Loading...
PCRES 2008-019PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR MADISON SQUARE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36067 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-902 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-593 APPLICANT: HIGHWAY ONE ELEVEN PARTNERS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of July, 2008 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by Highway One Eleven Partners, LLC to adopt Environmental Assessment 2008-593 and its associated mitigation monitoring program, prepared for Tentative Parcel Map 36067 and Site Development Permit 2008-902, known as Madison Square — a 9.24 acre retail commercial shopping center, generally located north of Highway 1 1 1 and east of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: APN : 600-030-018 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-593) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at their meeting held on the 15`" day of May, 2008, reviewed the cultural resource survey, and adopted Minute Motion 2008-002, recommending approval of the cultural resource survey to the Planning Commission, subject to staff -recommended conditions; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify adoption of said Environmental Assessment: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-019 Environmental Assessment 2008-593 - FINAL Highway One Eleven Partners, LLC July 22, 2008 1. The proposed applications 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 2008-593. 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. Potential impacts associated with biological and cultural resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant paleontological resources. 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. The site does not contain significant biological resources. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 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 project is consistent with the General Plan. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2008-593 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-019 Environmental Assessment 2008-593 - FINAL Highway One Eleven Partners, LLC July 22, 2008 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 Planning Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2008-593, which include a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on -file in the Planning Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2007-593 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 22nd day of July, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Weber, Wilkinson, and Chairman Alderson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-019 Environmental Assessment 2008-593 - FINAL Highway One Eleven Partners, LLC July 22, 2008 4ATTEST:Planning Director a, California Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Site Development Permit 08-902, Tentative Parcel Map 36067, Madison Square 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Jay Wuu 760-777-7125 4. Project location: Northeast comer of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111. Assessor's Parcel No. 600-030-018 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Highway One Eleven Partners LLC c/o Sobel Enterprises 420 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA90212 6. General Plan Designation: Regional 7. Zoning: Regional 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.) The Parcel Map is proposed to divide a 9.24 acre site into four commercial parcels. The Site Development Permit will allow the construction of a retail commercial shopping center, including a 47,000 square foot anchor store, located in the northeast comer of the property; a 26,594 square foot building located along the northern boundary of the site; a 15,429 square foot building located at the southwestern comer of the site; and a 3,265 square foot building, located at the southeast corner of the site. In total, 92,288 square feet of space is proposed. No specific tenants have been identified, but a multi -tenant complex is anticipated. Access to the site will occur from two access driveways on Dune Palms Road, one located approximately 320 feet north of Highway 111, and allowing right -in -right -out turn movements only; and the other located approximately 550 feet north of Highway 111, and allowing full turn movements. An access point will also be available on the east property line, approximately 260 feet north of Highway I11, via an existing driveway access to the commercial development to the east. This driveway will allow full turn movements. All structures within the project are proposed to be single story, ranging in height from 16'8" to 46'8". The tallest building, located in the northeast comer of the property, includes a rotunda which will extend to the maximum proposed height of 46'8". The buildings adjacent to Highway 111 will have a maximum height of 25'8". 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Whitewater River South: Highway 111, existing commercial development beyond 4- East: Existing commercial development West: Dune Palms Road, existing commercial development 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, c participation agreement.) M 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. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the 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 -3- Insert Exhibit 1 — Site Plan Insert Exhibit 2 — Tentative Parcel Map -5- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequate supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following ea question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sourc show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the proj( falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expo 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 e site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then t checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less th significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" appropriate if there is substantial evidence that air effect may be significant. If there are one more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where t: incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significa Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigatii measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant lei (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," maybe cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaratie Section 15063(c)(3)(D). hi 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 we within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigati( measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigati( Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specii conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informati( sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to tl page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; howev( lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to 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 0 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? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The proposed project occurs on Highway 111, the City's primary commercial corridor. The proposed project includes buildings typical of a commercial corridor, ranging in height from 17 to 46 feet. The views in the vicinity are to the west and south, including the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains. The proposed project will not impact these views for residential development occurring to the north, insofar as the intervening Whitewater River channel provides distance and separation, and the project is oriented to the south and east. The project is also required to conform to the requirements of the Primary Image Corridor, as established in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, anc will be required to limit building heights adjacent to the Highway, and enhance parkway landscaping. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associatec with scenic vistas remain at a less than significant level. There are no significant stands of trees, historic structures or rock outcroppings on th( project site. The site is vacant, and contains only sparse native vegetation. No impact: are expected. The project site is the only significantly sized remaining vacant parcel in this area o Highway 111, and proposes development consistent with the existing commercia development already occurring in this area. The project will not change the visua character of the area. No impacts are expected. d) The project site is currently vacant, and therefore project development will increas light levels emanating from the site. The lighting generated by the proposed projec will be from parking lot lighting and vehicle headlights. The level of lighting i -7- expected to be consistent with that already occurring in the area, and will n significantly increase lighting levels in the area. Impacts are expected to be less th, significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 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 f.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The project site is located in the City's urban core, surrounded by existing commercia development. There are no agricultural lands within several miles of the propose( project. No Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance are located in tht vicinity of the proposed project. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the site The area has been designated for regional commercial development for at least fifteer years, and has not been in agriculture. No impacts associated with agricultura resources will occur. W Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (General Plan EIR) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (General Plan EIR) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (General Plan EIR) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Application materials) III. a) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation assign to the site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which h. jurisdiction over air quality management in the City and the region, has based its quality management planning on each jurisdiction's General Plan. Therefore, tl proposed project was considered in SCAQMD planning efforts, and is consistent wi the air quality management plans in effect for the City. b)- e) The City, and Coachella Valley, are in non -attainment for PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or smaller). The City can be subject to high winds, which can suspend du and sand in the air, and cause unhealthful conditions. The proposed project will result in air emissions associated with grading of the proje site; construction of the proposed buildings; and operation of the project in the lot term. In the case of grading activities, fugitive dust will be generated. Table 1 illustrates th the project, when mass graded, will generate up to 243.9 pounds of fugitive dust p day. The City requires, however, that all projects prepare and implement a fugitive du to- management plan, which addresses mitigation of dust impacts. This standard requirement will assure that impacts associated with fugitive dust are reduced to less than significant levels. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (bounds ver dav) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout (lbs /day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) o Id 964 243.9 South Coast Air Quality Management District " CEQA Air Quality Handbook" hi addition to fugitive dust, the proposed project will generate air emissions from the heavy equipment used in the grading process. These emissions, and the emissions generated by the worker trips associated with this phase of construction, are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading equipment air emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less than significant. Table 2 Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary (bounds ver day) ROG CO NOx sox PMto 120.14 88.35 5.54 14.02 Equipment Emissions 14.35 Workers' Vehicle Emissions - 6.27 0.67 0.00 0.05 Total Construction Emissions 14.35 126.41 89.02 5.55 14.07 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 Following project grading, construction will commence. This phase of the project is assumed to generate air emissions associated with heavy equipment, offgasing fron asphalt application, and reactive organic compounds associated with paint an( architectural coating applications. These potential impacts are quantified in Table 3 As shown in the Table, construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds o significance, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. -11- Table 3 Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions (pounds per day) ROG CO NOx sox PM, 97.01 76.18 15.02 2.6' Equipment Emissions 11.89 Workers' Vehicle Emissions - 48.08 5.10 0.03 0.4: Asphalt Paving Emissions 6.55 - - - Architectural Coatings Emissions 55.50 Total Construction Emissions 73.94 145.09 81.28 15.05 3.11 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.00 550.00 100.00 150.00 150.01 When construction is complete, the primary source of air pollutants generated by t project will be from vehicle trips to and from the project site. The traffic stuff prepared for the proposed project anticipates a peak of 4,493 daily trips on a Saturda Based on these trips, the emissions from the vehicles can be estimated. The emissio associated with the long term operation of the proposed project at build out a illustrated in Table 4. Table 4 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout ounds Der da Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Tot Length (miles) miles/& 4,493 x 10 = 44,930 Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM Pounds 435.2 45.2 44.6 0.5 3 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 55.0 55.0 150.0 15C As illustrated in the Table, the long term operation of the proposed project will n exceed thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. Impacts are expected to 1 less than significant. Objectionable Odors The proposed project is likely to include retail shops, and restaurants. Although tl restaurants are likely to generate cooking odors, these are not expected to 1 objectionable. No impacts are expected. _tZ_ 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. 78 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. 78 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. 78 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. 78 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 X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) 13- IV. a) The proposed project is vacant, and has been significantly impacted by surroundir development, off road and pedestrian activity, and similar disturbances. The proje site consists of Creosote Bush scrub habitat, which is the most common habitat type i the City. No species of concern, as identified in the General Plan, are anticipated 1 occur on the project site. Common species are expected to utilize the site, and will t displaced by project development. No trees occur on the project site, so it is not like to provide nesting opportunities for birds. Impacts associated with development of tt proposed project are expected to be less than significant. b)-f) The project site does not contain any riparian areas or wetlands. The project site isolated, being surrounded by development, and does not provide a migratory corrido No policies relating to biological resource preservation will be affected by tt proposed project's build out. No impacts are expected. The project area is not located within a conservation area of the Coachella Valle Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Coachella Valley Fringe -toe Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is not within a conservation area i either Plan. The proposed project will be required to participate in whichever Plan is i place at the time of building permit issuance, through the payment of fees. No impal is expected. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the roject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to'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 MEA p. 88 ff..) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff..) V.a), b) & d) The project site is vacant, and does not contain any historic structures. The area of the project site, however, has yielded considerable archaeological resources, and therefore a cultural resource study was prepared'. The study included both a records search and a field investigation. The records search identified that most of the lands surrounding the project site have been studied, and that a number of recorded sites occur in the immediate vicinity. The field investigation identified a previously unidentified site, consisting of prehistoric daub/burned clay, ceramic pot sherds, and fire affected rock. The study concluded that although the find is not potentially significant in and of itself it may be indicative of buried resources, which could be unearthed during the gradin€ and excavating process. This would constitute a potentially significant impact whicl requires mitigation, as follows: Prior to any ground disturbing activity on the site (including grubbing), a Phase I. site excavation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The investigation shall include surface collection of artifacts, excavation of archaeological test units laboratory analysis of the recovered artifacts, permanent curation of the artifacts a an appropriate facility, and the preparation of a final report, to be submitted to thi City for review and approval. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with th, proposed project will be reduced to less than significant levels. "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 600-030-018," prepared by CRM Tecl March 2008. -15- The proposed project site is not known to have been the location of a burial grout California law requires that contractors immediately notify law enforcement offici; should human remains be identified when grading occurs on the project site. Tl requirement assures that impact to human remains will be less than significant. V. c) The project site occurs outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, where fossiliz mollusks and bivalves have been identified. The soils in the City outside the La boundary are primarily young alluvial soils transported into the area from sutroundi mountains, and do not have potential for harboring paleontological resources. 1 impact is expected. 16- 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? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan 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 (General Plan 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 proposed project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismically active area, and wil experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The City implements the mos stringent building code requirements through implementation of the Uniform Buildinj -17- Code provisions for seismically active zones. This requirement assures that impac associated with groundshaking and construction will be less than significant. The project site is located in an area of the City where groundwater occurs at mo than 50 feet below the surface, making the site unlikely to be subject to liquefactio The project site is flat, and surrounded by flat lands, and will not be subject landslides or rockfalls. The project site will be subject to erosion during construction, from both wind ai water hazards. The proposed project will be required to implement a fugitive du management plan, which will include water stabilization during grading, and oth measures, as determined by the City, to assure that wind erosion impacts are less the significant. Water erosion will be controlled through the City's requirement associat( with NPDES standards, to which the .proposed project will be subject. These wi include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) whic will include best management practices to assure that storm water flows leaving d site are not polluted, and do not include silt. These City requirements will assure th impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project will be less the significant. The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands. Tl proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer facilities, and will n, include septic tanks. No impacts are expected. 6F31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: 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? (Application materials) 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? (Application materials) 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 physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fl) h) Expose people or structures to a X -19- 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 proposed project will result in the development of a multi -tenant commerci center. The center is likely to include a wide range of retail enterprises. The, enterprises will store and utilize small quantities of hazardous materials for cleanir and similar activities. These will be in small quantities, and disposed of through tl standards established by the City's solid waste provider. It is also possible that tl space in the proposed project will be occupied by dry cleaners or pool supp businesses, for example, which store or use larger quantities of hazardous material These businesses are regulated by the County's Department of Environmental Healt and by the Fire Department, whose standards and requirements assure that storage ar disposal of materials is handled in a safe manner. These standards and requiremen assure that impacts associated with the use and storage of the materials remain le, than significant. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. The proposed proje site is not listed as a compromised site on any state or federal database. The propos( project is not located within Y< mile of a school. There are no wildlands locat( adjacent or near the project site. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: 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 drainage X 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 oft -Site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X 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 which X 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 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. I1I-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental -21- Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) The proposed project will be connected to the Coachella Valley Water Districl (CVWD) sanitary sewer system. The CVWD maintains its facilities in complian with all wastewater discharge requirements. To protect against the potential contamination of storm water, the proposed proje will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potenti pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. The proposed project will require potable water for the businesses and for landscapii irrigation. The CVWD will provide water to the project site. The proposed project consistent with, and less intense than, the land use designation of Region Commercial. The CVWD utilized this land use designation, and a higher intensity lat use scenario, in the development of its Urban Water Management Plan. The K identified existing and future water sources, and determined that sufficient suppli exist to provide domestic water to the project and City. The City will also require tl implementation of water conserving construction methods, consistent with tl Uniform Building Code. Finally, the project will be required to comply with CVWD landscaping standards, which require water conservation through drought tolera landscaping and extremely efficient irrigation systems. These requirements will assu that impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that projects prepare hydrology analysis, and such an analysis h been completed for the proposed projece. The study found that the project site draii to the Whitewater River in its current condition. The hydrology study designed system of on -site pipes to convey storm waters, after treatment, to the River. Tl proposed project will also collect nuisance water on site, and will not release the. flows to the River. The project is also designed to include treatment facilities to assu that the requirements of the City relating to NPDES standards are maintained throul the life of the project. The City Engineer will continue to review, and will ultimate approve, the final hydrology analysis, which will be based on final plans for tl project. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with stor flows on the project site are less than significant. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. No impact is expected 2 "Preliminary Drainage Study Madison Square," prepared by RBF Consulting, June 2008. -22- 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 Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently vacant, and development of the site will have not impact on an established community. The proposed project will result in a multi -tenant retail commercial center, consistent with the land use designation of Regional Commercial assigned to the site in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No impact associated with land use plans is expected. The proposed project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizarc Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project will be required to comply with tha Plan, or with the provisions of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habita Conservation Plan, should it be implemented at the time of development. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impai 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 project site is and has been designated for regional commercial development, at does not occur in the vicinity of any mining activities. No mineral resources a expected to occur within the project site, and no impact is expected as a result implementation of development on the site. &ze Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X1. 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 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 I 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 project consists of commercial development on Highway 111. Nc sensitive receptors are expected to occur on the property. The City's standard allow. for exterior noise levels of 75 dBA CNEL within commercial projects. The Genera Plan identified noise levels of 66.5 dBA CNEL at Dune Palms and Highway I I I Since that time, with the increases in traffic on Highway 111, noise levels have risen but they are still expected to be about 70 dBA CNEL at General Plan build out Therefore, although the project is located in an impacted area, the noise levels at th -25- site will be below the City's standards, and the impacts associated with long ter operations of the center will be less than significant. The project will result in elevated noise levels during the construction process. The si is surrounded by commercial development, and no sensitive receptors occur in tl area. Although noise levels in excess of General Plan standards are likely to occur f short periods, depending on the equipment or construction activity, these levels will 1 during the noisier day time hours, and will not significantly impact the not environment in the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project's construction may also generate some vibration, depending on tl construction equipment required. This condition will be temporary and periodic, and not expected to impact sensitive receptors, since the proposed project is surrounded 1 existing commercial development. The impacts are expected to be less than significai The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. -26- 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 proposed project will result in the development over just over 92,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The relatively small scale of the project indicates that the uses likely to occur are more "neighborhood" oriented, rather than regional commercial uses. As a result, the uses to be located within the project will occur in reaction to residential growth in the community, and will not induce residential growth in the community. The proposed project occurs in an area which is fully serviced by infrastructure, and will not extend roadways or utilities. The project site is vacant, and will not result in the destruction of housing, or the displacement of people. Overall impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less that significant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa, 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) The proposed project will result in some increases in demand for police and fi services. However, the project will be required to pay Impact Fees, which a structured to include the additional facilities required to accommodate additional lat uses in the City. In addition, the proposed project will generate sales and use tax, at property tax, which will offset the costs associated with providing additional services The proposed project will pay the mandated school fees in place at the time development. These fees are designed to offset the costs associated with ne development, and allow the school district to construct new facilities. The construction of a retail center will have no direct impact on parks. The indire impact associated with the population in the City will be offset by the payment Quimby fees, which are designed to allow the City to purchase land for parks as tl need arises. Overall impacts associated with public services and facilities are expected to be le than significant. -28- 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; General Plan Exhibit 5.0 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) As stated above, the proposed project will have no direct impacts on recreation. No recreational facilities will be displaced, as the site is vacant. No impact is expected. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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 EM 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)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project3. The analysis include a review of existing conditions, an estimate of growth in traffic based on cumulatii projects, and an analysis of the project's impacts in relationship to existing and futui conditions. 3 "Madison Square Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by RBF Consulting, June 2008. -30- The analysis included the study of five area intersections: Adams Street at Highway 111; Dune Palms Road at Westward Ho Drive; Dune Palms Road at Highway 111; Dune Palms Road at Avenue 48; and Jefferson Street at Highway 111. The analysis found that all five intersections are operating at level of service B or better during the weekday PM peak hour and the Saturday mid -day peak hour, with the exception of Jefferson Street and Highway 111, which operates at level of service D during these two time periods. The analysis also calculated the projected trips for the proposed project, and found that on a weekday, the project will generate 3,846 daily trips; while on the weekend, a total of 4,493 trips would be generated each day. During the week, the project would generate 229 evening peak hour trips, and on weekend days would include 340 mid- day peak hour trips. The study applied the project trips to the studied intersections, and found that all five intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the addition of project traffic. The analysis then added cumulative projects from both the City of La Quinta and the City of Indio, and considered the impact of the addition of the proposed project as well. This analysis found that with cumulative projects and the proposed project, the five studied intersections would continue to operate at level of service D or better, both under existing and future conditions. Overall, therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on traffic and circulation levels of service, and will not significantly impact cumulative levels of service. The Fire Department will continue to review projects to assure that emergency access to and from any project is sufficient. The proposed project wll be required to provide parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project occurs on Highway 111, which is within SunLine Transit's route area. Access to public transit will be in the immediate area of the proposed project. The proposed project is not within the influence area of an airport or airstrip. Overall impacts associated with transportation and traffic are expected to be less thar significant. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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 that 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.) IRM XVI. a)-g) The proposed project will connect to CVWD facilities for both domestic water and sanitary sewer. CVWD has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project, and also has the ability to expand the wastewater treatment plant as regional needs require. The proposed project will design its storm water drainage to continue the existing condition, and release water into the Whitewater River. The proposed project will not require the expansion of existing storm drainage facilities. As stated above, the proposed project is consistent with the Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation assigned to the parcel. That designation was used by CVWD to determine domestic water demand in its service area. The analysis concluded that the CVWD has sufficient water available, now and in the future, to serve the proposed project. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. Solid waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is also required to comply with all City, regional, state and federal requirements for the disposal of solid waste. Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be less than significant -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impa 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 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X 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) There are no biological resources of concern on the project site. The potential fi cultural resources has been identified in this Initial Study, and mitigation measun have been included to assure that these impacts are reduced to less than significa levels. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the regional commercial vision for the are and will have no significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. The project will me the City's goals of expanding its tax base to assure adequate provision of services. XVII. c) The Initial Study includes analysis of cumulative impacts where appropriate, and Iv found that no cumulative impact, particularly associated with traffic, will occur as result of the proposed project. -34- XVII. d) The proposed project will have less than significant impacts associated with air quality, noise and traffic and circulation, which could directly affect human beings. -35- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati, declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followil on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available f review. General Plan EIR, 2002. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist we within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicab legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures bas( on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from tl earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -36- & c E / § 4 (» /)\ 2\ ( \ o 0 \)k §Q o] / / § c ƒ § k { \ • K \( o ;Q § § B