PCRES 2004-064PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-064
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516 PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-811.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-516
APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 14th day of September, 2004 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-516 to allow a two-story, 42,000 square foot
medical office building, generally located at the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 643-200-004
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), in that the Community Development
Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2004-516 for Site Development
Permit 2004-81 1, and based upon this Assessment determined that the project may
have significant adverse effects on the environment; however, mitigation measures
have been imposed on the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level;
therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be certified.
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project 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 2004-516.
2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory in that the site has been previously disturbed by
grading activities and potential impacts associated with cultural resources have
been mitigated to a less than significant level.
P:\Reports- PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Resc.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-064
Environmental Assessment 2004-516
September 14, 2004
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends in that no unmitigated significant effects on wildlife resources
have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The site is within the
boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and
will be required to pay the fees in place at the time building permits. are
received.
4. The proposed project does 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. The proposed project will broaden the services
offered to residents of the City, consistent with General Plan goals and policies
pertaining to the provision of a full range of retail and office opportunities
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be _
significantly affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project
will have no significant cumulative impacts.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no unmitigated
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 in that mitigation measures are
imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2004-516
and said 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, 92253.
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Reso.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-064
Environmental Assessment 2004-516
September 14, 2004
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2004-516 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.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2004-516 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14" day of September, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Daniels, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk
None
Commissioner Krieger
None
TOM(KIRK,,Chairman
City f L uinta, California
ATTEST:
O CAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\9-14-2004\Boureston\EA 04-516 PC Reso.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Site Development Permit 2004-811
2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact person and phone number: Martin Magana
760-777-7125
4. Project location: Southeast corner of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington Street.
APN: 643-200-004
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Boureston Development
5500 Trabuco Road, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92620
6. General Plan Designation: Community 7. Zoning Designation: Community
Commercial Commercial
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 42,000 square foot, 2-story medical
office building, and associated parking and landscaping on 3.44 acres. The project includes
239 parking spaces, and will take access from Caleo Bay Drive. No access on Washington
Street is proposed.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Lake La Quinta Dr., Restaurant (Omri & Boni)
South: Vacant
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation and St. Francis of Assisi Church
East: Caleo Bay, Bed & Breakfast (La Quinta Inn), Lake La Quinta residential development
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
x environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
August 23, 2004
-z-
Signature
Date
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact'
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Infom7ation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
-4-
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Substantially damage scenic
X
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing
X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial
X
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
I. a)-d) Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The
proposed project, however, will be located easterly of an existing landscaped parkway,
set back 92 feet from Washington Street. Further, the two story component of the
proposed project will be 150 feet from Washington. In addition, the project is proposed
for the east side of Washington Street, and will not impact the mountain views on the
west side of the street. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on
the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be less than significant.
The construction of the office building will cause an increase in light generation,
primarily from parking lot lighting, car headlights and landscape lighting. The bulk of the
activity of the site, however, will be during daytime hours. The City regulates lighting
levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Impacts will not
be significant.
M
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. I11-21
ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
II. a)-c) The project site is not located in an area of the City where agriculture occurs. The site is
in the center of La Quinta's urban core. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the
property or on adjacent properties. There will be no impact on agricultural resources.
-7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook,
2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) Since automobile emissions are the largest contributor to air quality issues in the region,
vehicle trips will be the most significant generators of air pollutants as a result of the
project. The proposed project will result in 42,000 square feet of medial office space.
This land use has the potential to generate up to 1,518 trips per day'. Based on this traffic
generation, and an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be
expected to be generated from the project site.
"Trip Generation, 6°i Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 720, Medical/Dental Office Building.
WE
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
1,518 x 15 = 22,770
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 2,049.30 53,281.8010,929.60 227.70 227.70
Pounds at 50 mph 4.52 117.62 24.13 0.50 0.50
SCAQMD Threshold
75 550
Assumes 1,055 ADT. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
summertime running conditions at 75T, light duty autos catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. The project's potential impacts to
air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are therefore expected to be less than
significant.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates
of 10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for
the control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations.
These include the following, to be included in conditions of approval for the proposed
project:
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, re -vegetation, track -out control.
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, re -vegetation.
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance.
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 90.82 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The portion of the perimeter of the site has
been landscaped, which will aid in reducing the blowing sand impacts on adjacent
properties. The contractor will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to
-9-
initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with
PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Imported fill shall be adequately watered prior to transport, covered during
transport, and watered prior to unloading on the project 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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix hydro -seed
on the affected portion of the site.
S. 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
Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with
PM10 are mitigated to a less than significant level.
III. d) & e) The project will consist of offices which are not expected to generate objectionable
odors, nor will it expose residents to concentrations of pollutants.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service(General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
X
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 MEA, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the
X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan
MEA, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.)
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservationplan? General Plan
-11-
Exhibit 6.3)
IV. a)-f) The site has previously been rough graded and grubbed. No significant vegetation occurs
on the site, making it unsuitable for habitat for indigenous species. The site is within the
boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and will be
required to pay the fees in place at the time building permits are received. Impacts to
biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5? (General
Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including
X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.)
V. a)-b) & d) The proposed project site has been previously graded. Surfieial 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:
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.
V. c) The proposed project site lies outside the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient
lake Cahuilla. No paleotological resources are expected to occur on site, and therefore no
impacts to such resources will result from implementation of the proposed project.
13-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3)
iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5)
c) Be located on expansive soil, as
X
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property (MEA
Exhibit 6.1)
d) Have soils incapable of adequately
X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a)-d) The project site lies in a Zone III 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. The office building 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.
-14-
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to liquefaction, rockfall or
landslides. The site does not have expansive soils. The proposed project will be required
to connect to the CVWD sanitary sewer system, and septic tanks will not be installed.
The site is located in an area of severe blow sand potential. The mitigation measures
included above under air quality are designed to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with blow sand at the project site to a less than significant level.
-15-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the
X
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
T
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95
ff.)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p.
95 ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan
land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or
X
physically interfere with an adopted
-16-
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 to
h) Expose people or structures to a
X
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
VII. a)-h) The use of the site as a medical office building has the potential to generate on -site use
and storage of hazardous materials. The medical profession is, however, highly
regulated, and will be required to comply with Fire Department, County, State and
federal standards and requirements for the handling and disposal of hazardous materials.
These various agencies will inspect any on site facility which handles hazardous
materials, and assure that potential impacts associated with these materials are less than
significant.
l 7-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
X
waste discharge requirements? (General
Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
X
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan
EIR p. 111-187 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing
X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water
X
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan
EIR p. III-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
_18-
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR
p. ID-187 ff.)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service
use in the medical offices, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a
Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to
accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is
implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will
result in a surplus of water in the long term.
The project proponent will be required to implement the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance and construction provisions, including requirements for water
efficient fixtures and appliances, which will ensure that the least amount of water is
utilized within the building.
The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards,
requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City
standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than
significant.
VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant will be
required to prepare on site hydrology analysis which provides for on site retention of
these storm waters. The City Engineer will review the hydrology study for the proposed
project, and approve its findings prior to construction of the project. Impacts associated
with storm water drainage are therefore not expected to be significant.
VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA.
IQ
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation .
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
X
community? (Aerial photo)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
X
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
IX. a)-c) The project site is designated Community Commercial, which allows a wide variety of
land uses tailored toward the region, rather than only City residents. The location of a
medical office building, which is likely to serve residents of both La Quinta and
surrounding cities, is appropriate for this site. The project will be required to comply
with the development standards of the Zoning Code for the Community Commercial
designation.
The project site is within the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley
Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to comply with its fee
provisions at the time building permits are issued.
There will be no impacts to land use and planning.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? (Master Environmental Assessment
p.71 ff.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
X
locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment
p. 71 ff.)
X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to
have potential for mineral resources.
-21-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. 1 I 1 ff.)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. 11 I ff.)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan MEA p.
III ff.)
e) For a project located within an airport
X
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan land
use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
X
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan land use map)
XI. a)-f) The proposed construction of medical office space on the subject property will have
limited impacts on the noise environment. The site is surrounded on three sides by
roadways, one of which is Washington Street, which has relatively high noise levels. The
site will not include a residential component, and therefore will not have sensitive
receptors. Although noise levels are expected to rise during construction, these potential
-22-
impacts will be short term, and will still not increase CNEL noise levels to exceed the
City's standards. The offices will not generate ground -borne vibration. The site is not
located in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Impacts associated with noise at the site
are expected to be less than significant.
-23-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The construction of 42,000 square feet of medical office space will benefit the existing
population of the City. Jobs created by the offices will be limited, and are not expected
to be significant. The site is currently vacant, and the proposed project will not impact an
existing population. The project would provide an additional site for medical services to
the public.
-24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks
X
Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA,
X
p. 46 ff.)
XIII. a) Build -out of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under
City contract. Build -out of the proposed project will generate property tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general
government. The project will be required to pay development impact fees and the
mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the
impacts to those services.
-25-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application materials)
b) Does the project include recreational
X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Application materials)
XIV. a) & b) The development of medical office space will have no impact on the City's recreation
system.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
X
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or
X
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways? (General Plan EIR, p.1II-29 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic
X
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks'? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) The proposed project is consistent with the Community Commercial land use
designation, and is therefore expected to generate traffic volumes consistent with those
studied in the General Plan FIR. Traffic volumes and levels of service on Washington
Street in this area are predicted to operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the circulation system.
-27-
The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The site is located
within the service area of SunLine Transit, and can be served by it. Overall impacts to
traffic are expected to be less than significant.
-28-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, P. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 f%)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
-29-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer,
electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will
collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The
construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on
utility providers.
-30-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
X
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals`?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
X
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII. a) The site has been previously graded, and potential impacts associated with cultural
resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
XVII. b) The proposed project will broaden the services offered to residents of the City, consistent
with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to the provision of a full range of retail
and office opportunities.
XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area.
Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts.
-31-
XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air
quality impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and
the site will generate PM 10, Section Ill above, includes a number of mitigation measures
to reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
-32-
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.
Not applicable.
-33-
d
a�oa�a
UO
a
�daa3d
C7
a
a
C7
F
O
b
ro
Q
c
d
a
x
ro
a
w
0
L
L
U
o
0
}
o
d
o
N
o
0.
�
W
AYH
�d
az
V, aV
�d
°>
�
�
o
�
0
�
o
Q
y
0
>
b
^
G
o
N
vn
4
N
L
73
C/�
V]
O
O
..H
z
p
z
x�
FN
A
V
W
di
W
F
¢
A
z
vu
G
G
y
o
0
o
c
bn
°A
G
a
o
G
z
U
U
U
a N
U
2
U
2
G
N
00
G
C
N
o
R
U
oo�o�
G
CD
bD
C
G
G
b9
z
�
O
as
E
e
�o
OQ^
G
Q
Q
Q
P. 0
O
G
= O
r G
bD
G
to
G
Q
bD
�
�
W
'vr-
�, �
�o
v
'•Go
U
U
m
U Cz
W
W
G
W
c
v
G
o
M
0
N N
z
o
c
g°
�bb
Fd
G
,
° �
o
L1
bA
�d
a
a
¢
_
a
o
to
a
�
¢
N
v
_
c L
°
G
0
O
.�
W
F
a
ca
w
U �
Z La
d
a
a. U
M
OV
d
a
W
o
CC
a�i
U
a
c
C7
z
F
ro
m
to
c
C�
C
o�
Wz
O
R
�
oz
Q
m
w
b
o
W
ct°i to
U
�.5
Cd7 cn
F f1
v�
o c
�
O
f� L
V b0