Loading...
PC Resolution 2010-015PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERIMIT 2006-097 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564 APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25t'' day of May, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Prest Vuksic Architects for Environmental Assessment 2006-564 prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 and Site Development Permit 2006-860, located on the west side of Washington Street between Avenues 47 and 48, more particularly described as: APN: 643-090-026 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 2006-564) and has determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effecting 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, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 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 2006-564. The proposed parking lot project replaces an additional existing temporary parking lot and will not result in an increase in any impacts over what currently exists on the project site. P:\Raports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\EA 2006-564 PC RES ADOPTED.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2010-075 ,Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 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. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife, nor has been identified as a wildlife corridor. 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 property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, landscaping will be installed, which may provide some habitat, and grading of the site will primarily disturb existing developed areas. 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. 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 does not change the property's current land use as a church parking lot and will not generate new or additional impacts. If the project is approved as proposed, it will' be in compliance with the General Plan and in conformance with surrounding development. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. The proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic or noise, as it is intended to replace an existing temporary parking facility. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measures imposed. Environmental Checklist Form Project title: EA 2006-564, Site Development Permit 2006-860, Conditional Use Permit 2006-097, Saint Francis Church Pazking Lot Expansion 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Andrew J. Mogensen, AICP 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The west side of Washington Street, south of Avenue 47. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Community 47225 Washington Street La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant proposes the paving of a pazking lot within the general boundary of a turfed pazking azea which cun•ently exists. In addition, the applicant proposes the creation of a new temporary parking area immediately to the west of the new paved parking area. 220 parking spaces aze proposed in the paced lot, while 134 spaces aze proposed in the new temporary lot. The project also includes the creation of a storm water retention basin on the east boundary of the site, and associated landscaping of the pazking and retention area. The project azea encompasses approximately 5 acres. The proposed project occurs immediately south of the existing church, on the west side of Washington Street. The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow pazking, while the Site Development Permit is required to consider the design and landscaping plan for the site. - All existing access points to the frontage road will remain as they currently occur, as will access from the frontage road onto Washington Street. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Lands to the west consist of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Lands to the south aze currently vacant, and designated for Low Density Residential development. Lands to the east, beyond Washington Street, consist of retail and office commercial uses. Lands to the north include the church buildings, and the Highlands single family neighborhood beyond. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None t- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving a least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on tha following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazazds & Hazazdous 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: ignificant effect on the gazed. ignificant effect on the because revisions in the ponent. A MITIGATED ~n the environment, and ~ significant impapt" or onment, but at least one it pursuant to applicable cures based on the earlier CAL IMPACT REPORT e addressed. J pursuant to applicable t to that eazlier EIR or ation measures that are ignificant effect on the t) have been analyzed S-/4-Zat.o Date -2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that aze 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 standazds (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off=site as well as on- site, cumulative aswell asproject-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particulaz 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 efeecl: may be significant. If there aze one or more "Potentially Significant hnpact" entries when the determination is made, an EIIt 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, "Eazlier Analyses," maybe 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 a~i earlier EIR or negative declazation. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Eazlier 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 eazlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eazlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that aze "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eazlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies aze 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 aze free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -3- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Signitcant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X Scenic vista? (La Quints General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, X trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual chazacter or quality of the site and X lts sun'oundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glaze which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Project description) I. a)-c) The installation of the pazking lots will not impact any scenic vistas. The project does not propose any structures which would block a view from Washington Street to the foothills. The proposed project will include a landscaped retention basin on its east boundary, and landscaping in the pazking lot. The landscaping will act as a visual buffer to the pazking area. The western temporary lot will not be landscaped beyond a gravel covering, but will also not impact views, as no structures are planned in this azea either. There aze no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the site, so the project will not impact scenic resources. The project is located on an hnage Corridor (Washington Street), as defined in the General Plan. However, the project proposes only landscaping along the frontage road which currently sepazates the site from Washington Street. The project will therefore not impact scenic resources. The proposed project consists of the paving of an existing lot, and the addition of a temporary lot to the west. The nature of the project is substantially similar to what occurs on the land today, and will therefore not impact the visual character of the azea. d) The proposed project will have no new impact on light and glaze. Light currently occurs on the site when the existing turfed lot is in use during the evening hours. The paving of the lot will not result in any increase in the number of vehicles using the lot, insofar as the congregation will not grow as a result of the proposed project. In the future, should the congregation increase in size, some increase in use of the area on special occasions (particularly Christmas eve services, or lazge weddings or funerals) may result in use of the new temporary lot. This increase, however, is not expected to occur for some years, and will not substantially add to the light in the area. -~- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the ro'ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepazed pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultuial use? (Genera] Plan EIR p. III-21 ff:) 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 }{ or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently in use as a parking area, and lands to the west aze vacant desert. Neither area is designated for agricultural lands on State mapping systems. The parcel is designated for Low Density Residential land uses, and has been for some years. There aze no agricultural activities within several miles of the project site. There aze no Williamson Act contracts on the proposed project site or on lands in the vicinity. This site is in the urban core of the City, and is not an agricultural azea. There will be no impact to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. -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? (General Plan EIR) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for X which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standazd (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) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either X directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or X regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description) III. a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) implements air quality regulation in the City and region. The SCAQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 State Implementation Plan aze the applicable documents for this project. Both plans were developed using the City's General Plan land uses. The pazking azea is ancillary to the primary church use on the site, and will not generate any significant number of new vehicle trips. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the SCAQMD's adopted plans. b)- c) The paving of the proposed pazking lot will result in air emissions during the grading and paving of the site. As no structures aze proposed, there will be no construction emissions. Further, as the pazking lot replaces an existing lot, and the new temporary lot is an "overflow" pazking azea, no new trips will be created as a result of the proposed project, so no new operational emissions will occur. For purposes of this -6- analysis, it has been estimated that all grading activities will occur in one phase. The paved azea totals 2.2 acres, and it has been estimated that all paving would be accomplished in one day. As the project also includes concrete curb and gutter, equipment has been assumed for this activity as well. Worker emissions include the personnel required to operate the machinery, as well as supervisory personnel. The grading and paving emissions for the proposed project are shown in the Tables below. As shown in these tables, the proposed project will not exceed SCAQIvID thresholds during either grading or paving activities. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (Hounds Her davl Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout (Ibs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Au Quality Handbook," prepazed by South Coast Air Quality Management District April 1993. Table 2 Grading -Related Exhaust Emissions Summary (Hounds Her dav) CO NOx ROG SOx PMto PM2.5 C02 Equipment Emissions 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36 8,751 Workers' Vehicle Emissions 4.33 3.39 0.57 0.01 0.14 0.11 725 Total Construction Emissions 47.44 99.97 18.16 0.24 3.92 3.48 9,476 SCA MD Thresholds of Significance 550 00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 t Table 3 Aggregate Construction -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day ) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Equipment Emissions 23.02 40.65 6.07 0.05 2.55 2.27 Workers' Vehicle Emissions 4.33 3.39 0.57 0.01 0.14 '0.11 Asphalt Paving Emissions - - 1.05 - - - Architectural Coatings Emissions - - Total Construction Emissions 27.36 44.04 7.69 0.06 2.69 2.39 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Overall air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. d) The construction of the proposed pazking lots will have no impact on pollutant concentrations, asthe project will not result in any change in current traffic volumes or flows. 7- e) The proposed project will not generate odors. The paving of the parking area, and creation of the new temporary lot, will occur outside, and any odors created by vehicles will quickly disperse. f) & g) The grading and construction of the proposed pazking lots will result in the generation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) during the grading and paving processes. The proposed project will have no direct long term impact on GHGs, insofaz as the pazking lot is currently in use, and its paving will not increase the church's congregation, and the number of cazs which pazk in the azea. As described in the Tables above, the project will generate 9,476.59 pounds per day of cazbon dioxide during grading. It is estimated that grading will occur for a period of approximately 10 days. As a result, the project will generate 94,760 pounds of cazbon dioxide, or 42.6 metric tons. The paving of the parking area has the potential to generate 5,041.2 pounds per day of cazbon dioxide. It is estimated that the paving process will take approximately 3 days. As a result, the project will generate 15,123.6 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 6.8 metric tons. The SCAQMD has not adopted any thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, except for industrial projects for which it is the lead agency. For those projects, it uses a threshold of 10,000 metric tons per yeaz. For commercial and residential project, SCAQMD's staff have referenced a possible threshold of •3,000 metric tons per year as representing a significant increase in GHG emissions. That threshold was not adopted by the SCAQMD Board, and is the subject of ongoing discussions of a working group. However, as the project will generate 49.4 metric tons in one year, and no emissions following that construction yeaz, the proposed project is well below the thresholds considered by SCAQMD. The proposed project will therefore have less than significant impacts on GHGs. -$- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: 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.) ~ 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 Ptan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -9- N. a) A biological resource assessment was completed for the proposed project'. The survey found that the vacant desert lands west of the proposed paved lot aze dominated by the Sonoran creosote bush scrub plant community. The site survey found no sensitive plants on the project site. The site survey also did not identify any sensitive animal species on the site. Following the completion of the survey, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan was adopted by the City and other participating jurisdictions. The Plan identified conservation azeas immediately west of the project site, but not in azeas where the proposed project is to occur. As the proposed project will not disturb the toe of slope, it falls under the mitigation fee requirements of the Plan, and will be subject to these requirements to assure that impacts associated with any sensitive species aze less than significant. b)-f) The project azea does not contain any riparian habitat. A significantly degraded mesquite hummock occurs on the southeastern edge of the site. The biological report did not identify any impact associated with this hummock because of the degraded nature of the plants, due primarily to its isolation and a lowered water table. There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the project site. The site is isolated by existing development, and provides a "dead end" for natural environment. As a result, there is no potential for the site as a transportation corridor for wildlife. There will be no impact associated with the movement of native species as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project azea is within the azea covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project area is not in a conservation.azea under the MSHCP, and as such is required to pay a mitigation fee. There will therefore be no conflict with the Plan, and no impact is expected. "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed St. Francis of Assisi Pazking Lot," prepared by James Cornet, May 2007. -10- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the ro'ect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined ln'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an azchaeological 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 fI'.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 f£) V.a) The site is currently vacant, with the exception of a turfed pazking lot. There aze no historic structures on the site, and previous surveys have not identified historic structures. There will therefore be no impact associated with historic structures as a result of construction of the pazking lot. b) Multiple cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the project site, the most recent occurring in 2001. In 2007, the consulting azchaeologist spmmarized the findings of the previous surveys, and the determinations made after excavation of specific sites that these sites were not culturally significantz. The 2007 letter also reiterated that archaeological resources may occur beneath the surface of the site, and that their disturbance would constitute a potentially significant impact. As a result, mitigation measures must be imposed to assure that no azchaeological re"sources aze impacted during the grading of the project site, as follows: 1. An azchaeological monitor shall be present on and adjacent to the project, site during all ground disturbance. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and redirect construction activities should a buried resource be uncovered, and the City shall be immediately notified. Proof of retention of a monitor shall be provided in writing to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity. The monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the City. Any resources identified shall be professionally processed and curated. c) The proposed project occurs north of the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is the only paleontologically sensitive geologic feature in the City. The soils outside the boundary of the ancient lake aze too young geologically, and aze composed Z CRM Tech, April 2007, letter signed by Michae] Hogan, Principal. -11- of sands and fine sands, which aze not conducive to fossilization. As a result, no impacts to paleontological resources are expected as a result of the proposed project. d) The project site is not a part of a known burial ground, nor is it adjacent to a known burial ground. No cemetery occurs in association with the existing church to the north. California law requires that any human remains found when excavations occur be reported to law enforcement. Further, law enforcement is required to determine if the remains have the potential to be culturally significant to local Native American Tribes, and to contact the Tribes if they are determined to be so. These requirements of State law assure that there will be no impact to human remains as a result of the widening project. -12- 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 Exlibit 63) tv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exlibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exlibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property (Genera] 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 Pian Exhibit 8.1) VI. a) The proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazazd Zone. The site will, however, experience significant ground shaking during an earthquake. The site will require that light poles and other construction on the site meet seismic requirements of the building code in effect when the pazking lot is constructed. These requirements aze designed to limited impacts associated with construction in seismically active azeas to less than significant levels. -13- These standazds will assure that there will be no impacts associated with ground shaking. The project site is not in an area subject to liquefaction. The proposed project occurs to the east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The new temporary lot is proposed in closest proximity to the foothills, and will be used as an overflow lot for special events. The paved lot is located over 300 feet from the toe of slope, and is not expected to be impacted by rockfall or landslide. As a pazking lot, the area will not be occupied for any length of time by people, and the impacts associated with landslides and rockfall is expected to be less than significant. b) The proposed project will be subject to soil erosion due to wind and water during its construction. The City will implement PM10 Management Plans for grading of the pazking lot, consistent with its standazds for all projects, to assure that wind erosion is controlled. The City will also implement best management practices relating to storm water management during and after the construction process, to assure that storm water is not polluted by soils from the site or up stream sources. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) The City's soils aze not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands. d) The proposed project will have no impact on septic or sewer systems, as the parking lot will not require septic or sanitary sewer service. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the ro'ect: a) Create a significant hazazd to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazazdous 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 hazazdous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazazdous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazazdous 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 hazazd to the public or the envitonment? (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 hazazd for people residing or working in the project azea? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazazd for people residing or working in the project azea? (General Ptan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically R interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 fI) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involvine wildland fires, including where 15- wildlands aze adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wlldlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)m c)-h) The proposed project will not result in the storage, handling or use of hazardous materials. The parking lot does not include any storage facilities, and no potential for such activities will result from the proposed project. b) The proposed use of the site as a parking lot will result in the release of small amounts of oils and auto chemicals from leaks in car engines. These materials will stay on the surface, and could enter surface water flows during a storm. The City will require the construction of best management practices for the operation of the pazking, which will include facilities to "clean" surface flows, particulazly those which will flow to the on site retention basin. These standazd requirements will assure that the proposed project has less than significant impacts associated with hazazdous materials. c) The proposed project will not involve the release of hazazdous materials, and is not located in proximity to a school. No impact will occur. d) The project site is not listed on any County, State or federal list of hazazdous materials site. No impact will occur. e) & ~ The proposed project does not occur in the vicinity of any airport. There are no other airstrips in the vicinity. The proposed project will have no impact on safety at either airport. g) The proposed project will have no impact on emergency response plans, as it is located on the City's major arterial, Washington Street, and will not change or block the traffic flow on that street. Further, the proposed pazking lot will not result in any added traffic, other than that which currently exists there. h) The proposed project will have no impact on wildland fires. The proposed pazking lot is located east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and will not include any structures. The azea is sparsely vegetated, and the potential for wildland fires is negligible. -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signifcant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standazds or X waste dischazge requirements? (General Ptan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechazge 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 neazby 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 f£) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or azea, including X 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 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 nmoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 f£) f) Place housing within a 100-yeaz flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazazd Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff:) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazazd X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -17- VIII. a) & b) The proposed project will have no impact on water quality standazds. The pazking to does not include water or waste water, other than that needed for landscaping. Th. paving of the lot will result in small amounts of chemicals and oils from automobiles which will be controlled through the implementation of best management practices o~ site (see below). c) - e) The proposed pazking lot project includes a retention basin designed to accommodate storm flows from both the project site, and the up-stream Highlands neighborhood The hydrologic analysis prepazed for the proposed project considered both on site anc up-stream flows3. The study assumed the need to contain the 100 yeaz storm flow fron the site as well as the upstream flows, according to City standards. This analyse; resulted in the sizing of the retention basin to assure that these flows would be accommodated. The analysis also included best management practices, for boll construction and operation of the pazking lot, which aze designed to control siltation The City and the church will enter into a Maintenance Agreement designed to assurE that the basin retains capacity and functionality in the long terrri. These requirements and the Agreement, will assure that impacts associated with storm flows aze less than significant. f)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. Further, no structure: are planned, and no one will occupy the site for any period of time. No impact is expected. "Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology," prepazed by Watson Engineering, February 2010. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact D:. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X Community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency X 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. ] ) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community Conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) LY. a) The project site is currently in use as a pazking azea, and will not divide an established community. b) The use of the site as a pazking azea is ancillary to the existing church, which is permitted under the Low Density Residential zone. The addition of pazking will relieve on street and off site pazking currently occurring, and will not be in conflict with either the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The project will be required to meet landscaping and design requirements for parking lots. No impact is expected. c) The project site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be subject to the regulations associated with that Plan. No impact is expected. 19- 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 lrnown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (Master Enviromnental Assessment p. 71 fI:) 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 Enduomnental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) No mineral resources are expected to occur within the project area. There aze nc significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project. The project site has beer designated for urban use for a number of years. No impact will occur. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than Na 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 standazds 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. 111 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. 111 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 fI.) 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 azea 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 azea to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a) & c) The parking lot occurs adjacent to future residential development, although lands to the south aze currently vacant. The proposed parking lots will be in use during services and other church activities, which generally occur on Sundays, during day time hours. The noise generated by caz engines will be limited, and periodic, and is not expected to increase noise levels in the long term. XI. b)& d) The construction of the pazking lot will result in temporary elevated noise levels associated with the heavy equipment which will be used to grade and pave the site. There aze no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site. Further, the -21- construction of the lot will occur during prescribed daytime hours, when noise level aze less impacted by additions to the noise environment. Although temporazy increase in noise due to heavy equipment aze expected to occur for short periods, the impact i. expected to be less than significant, insofaz as no sensitive receptors occur in the area. e) & ~ The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. _ZZ_ 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 azea, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Genera] Plan, p. 9 f£) b) Displace substantial numbers of 7{ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 f£, project description) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ft:, project description) XII. a)-c) The paving of the pazking lot is being completed to accommodate an existing need. The project will therefore have no potential to induce growth, either directly or indirectly. The project site does not currently include housing or people, and the construction of the parking lot will not displace either housing or people. No impacts associated with population and housing aze expected. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Scho01S? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Pazks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 fi:) XIII. a) The construction of the pazking lot will have no impact on public services. The fire and police departments currently would respond to calls for service in the turfed lot. and the paving of the area will not change that response. The proposed pazking lot wit: not increase the school population, and will theaefore have no impact on schools Similazly, the construction of the pazking lot will have no impact on pazks or other public facilities. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signifcant 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? (Project description; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) 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? (Project description) XN. a) & b) The construction of a church pazking lot has no potential to impact recreational resources. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XY. 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 fE) 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 traflc levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air haffic 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)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate pazking capacity? X (Project description) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ' X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exlribit 3.10) XV. a)-g) The proposed parking lot is being constructed to improve pazking at the church, ani alleviate the need for on-street pazking, particularly during special events at the church. The proposed project will not increase traffic, nor will it affect traffic of Washington Street beyond the effects which currently occur.. Access to the lot will b~ in the same location, off the frontage road, as currently occurs. Egress from the sit. will continue as it currently does -either from the frontage road or from the intersection of Washington Street and Highlands/Avenue 47, which is currently signalized. The parking lot will have no impact on levels of service in the azea. -26- The proposed pazking lot will have no impact on air traffic, as there aze no airports in the azea, and the pazking lot would not impact air traffic. The proposed pazking lot has been designed to City standazds, including the width of drive aisles and turning radii. There will be no impact associated with design features. The proposed parking lot will have no impact on emergency access, as the access points to the site will continue to occur in the same location as they do currently. The proposed pazking lot is designed to add to the parking available at the church, and will not result in inadequate pazking capacity. The church is located on an established SunLine bus route, and the construction of the lot will have no impact on that bus route. _Z~_ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE X 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 fI:) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or aze 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.) XVI. a)-g) The proposed parking lot will have no impacts on utilities and service systems. There will be no wastewater facilities associated with the proposed project. The project site is currently irrigated, and the construction of the lot will use the same water source fog _Zg_ landscaping irrigation. The proposed project will not require solid waste services, although the church is currently served by the City's solid waste provider. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigatlon 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 raze 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 aze X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The project site contains no significant biological resources. The project site has tlii potential to include buried azchaeological resources. Mitigation for this potentia impact has been provided in this report, which reduce the impacts to less thaz significant levels. XVII. b) The paving of the lot achieves long term goals, insofaz as it can be expected tt alleviate current on site pazking deficiencies. XVII. c) The paving of the parking lot will have no cumulative impacts. The construction of th< adjacent retention basin will relieve existing flooding issues in the area, thereb} resulting in a beneficial cumulative impact. XVII. d) The proposed project will have no significant effect on people, as no sensitivt receptors occur near the site. -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 eazlier EIR or negative declazation. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify eazlier analyses and state where they aze available for review. General Plan EIR, 2002. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an eazlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eazlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigatiou measures. For effects that aze "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the eazlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -31- w O Y Q h t1 0 N C `,t, O ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ b 3 z z ~ ~ W o ~ y V 0.i O q O UZ O ~ O ~ a ~d ad p~ d 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q ~ o „a -O U ~ N O .V w O U ~ ~ a + t d a .8U o ~ ~ y a ~ ~ .~ N ~ N ,~ i° ~ ° ¢ m ,~..~ o ~ ~--~ v•~ A 'b ~ ~ ~.~ U cO ~ Y~" v~U ~ c°~, N 5 N ~V aw ° 0 ' z z U y ~ ~ ~ a a A U W zW d a O U O U O W °a a c7 ~a d C9 ~~y Z 0 ~W o~ '~a~ C7 U °a" O ~~ ~~ O ~" w zo ~~ ~~ ~Q ~~~yy F.r U E~. z W~ ai 0 0 ~I F A a U~ { i ~ U ~+ ~ ~ ~.. .o U .o ~ ~ ~ C7 ~b 0 'C a a w ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ W ~ F4 en .~ a z ~ .~ b 67 ~ ~ ~ '5 ~ W N O ~+ ~ ;n ~. b .~ ~~ ~ U ~ ~ ¢ Planning Commission Resolution 2010-015 Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-564 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment 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 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 recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2006-564 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Planning Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2006-564 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25`" day of May, 2010, 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 2010-015 Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 ATTEST: L'~S J(~N~ON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California