P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD
4
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?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 73 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? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 73 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? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 73 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? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
73 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 p. 73 ff.)
X
1:1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PAFRED\TenetEAChk1st. W PD
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? (General Plan EIR p. III-116 ff., General Plan MEA
p. 126 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. III-116 ff., General Plan MEA
p. 126 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 126 ff.)
A. 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 p. III-
61 ff.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR p. III-61
ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR p. III-61 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
FN
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
P:\FRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD
6
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 MEA p. 96
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 MEA p. 96 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? (General Plan MEA p. 96 ff)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 94 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PAFRED\TenetEAChklst. W PD
7
,Ill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR
p. III-87 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87
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. III-87 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 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 Exhibit 6.5)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.5)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 73 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD
8
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(General Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan MEA p. 110 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 110 if.,
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 land use map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.)
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)
X
94
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X --
P:\FRED\Tene1EAChklst. W PD
9
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
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, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
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. III-29 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application
Materials)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
I:
P:\FRED\TenetEAChkIst. W PD
10
f) 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, p. 46 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
p. 46 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
1'
X
P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD
11
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis were used in this review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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.
. CIJRCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
P:\FRED\TenetEAChk1st.WPD
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-451
I. d) The land on which the proposed medical facility will be constructed is currently
vacant. Any development will therefore create new sources of light on the site.
The City has adopted a dark sky ordinance which requires that all light be
contained on -site for any project. Further, the applicant proposes the use of
Chilean mesquite trees along the property line at Caleo Bay. These trees
develop a relatively large canopy, and will act as an effective screen to the
residential properties across Caleo Bay to the east. City standards and the
project design will lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
III. a) The proposed project will generate air pollution primarily from the operation of
motor. vehicles. The medical clinic could generate approximately 802 trips per
day'. It has also been assumed, based on the land use proposed, that the
distance traveled would be an average of 10 miles, since the proposed project
will serve a regional patient pool. Based on this trip generation, the proposed
project will generate the following pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph
41.43 1.59 8.5 -- 0.18 0.18
Daily
Threshold
550 75 100 150
Based on 802 trips/day and average trip length of 7 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light
autos at 75eF. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAOMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of
moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating
to chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of
10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate dust, which could contribute to PM10 concentrations in
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition," for category 630, Clinic.
P:\FRED\Ten etEA-Add451
IV. fj.
the Valley. In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and
requirements on development to control dust. The applicant will be required to
submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity
at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be
mitigated by the mitigation measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and
shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on Washington Street,
perimeter landscaping on the north and south property lines, and
landscaping on Caleo Bay shall be installed as soon as possible after site
grading.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air
quality from buildout will not be significant.
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.
P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 2
V. b) The site has been previously graded, and has a low potential for surficial
archaeological resources. It is possible, however, that buried resources could
occur on the site. As a result, the following mitigation measure shall be
required:
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 to the Community Development Department, for
review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to
occupancy of the first building on the site.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the
City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform
Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require
the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from
ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
VI. b) The subject property is subject to severe wind erosion hazards. The City
Engineer will require the preparation of PM10 Management Plan to control the
potential for blowing dust from the project site. The Air Quality section above
also lists specific mitigation measures designed to reduce wind erosion hazards
at the site. The PM10 Plan and the mitigation measures will reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VII. a)
All medical facilities use and generate materials classified in California as
hazardous. The medical clinic will, however, be subject to considerable
regulation by the state, the Riverside County Health Department, and the Fire
Department. These regulations will ensure that the potential impacts associated
with the use and storage of hazardous substances at the project site will be
less than significant.
VIII. b)
Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District from wells
in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The medical clinic will be required to
implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -
site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated with
groundwater. As a medical facility, the project will use less water than
P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 3
residential development. The proposed project will also meet the requirements
of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. d)
The construction of the proposed building and parking lot will result in less land
being available for the percolation of water into the ground. The City Engineer
will require that these retention basins retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the
potential impacts associated with surface water to a less than significant level.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project will result in temporary high noise
levels which could impact existing residential development to the east. In order
to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located in the northwest corner of the site.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XIII. a)
The medical clinic will have a limited impact on public services. The facility will
be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of the proposed building will generate property tax which will offset
the costs of added police and fire services.
The project will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program,
which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. Site development is not
expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities.
P:\FRED\TenetEA-Add451 4
C
O
0
0
0
O
N
M
N
O
0
N
0
t3
w
Lb
�
�
H
U
1-y
W
C
A
w
m
�'
z
a�
aa+ U
OV
U
Q
C
�
U
U
C
L
°
U
U C
G
O
�
N
'd
U
A
c
ttl •O
c
cl
y
.E
on
to
c
c
a
C
bD
C
D
y C
C
N = 2
_
N
td
Vl
t0
.4 E YVi
Vl
F"
o
y
o
ti
Y u o
0
U
U
c• U
U
U
O
Y U
O N
Obb U
U
.o
°
o
s €
s � •s
.o
�.
a
0.
a
U ..
s a.
.� U �. •. �.
a n. a on a.
a.
a
O C7
c
E
Cl)
ztO
bn
bjDE
to
to
'D
ttl L
'O
U
U
U
N
z
U
CO
0
W
a
ti
o
0
cot,o
a
a
c
3
o
N
3
y
F
n
Y
en
a W
w
> m
g
won
etl
•-.
N
O
O p,
E
a
L-n
02
\�
\�
£)
/(
\§
\�
2
/
§
�
\ \ \
-
`
\
®
\
) 0to
to W
) { E
\
i/
(/
& & E
j 6
2 A A
( (
{ /
§
[
\&
\CO
\)
\
ea
c.m
\
]
�a
2\
r
\ §
j_
k§
\ }
}
)
\
«
\f
\
(
\
0
[
{}
}
7 /
k
®
�
} / ) \
!