Loading...
EA 2005-533 Dunes Business Park - MND (SDP 2005-822)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYNG A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-533 APPLICANT: KKE ARCHITECTS (FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14`h day of June, 2005 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KKE ARCHITECTS (FOR THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC) for Environmental Assessment 2005-533 prepared for Site Development Permit 2005-822 which allows a commercial retail center located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 1,300± feet east of Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PORTION OF APN 646-020-014 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2005, for the Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; 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 2005-533. 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 cultural and resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level with monitoring during earth -moving activities. Planning Commission Resolution 2005-026 Environmental Assessment 2005-533 KKE Architects for The Dunes Business Park, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 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. 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 construction of the commercial shopping center will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan build -out. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality and noise impacts. The Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site will generate PM 10; however, there are a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on air quality. Noise impacts have been addressed through a series of mitigation measures, which will lower the potential for significant impacts to less than significant levels. 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 2005-533 and said reflects their independent judgment. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. Planning Commission Resolution 2005-026 Environmental Assessment 2005-533 KKE Architects for The Dunes Business Park, LLC Adopted: June 14, 2005 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2005-533 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 Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2005-533 reflects the Commission's independent judgment. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None irk, Chairman of La Quinta, California ATTEST: -A-t-� - DOUGLAS . F EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2005-533) 1. Project title: Site Development Permit 05-822, The Dunes Retail Center 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: North side of Highway 111, 1,300 feet east of Dune Palms Road. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: KKE Architects 35 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 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.) Site Development Permit to review the site planning and architecture for a 44,300 sq. ft. retail shopping center. This represents the first phase of a two phase project, which will total 6.38 acres, and up to 61,650 (maximum 65,000) square feet of retail commercial space on contiguous lands. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel South: Highway 111, Regional Commercial West: Vacant, Regional Commercial East: Existing Shopping Center, Regional Commercial 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing , Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X 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 IPA May 23, 2005 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's -3- 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. -4- I. a) -d) The project site is currently vacant desert lands which have been impacted by surrounding roadway development. A fast food restaurant occurs south of the proposed project. The site is flat, and surrounded by Regional Commercial lands. The project will be required to implement the requirements for building setbacks and height restrictions on Highway 111, as required for this Primary Image Corridor. The development of single story commercial at this location will not significantly impact viewsheds for single family development to the north, due to the intervening storm water channel. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a) -d) The project site is currently vacant desert lands which have been impacted by surrounding roadway development. A fast food restaurant occurs south of the proposed project. The site is flat, and surrounded by Regional Commercial lands. The project will be required to implement the requirements for building setbacks and height restrictions on Highway 111, as required for this Primary Image Corridor. The development of single story commercial at this location will not significantly impact viewsheds for single family development to the north, due to the intervening storm water channel. There are no rock outcroppings or other significant resources on the site. Impacts associated with scenic resources are expected to be insignificant. The construction of the proposed project will cause an increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. -5- H. a) -c) The proposed project is located in the urban core of the City. There are no agricultural lands on or near the proposed project. The site and all surrounding lands are designated and partially constructed for Regional Commercial land uses. The proposed project will have no impact on agricultural lands. W Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the pr9ject., 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 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) H. a) -c) The proposed project is located in the urban core of the City. There are no agricultural lands on or near the proposed project. The site and all surrounding lands are designated and partially constructed for Regional Commercial land uses. The proposed project will have no impact on agricultural lands. W III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Project Study) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley, Project Study) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Project Study) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant j Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X In 0 X III. a), b) & c) The proposed project can generate pollutants during the construction and operation of the site. Both these impacts are addressed below. Construction The grading of the site has the potential to generate fugitive dust. The City and region are in a severe non -attainment area for the generation of PM 10, a component of fugitive dust. As a result, the City participates and implements regional plans for the prevention and suppression of fugitive dust, including the mandatory preparation of PM10 Management Plans for construction projects. The project site has the potential to generate 89.232 pounds of fugitive dust during each phase (3 acres) of development, assuming mass grading of each 3 acre phase is undertaken. This dust generation falls below the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, impacts associated with construction air quality are expected to be less than significant. ee Operations The proposed project will generate up to a maximum 65,000 square feet of commercial retail development. Although a site specific traffic study was not prepared for the proposed project buildout, it can be estimated that the site will generate up to 2,791 average daily trips at buildout'. These vehicle trips will generate the following emissions. Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (pounds per day) Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Pollutant Ave. Trip Length (miles) Total miles/day 2,971 x 15 44,565 PMto PMto _ PM10 ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear Pounds at 50 mph 8.85 230.20 47.22 - 0.98 0.98 SCAQMD Threshold (lbs./day) 75 550 100 150 Assumes 2,971 trips, ITE categories 820. Based on California Air Resources Board's EMFAC7G Emissions Model. Assumes Year 2005 summertime running conditions at 75°F, light duty autos, catalytic. As demonstrated, the buildout of the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of significance during operation of the proposed center. Impacts associated with vehicle emissions are expected to be less than significant. IIl. d) & e) The construction of retail commercial space is not expected to generate objectionable odors. 1 "Trip Generation, 7`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 820, Shopping Center. 5:11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wl 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74-87) 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, pages 74- 87) 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, pages 74-87) e) Conflict with any local Euiicica or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan MEA, pages 74-87) -9- IV. a) -f) The proposed project occurs on an isolated parcel immediately north of Highway 111. The site has been impacted by surrounding development, and the construction of neighboring roadways. The site is sparsely vegetated, and does not contain either riparian habitat or wetlands. The site has not been identified in the General Plan as a survey area for regional species of concern. The site is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Plan, and will be required to pay the fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. Impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be less than significant. V. a) -b) & d) A historical and archaeological Phase I report was prepared for the proposed projectz. The survey included both a records search and an on-site survey. The records search identified 60 prehistoric sites and nine historic sites within one mile radius of the proposed project. The on-site survey did not identify any resources on the site, however, given the number of sites identified in close proximity of the project site, the report concluded that the potential for buried resources exists. As a result, the following mitigation measure must be implemented. 1. A qualified archeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities on the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities should resources be identified. Any resources identified shall be properly catalogued and curated. A final report of the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of grading on the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. V. c) The project site is outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. No impacts are expected. 2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report The Dunes Retail Center...," prepared by CRM Tech. ONE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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 in '15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan Exhibit 6.8) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey," CRM Tech, September 2004) V. a) -b) & d) A historical and archaeological Phase I report was prepared for the proposed projectz. The survey included both a records search and an on-site survey. The records search identified 60 prehistoric sites and nine historic sites within one mile radius of the proposed project. The on-site survey did not identify any resources on the site, however, given the number of sites identified in close proximity of the project site, the report concluded that the potential for buried resources exists. As a result, the following mitigation measure must be implemented. 1. A qualified archeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving activities on the project site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities should resources be identified. Any resources identified shall be properly catalogued and curated. A final report of the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 30 days of completion of grading on the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. V. c) The project site is outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. No paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. No impacts are expected. 2 "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report The Dunes Retail Center...," prepared by CRM Tech. ONE VI. a) -e) The site is located in a Zone IV ground shaking zone as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The site, and the City as a whole, can expect to experience significant ground shaking in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is not within an area susceptible to liquefaction. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service which occurs adjacent to the site. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -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 pages 97-106) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan pages 97-106) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan pages 97-106) iv) Landslides? (General Plan pages 97-106) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? General Plan pages 97- 106) d) 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 pages 97-106) e) 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 pages 97-106) VI. a) -e) The site is located in a Zone IV ground shaking zone as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The site, and the City as a whole, can expect to experience significant ground shaking in a seismic event. The City implements the standards of the UBC for seismic zones, and will apply these standards to this project. The site is flat, and is not located adjacent to slopes which might pose a rockfall hazard. The site is not within an area susceptible to liquefaction. The site is not located on expansive soils, and will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service which occurs adjacent to the site. Overall impacts to geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. -12- -13- 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 hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it. create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) -13- h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a) -h) The proposed project will generate up to 65,000 square feet of retail commercial space. Although the users of the space are not known at this time, it is expected that the use of hazardous materials in these businesses will be limited to that typical of retail businesses (Primarily cleaning products). Should a use which handles hazardous materials be proposed within the project, the business will be required to meet all local, regional, state and federal standards for the handling and storage of these materials. The City coordinates such activities with the Fire Department, and would implement whatever conditions of approval are necessary to adequately address this issue. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fire hazards. Impacts associated with hazardous materials and risk of upset are expected to be insignificant. -14- -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III -187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III -187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (General Plan EIR p. III -187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (General Plan EIR p. III -187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. 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 -15- p. III -187 ff.) g) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) 91 VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use in the commercial buildings, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant will be required to design a plan for on-site detention based on hydrology and hydraulic analysis prepared for the site as part of the grading permit process. These plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of these permits. These existing City standards will assure that the proposed project will meet the City's requirements for flood control. VIII. e) -g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. 9Cel IX. a) -c) The proposed project will result in the construction of up to 65,000 square feet of commercial retail space in the Regional Commercial land use and zoning designation. The development is consistent with the designation. The site is currently vacant, and will not interfere with an established community. The project site is in the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the fee in place at the time that building permits are issued. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. -17 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a) -c) The proposed project will result in the construction of up to 65,000 square feet of commercial retail space in the Regional Commercial land use and zoning designation. The development is consistent with the designation. The site is currently vacant, and will not interfere with an established community. The project site is in the boundary of the mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the fee in place at the time that building permits are issued. There will be no impacts to land use and planning. -17 X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) _ X. a) & b) The proposed project site is within the MRZ-1 Zone, and is therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -18- XI. a) -f) The proposed project will result in the development of 65,000 ± square feet of retail commercial development. No sensitive receptors are planned for the site. Although noise levels in this portion are higher, due to the noise generated by Highway 111, the impacts, particularly since the project will be located away from the highway, are expected to be within the range typical of commercial development, and within the City's standards for noise generation. -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 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 will result in the development of 65,000 ± square feet of retail commercial development. No sensitive receptors are planned for the site. Although noise levels in this portion are higher, due to the noise generated by Highway 111, the impacts, particularly since the project will be located away from the highway, are expected to be within the range typical of commercial development, and within the City's standards for noise generation. -19- Noise levels will be highest on the site during the construction phase. As previously stated, the site is located in a commercial area, and not adjacent to any sensitive receptors. The noise generated by construction will be periodic and temporary. The construction activities will be limited by the Municipal Code to day time hours, which are less susceptible to discernable noise increases. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The site is not located within the area of influence of an airport or air strip. XII. a) -c) The development of 65,000 square feet of commercial space is not expected to generate substantial growth in the City, but is more likely to offer employment opportunities to new residents within the normal annual growth rates which the City experiences. The site is currently vacant and will not displace any population or housing. Impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. -20- 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 development of 65,000 square feet of commercial space is not expected to generate substantial growth in the City, but is more likely to offer employment opportunities to new residents within the normal annual growth rates which the City experiences. The site is currently vacant and will not displace any population or housing. Impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. -20- XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact. Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property tax and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. -21- XIV. a) & b) The development of commercial space is not expected to have any impact on recreational facilities in the City. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The development of commercial space is not expected to have any impact on recreational facilities in the City. -22- XV. a) -g) The proposed project will result in approximately 2,791 daily trips. This number is likely to be conservative, insofar as no reduction has been taken for pass -by trips, and the type of development within the project is likely to generate pass -by trip activity. The anticipated square footage on the site, 65,000 square feet, is less than the potential 97,200 square feet that could be constructed on the site, based on the 35% building coverage allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total trip generation, therefore, is likely to be less than that analyzed in the General Plan traffic study, which considered the types of -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III -29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III -29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Ivo 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)? Proposed site plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Proposed site plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Proposed site plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) XV. a) -g) The proposed project will result in approximately 2,791 daily trips. This number is likely to be conservative, insofar as no reduction has been taken for pass -by trips, and the type of development within the project is likely to generate pass -by trip activity. The anticipated square footage on the site, 65,000 square feet, is less than the potential 97,200 square feet that could be constructed on the site, based on the 35% building coverage allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total trip generation, therefore, is likely to be less than that analyzed in the General Plan traffic study, which considered the types of -23- uses currently proposed for the site. The traffic study concluded that this section of Highway 111, and the City's general circulation system, would operate at acceptable levels of service at buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on circulation and traffic. The project does not include inadequate parking or unsafe designs. The proposed project parking will be calculated based on the City's Zoning standards, which allow flexibility based on the mix of uses and the preparation of supporting documentation for variations from its standards. The Highway 111 corridor is served by SunLine transit agency, which will serve the proposed project. Overall impacts associated with transportation are expected to be less than significant. -24- XVI. a) -g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, -p. 58 f£) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a) -g) Utilities are available at the project site. The service providers for water, sewer, electricity and other utilities have facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site, and will collect connection and usage fees to balance for the cost of providing services. The -25- construction of the proposed project is expected to have less than significant impacts on utility providers. XVII. a) The proposed project site has the potential to significantly impact cultural resources. Mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will assure that the potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide additional commercial services and products for City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as it is expected to result in a lower square footage than that anticipated in the General Plan. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The proposed project site has the potential to significantly impact cultural resources. Mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, will assure that the potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project will provide additional commercial services and products for City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, insofar as it is expected to result in a lower square footage than that anticipated in the General Plan. -26- XVII. d) The impacts associated with air quality, noise and hazards are all expected to be less than significant. Impacts to human beings are therefore expected to be less than significant. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. dNJI CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE EA 2005-533 DATE: June 3, 2005 ASSESSORS I Portion of 649-020-014 PARCEL NO.: CASE NO.: Site Development Permit 2005-822 PROJECT LOCATION: North side of Highway 111, 1300 ft. east of Dune Palms EA/EIR NO: 2005-533 APPROVAL DATE: June 14, 2005 APPLICANT: I KKE Architects THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TUKING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological monitor to be on site Public Works Department During grading and earth- Inspection during all earth moving activities moving