CC Resolution 1999-144d_^ RESOLUTION 99-144
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 99-658
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-388
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 2ND day of November, 1 999, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing as requested by
Eisenhower Medical Center and La Quinta Medical Development, Inc., on the
environmental analysis for Specific Plan 99-038, and Site Development Permit 99-658,
located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and 48th Avenue, more
particularly described as:
APN 617-200-001 AND 002
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 Community Development Director
has conducted an Initial Study Environmental Assessment 99-388) and has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures are being made conditions of approval for
Environmental Assessment 99-388, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council did find the following facts to
justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
2. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the
potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^Resolution 99-144
Environmental Assessment 99-388
Adopted: November 2 1999
Page 2
3. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have impacts
which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering
planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
4? The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect human health, safety, and
welfare, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation
measures.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
28th day of September, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and adopted
Planning Commission Resolution 99-071, recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and
certification of Environmental Assessment 99-388 for proposed Specific Plan
99-038 and Site Development Permit 99-658, provided all mitigation measures
are complied with, per the attached Initial Study.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 2ND day of November, 1 999, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
City of La Quinta, California
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Resolution 99-144
Environmental Assessment 99-388
Adopted: November 2, 1999
Page 3
ATTEST:
AH;NSLEY,DePutYIwCIerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
&9'L<YL 3; j???L](J(;(
DAWN C. HONEYW?LL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Environmental Checklist Form A 99-388)
1. Project Title: La Quinta Family Medicine Center Specific Plan SP 99-038)
Site Development Permit 99-658
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico
LaQuinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast comer of Washington Street and Avenue 48.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: La Quinta Family Medicine Center
do Dudek & Associates
73-150 Sheryl Ave., Suite C
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: escribe 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 iinplementatioh. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan establishing development standards for a acre site. The first phase of
development will include 47,894 square feet of medical office space in one two-story
structure. The second phase allows the construction of another two-story building
totaling 28,775 square feet.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The project occurs on the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta Project. Lands to the
east have developed as single family residential; lands to the south are developed as golf
course and single family residential. Lands to the west and across Washington Street, and
to the north are vacant desert.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required e.g., permits, financing approval., or participation
agreement.)
EA 388IEnvironmental cbeddis? Fo?wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a otentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Plannin TransportationlCirculaion Public Services
Po ulation and Housin Biological Resources Utilities and Service S stems
X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
X Air Quality Noise Recreation
MandaLoty Finds of Siguficance
Determination
To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a potentially significant impact
or potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
EA 99.38?IEnvironmentaI Checklist Form. wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except o 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 reference
information sources show that the impact Simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved e.g. the project f?Llls outside a fault rupture zone). A o 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) Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an ETR is required.
4) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 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 Analyzes," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyzes 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 15O63(c)(3)?). Earlier analyzes are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
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. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
EA 99-388lEnvironmental Ch?klin Fonn.wpd
3
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^Sample question:
Pot?mIi y
PotentiRily Sigmifi cant Leis Thai
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unlen Significani No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? 1,6) x
Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS
topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? General Plan
I-I
Land Use Map)
a?)encies with juns ction over the policies tdb I II
b) Conflict with a.???lica.ble envronmWenojet??l(a:nsGenoerral Plan ado I IL]
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicjnity? General Plan
I_Dx
Land Use Map, Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations e.g., impacts to soils or
I_Di]
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? General Plan EIR,
e) Disrupt or divide the physical aaaangement of an established
LL-----.?
community including a low-income or n:iinoriry community)7 igure
4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
HI
General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p.2-32 if.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly e.g. x
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major II
infrastructure)? General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? igure 4,
Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) fflffl?
EA 99-388/ErivirOflmCfltal Checklist Form. wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Poiemtially
Potendally Significant Less Than
Significant UDICIS Significant No
Issues snd Supporting Information Sources): In' pact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Seisniic ground shaking? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 if.) x
i?rI
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan EIR, II lxii
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 35 and page 4-30 if.) L-L?t?J
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? General Plan page 4-30
I?ImJ
if.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 if.) x
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from x
excavation, grading, or fill? General Plan EIR, page 441)
g) Subsidence of the land? General Plan EIW. page 443) x
h) Expansive soils? General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) x
i) Unique geologic or physical features? General Plan, page 8-7) x
I",? WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, daainage patterns or the rate and amount F-f x
j
of surface runoif? Specffic Plan p.16 if. and Exhibit 10) Lt I
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
Lx
flooding? General Plan ER, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
fx LI
quality e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Specific
Plan document, p.16 if.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface Water in any water body? Specific
Dl I Li
Plan document, p.21; letter from CVWD dated June 3, 1999)
e) Changes in cutrents, or the course or direction of water movements?
I______ I
General Plan EIR, page 4-51 if.) L________
EA 99-3gSIEnvironmental Checklist Form.wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impict Midgated Impact Impact
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct x
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
F
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? General Plan EIR, page 4-55 if.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? General Plan EIR,
page 4-55 if.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? General Plan EIR, page 4-57 if.) x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise I I x
available for public water supplies? General Plan EIR, page 4-57 if.) L I I
V. A[R QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
Ix IL
projected air quality violation? General Plan EIR, page 4-171 if)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? roject Description,
Di
Specific Plan document)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
Df LI
clirnate? General Plan MEA, page 5-33 if.)
d) Create objectionable odors? Project Description, Specific Plan
I I L
document)
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICmCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vebicle trips or traffic congestion? ndo Engineering,
DLX I IL
Traffic Impact Study," June, 1999)
b) Haaards to safety from design features e.g., sharp curves or
x
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e.g., farm equipment)?
ndo Engineering, Traffic Impact Study," June, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Specific
Jx
Plan Site Plan) Ii
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Specific Plan Site
I_____ lx
Plan)
EA 99-388IEnvironyntntal Checklist Form.wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Potentia?
Pottndally Significant Less Than
SigEdi cant Unless Significant No
Issues 2nd supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? Specific Plan Site
IZEX
Plan) I
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
if]
e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? General Plan MBA) x
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in ianpacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ani?nials, and birds)? General Fifix II
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 if.) ti. ti
b) Locally designated species e.g., heritage trees)? udek &
1999)
Associates, Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment, September
c) Locally designated natural communities e.g., oak forest, coastal
L
habitat, etc.)? udek & Associates, Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat
Assessment, September 1999)
d) Wetland habitat e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? General
1m
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? General Plan EIR, page 4- r lxi
ILli
71 if.)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? General Plan
D1 LI
MEA, page 5-26 if.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteflil and inefficient manner9
1:]
Geneaal Plan MBA, page 5-26 if.) L?L
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of luture value to the region and the residents of the State9
EA 99-388/EnvironrriCfltal Checldist Formwpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Potentially
Potentially SigUificint Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Mitigated luipaci Impact
Ix. RAlARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances x
including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
Specific Plan Project Description) I.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency f 1 Ix?
I_I?I
evacuation plan? General Plan MEA, page 6-27 if.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
F I L_________
Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
I 1:2
Specific Plan Project Description)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or t:rees?
I L
Specific Plan Project Description)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ndo Engineering, Noise Impact fix I
Study, June 1999) I, L
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? General Plan MEA, page If
6-15 if., Endo Engineering, Noise Impact Study, June 1999) IL
M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? General Plan MEA, page 4-3 if.) x
b) Police protection? General Plan MEA, page 4-3 if.) x
c) Schools? General Plan MEA, page 4-9) x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? General Plan
4x
MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
e) Other governmental services? General Plan MEA, page 4-14 if.) x
EA 99-3S/Environmcntal Checklist Form.wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Poteotiaily
Poteutially Significant Lest Thin
Sig?iflcint Unless Signiricint No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
xiI? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
m a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? General Plan MEA, page 4-26) x
b) Communications Systems? General Plan MEA, page 4-29) x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? General x
Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? General Plan MEA, page 4-24) x
e) Storm water dralnage? General Plan MEA, page 4-27) x
f) Solid waste disposal? General Plan MEA, page 4-28) x
g) Local or regional water supplies? General Plan MEA, page 4-20) x
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? General Plan Exhibit CIR-
ImL
5) 11
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? General Plan EIR, 1
Iz
page 5-12 if.)
c) Create light or glare? Specific Plan Project Description) x
XI'7. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? aleontological Laltebed
x__
Determination Study, Community Developmen? Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? General Plan MEA, Aerial
4x
Photograph)
EA 99-388?nvironmen? Checklist Fonii.wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^
Potentially
Potendally SiguificnDt Leis ThaD
Sigmifleant Unless Sig?iflcznt No
Impact Mi?ated Impact Impact
Issues 2nd supporting Infbrmation Sources):
c) Affect historical resources? General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph) x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact ti
I
area? General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph)
Xv. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
I Ix
recreational facilities? Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? General Plan, Exhibit
I_I I L
PR-i)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNII?CANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the x
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaning
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare to 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 of long4erm, environmental goals? j Ix
f____________
cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that lx
c) Does the project have impacts that are indi'vidually limited, but
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
I L____________________
projects, and the effects of probable fliture projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause f
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or A
indirectly?
EA 99.35/Environmental Checklist Form. wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^XVII.
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, One or more effects have been adequatel?'
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15O63(c)(3)?). In this case a discussion should identily the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identif? earLier analyses arid state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of arid
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ap?licable legal standards, arid 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 Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measureS which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document arid the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
EA 99-388/Environmental Checkl? Form. wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-388
m.a),b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. be proposed Specific Plan is located in a
Zone m groundshaking zone, within one mile of an inferred and inactive fault. The City
has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas.
The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will
ensure that impact from seismic activity will he reduced to a less than significant level.
Ill.f)
Construction of the proposed project will have the potential to create unstable soil
conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is
proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis
to the City Engineer for revi?? and approval. The recommendations contained in this
study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of ins ignificance.
ffl.g)&h)
The proposed project does not occur in an area susceptible to subsidence or expansive
soils. In addition, the provisions of item ffi.f), above, will ensure that potential impacts
are reduced to a less than significant level.
rv.a),b) & c)
Construction of the proposed project will reduce the amount of land available for
absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff; as
well as degrade the quality of such runoff. Leakage from automobiles onto parkihg lots
can cause surface water pollution. It is not expected that the quantity of leakage at the
project site will represent a significant impact.
The Specific Plan is part of the Lake La Quinta Master Drainage Plan, previous'ly
approved for this area. A storm drainage inlet occurs at the intersection of Calco Bay and
Via Florence. The project site will enter the storm drain system at this location, and flows
will be carried to Lake La Quinta. In addition, two dry wells are proposed for the
southwest portion of the site, to infiltrate in the retention swales located along
Washington Street. The City Engineer shall review all draihage improvements to insure
that their capacity is sufficient to accommodate on-site flows during a 24 hour, 100 year
storm. In addition, the City maintains standards for the installation of additional devices
to reduce the potential impacts of oil or other chemicals which may occur at the site. The
project proponent shall secure approval from the City engineer for all drainage facilities
prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This will reduce the potential haaard associated
with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
IV f), g)
h)&i)
The proposed project will construct medical office space, which has a low consumption
rate of domestic water. In addition, the impacts of the project were previously analyzed
under the 1992 General Plan EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that
time to be mitigated for the proposed project. The City also implements water conserving
and, as discussed above, water protection measures. Such measures shall reduce the
potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity to a less than significant level.
EA 99.3BSIEnvjromnCfltal Checklist Fomi.wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^V. a) & b)
The implementation of commercial land uses on the project site was analyzed under the
1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are expected to continue as
buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts,
particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the fliture have the
potential to reduce impacts. The City determined at the time of certification of the
General Plan EIR that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which determined, as regarded air quality, that the impacts to air quality
of development of the Plan would be cumulative only when considered in conjunction
with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to
reduce emissions within its boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project,
therefore, is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality resources.
VI. a)&b)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plani. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and finure traffic
volumes. The proposed project will not take access from Washington Street, but from
Caleo Bay and Avenue 48. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 2,770
daily trips, of which 86 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 280 during the
evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project implementation
include the signalization of Caleo Bay and Avenue 48 under year 2020 conditions. The
type of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of
the City's General Plan in 1992, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into
that analysis. The traffic impact analysis includes the following mitigation measures,
which shall he implemented as part of the development of the project site:
1.
The proposed internal circulation layout shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer to insure compliance with City mirumum access and des'ign
standards.
2.
Off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
3.
Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City.
4.
A STOP sign will control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances
shall be provided at both site driveways.
La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study," Endo Engineering, June23, 1999.
EA 99.3?5IEnvironmentaI Checklist Form wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ 5.
With the construction of Phase I, the project proponent shall provide at a minimum),
the lane geometrics shown in figure VI-2 of the Traffic Impact Study.
6.
The project proponent shall contribute his fair share to the installation of a traffic
signal, when warranted, at the intersection of Avenue 48 and Calco Bay.
7.
The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned improvements
associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all project related
roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service LOS D or better) at project
buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the
circulation system.
VII. a)
&b)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Black-tailed
Gnatcatcher. A site-specific biological survey for Black-tailed Gnatcatcher was
performed for the proposed site2. The survey found that the site is not appropriate for
gnatcatcher habitat. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation Plan fee area for the
Coachella Valley Fringe4oed Liaard. The mandated $600 fee per acre now $ 00 fee per
acre) was paid prior to original grading of the site. This mitigation measure reduced
impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance.
X. a)
The Washington Street corridor is an impacted noise cornmercial street. The proposed
project is not considered a sensitive receptor, and must meet a exterior noise level of 75
A CNEL. A noise analysis was performed for the proposed proj ec?. The study found
that noise levels of 72.2 CNEL currently occur at 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue
48 east of Washington Street. Project impacts to noise levels, with proposed mitigation
measures, will not, however, represent a significant increase in noise levels. The primary
noise impacts will occur due to vehicular traffic. In addition, short-term construction
impacts may occur. The study also reviewed the potential impacts to the sensitive
receptors located east of the project residential land uses), and found that the impacts to
those receptors will not be significant.
2 Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment" Dudek *& Associates, September 27,
1999.
3 La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Noise Impact Study." End9
Engineering, June 25, 1999.
HA 99-385/Environmental Checklist Form. wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02
d_^ The following mitigation measures mcluded in the noise impact study will be
implemented as part of this project:
During construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1.
Construction activities shall be ijinited to the hours of 6 a.m. To 7 p.m. Monday
through Friday) and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Saturdays. Construction shall not be allowed
on Sundays and holidays.
2.
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
3.
Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receptors.
4..
Every effort shall be made to keep the greatest distance possible between sensitive
noise receptors and construction activities.
During operation of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1.
Reflise receptacle locations and enclosures and air conditioning units shall be
careflilly located to minimize potential impacts to sensitive receptors.
XI.
All public services were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992
General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No
significant impact to public services is expected from the proposed project.
XII.
All utilities were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General
Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact
to utilities is expected from the proposed project.
XIII.
The proposed project occurs along the Washington Street corridor, designated a Primary
Image Corridor in the General Plan. The City has established standards for structural
setbacks within such corridors, which will be met by the proposed project. No significant
impacts are expected to result from the project to the aesthetic environment.
xlv.
The proposed project site has previously been graded and capped, and is severely
impacted. No significant cultural or historic resources are expected to occur on the site. In
additi on, the site occurs outside the traditional boundary of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, as
delineated on the maps available at the Conununity Development Departtnent. Impacts to
cultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
A 99.38S?Enyirotunefltal Checklist Fc?wpd
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
03:59:17PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
144-U02