PCRES 2004-083PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-083
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-525, PREPARED FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-814.
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004-525
APPLICANT: ENTIN FAMILY TRUST
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 9`h day of November, 2004, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2004-525 to allow a two-story, 23,760 square -foot
general office building, generally located on the east side of Washington Street, 960
feet north of Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as follows:
BEING A PORTION OF PARCELS 25 & 26 OF RS 015/032
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 2004-525 for Site Development
Permit 2004-814, 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 adopted; and,
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 adoption of 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
impacts, which could not be mitigated, were identified by Environmental
Assessment 2004-525.
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 and building activities, and potential impacts associated with cultural
resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
peresoea525.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-083
Environmental Assessment 2004-525
November 9, 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 Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Plan fee area, and
will be required to pay the fees in place at the time grading permits are
requested.
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 2004-525
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\11-9-2004\SDP 814\peresoea525.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2004-083
Environmental Assessment 2004-525
November 9, 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 adopt Environmental Assessment 2004-525 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist 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 91" day of November, 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger, Ladner, and Vice Chairman Quill
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Kirk
ABSTAIN: None
PAUL QUILL, Vice Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
OSCAR ORCI, Interim
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\Reports - PC\11-9-2004\SDP 814\peresoea525.doc
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Site Development Permit 2004-814, Entin Family Trust Office Building
2. Lead agency name and address
3. Contact person and phone number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Wally Nesbit
760-777-7125
4. Project location: East side of Washington Street, approximately 960 feet north of Fred
Waring Drive
Project sponsor's name and address: Entin Family Trust
9332 Stockton Road
Moorepark, CA 93021
General plan designation: Community 7. Zoning: Community Commercial
Commercial
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Site Development Permit for a proposed 23,760 square foot office building on a 1.82 acre site.
The site has been previously constructed, and now only an asphalt lot remains. The proposed
project would result in the construction of a two story structure. Each floor would provide
11,880 square feet of office space. A single project access point is proposed, near the northern
property line on Washington Street.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North: Vacant (Office)
South: Vacant (Community Commercial)
West: Washington Street; single family residential in City of Palm Desert
East: Vacant (Office)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
I
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
Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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.
Signature Date
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 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 Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
-3-
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
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 resources,
X
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) This portion of Washington Street is not designated an Image Corridor in the General
Plan. The proposed project, however, includes a landscaped parkway of up to 32 feet, and
proposes to locate the building on the eastern property line. The project site is located on
the east side of Washington Street, and will not obstruct views to the west. There are no
rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts associated with
scenic resources are expected to be insignificant.
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.
-4-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
H. 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. III-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
environment which, due to their location
X
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Land Use Map)
H. a)-c) The project site is not located in an area of the City where agriculture occurs. The site is
at the northern City limits, and has previously been developed. No agricultural lands
occur either adjacent or near the project site. There are no Williamson Act contract on the
property or on adjacent properties. There will be no impact on agricultural resources.
-5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
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 PM10 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) The largest potential sources of air pollution in the City and the region are vehicular
emissions and blowing dust. The proposed project will result in 23,760 square feet of
general office space. The space has the potential to generate up to 262 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" Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, category 710, General Office Building.
M
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(Dounds Der dav)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
262 x 15 = 3,930
Pollutant
ROC
CO
NOX
PMto PM10 PM10
Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph
353.70
9,196.20
1,886.40
39.30 39.30
Pounds at 50 mph
0.78
20.30
4.16
0.09 0.09
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day)
75
550
100
150
Assumes 262 ADT. Based on California
summertime running conditions at 75T,
Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005
light duty autos, catalytic.
As demonstrated above, the proposed project will not exceed any of SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for chemical emissions. Further, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan designation on the property, the air quality
impacts associated with the project were assessed in the General Plan EIR. The project's
potential impacts to air quality resulting from vehicular emissions are 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, revegetation, track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The proposed project will generate some dust during grading. However, the site has been
previously developed, and grading activities are expected to be limited. The contractor
will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth
moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated
by the measures below.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
-7-
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power
poles to avoid on -site power generation.
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 hydroseed
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.
10. Landscaping of the landscaped parkway on Washington Street shall be completed
immediately following precise grading of the site.
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.
EM
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
W. 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.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
X
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? (General Plan
Exhibit 6.3)
The site has been previously developed, and an asphalt parking area still occurs. The site
is devoid of native vegetation and does not provide significant foraging habitat for local
species. The site is located in the fee payment area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and the project proponent will be required to
contribute the fee in place at the time of issuance of building permits to mitigate this
potential impact. Overall impacts to biological resources are expected to be insignificant.
-to-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'l5064.5? ("Cultural Resources
Assessment" prepared by Archaeological
Advisory Group,. 1996)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment" prepared by
Archaeological Advisory Group,. 1996)
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? ("Cultural Resources Assessment"
prepared by Archaeological Advisory
Group,.1996)
V. a)-b) & d) The proposed project site has been previously developed. In addition, a cultural resource
report was prepared for another project on the site in 1996, and has been updated in
20042. The study found no surface evidence of cultural resources on the site. However,
since the site is subject to significant blowsand hazards, it is possible that sub -surface
resources occur. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation
measure shall be implemented:
1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on site during all excavation, earth
moving and grading activities on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop
or redirect activities should resources be identified. 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 within 60 days of completion
of grading activities.
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.
2 "A Cultural Resources Assessment for a Proposed Medical Facility...," prepared by Archaeological Advisory
Group, April 1996; and letter dated October 7, 2004, same author.
-I1-
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
X
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 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. 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.
12-
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 CV WD 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.
13-
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
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
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
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
-14-
significant risk of loss, injury or death
X
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (General Pian land use map)
VII. a)-h) The proposed office building is expected to generate ordinary business waste, and is not
expected to result in the storage or transport of hazardous materials. No impacts are
expected.
-15-
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. III-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. II1-187 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
SCE
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-
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 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 and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient
fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized.
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 project proposes
an underground stormwater field in lieu of an on -site retention basin. This design shall
comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering
Bulletin No. 97.03. The City Engineer shall approve the design of the proposed
underground stormwater field. The applicant may be required to prepare a hydrology
analysis to demonstrate 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.
-17-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
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 proposed project is designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Office
use, consistent with the development proposal. The site is located on a Major Arterial,
and will provide direct access to this arterial for project traffic. The site is well suited for
the intended use.
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.
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.
-19-
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 groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (General Plan
MEA p. I I I 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. I l 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.
111 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 development of an office building on the site will have little impact on noise in the
vicinity of the project site. Lands surrounding the site are vacant, and will not be
impacted by the proposed project. The offices are not considered sensitive receptors. High
noise levels already occur on Washington Street, which will result in higher noise levels
on the project site than in other locations in the City. However, since no residential uses
are proposed, the impacts will be less than significant. The offices will not generate
-20-
groundborne 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.
-21-
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 23,760 square feet of 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.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
X
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)Buildout 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.
Buildout 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 the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of
building permits to reduce the impacts to those services.
-23-
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 office space will have no impact on the City's recreation system.
-24-
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. III-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 EIR. 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.
-25-
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.
-26-
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 ff.)
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.)
-27-
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.
MM
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVIL 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?
b) 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)?
c) 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 developed, 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
commercial 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.
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
-29-
will generate PM10, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to
reduce the potential impacts on air quality.
-30-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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.
-31-
z
0
c
w
0
0
CIO
C
O
to
0
o n
O
Y
N
0
W N
V1
xzF�¢
oWU3�
wUy�a
v�awa
¢ w
a o
d
0
0
o.
m
H
o
N
E
M.
T
O
Q
C
O
u
n
0
CD
q
W
H
O
U
�
wd
A
v
w
F
d
A
w
d WAW
�
x
U
UU
F
F
U
U
3
a
O
Y 0 to
a
aaaaa�
Q
q
Q
��
a
OU
w z
C
oR
G
C
G
C
z o
;
a
Ca
ctln
a
a
a
C
0
xw
¢
>
a
��
0
o
a
a.>
U�
b
x
'a
a
ar M
cn "o
W
�
W
F
d
A
W
�W
d A
� `.0
Pr v
U
�
W
o
U
N
U
a
z
�
�
H
50
c
Q
a
o�
Wz
��
o
z�
�
°o
Q
��
F
�a
b
a
o�
z
o
w
o
..
�
a
a
� W�W
F
]
�
o
� °D
�,,i C4
WW
.. �
>• d
6 E
,aa
V �
�'�
�
a
bA N
O ,_
��-
ram-
O N
c�C b0
V]
U
,L C
U y.
Q b