CC Resolution 2003-068RESOLUTION NO. 2003-068
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-476
PREPARED FOR A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TO CONSTRUCT A MUNICIPAL LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-772
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 8th day of July, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to
consider Environmental Assessment 2003-476 for a Capital Improvement Project to
construct a Municipal Library, located on the La Quinta Civic Center campus, more
particularly described as:
APN 770-130-001 - 78-275 Calle Tampico
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 facts, findings, and reasons to adopt Resolution 2003-045 recommending
certification of said Environmental Assessment;
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in
that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA
2003-476) and has determined that although the proposed Capital Improvement
Project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would
not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures
were made a part of the Assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and!
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 5th day of August 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2003-476 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
Resolution No. 2003-068
Environmental Assessment 2003-476
La auinta Municipal Library
Adopted: August 5, 2003
Page 2
1. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 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 2003-772.
2. The proposed Capital Improvement 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.
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 Capital Improvement 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 Capital Improvement 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.
6. The proposed Capital Improvement 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.
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 2003-
476 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City.
Resolution No. 2003-068
Environmental Assessment 2003-476
Municipal Library
Adopted: August 5, 2003
Page 3
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.
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 constitute the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That Environmental Assessment 2003-772 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of August 2003, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6hxt 4�L
DON AD LPH, ayor
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2003.068
Environmental Assessment 2003-476
Municipal Library
Adopted: August 5, 2003
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU . GREEK, CMC, WClerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATH RINE JENSO , City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
- - -, _ - _ ._- - •..r .fir �. ., _ _
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Site Development Permit 2003-772, City of La Quinta
Library
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Oscar Orci, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: 78-275 Calle Tampico -- Civic Center Campus
APN: 770-130-001
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Major Community Facility
7. Zoning: Major Community Facility
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 allow the construction of a 20,000 square foot
building to contain a 10,000 square foot library and a 10,000 square foot
finished space. The portion of the building not used for the library at this
time will be used for other civic uses, until such time as the library is
expanded to its buildout of 20,000 square feet, funding permitting.
The building site is located on the existing Civic Center complex, immediately
north of the Senior Center, to Calle Tampico.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Calle Tampico, Neighborhood Commercial development
South: Senior Center
West: Existing Parking lot, part of Civic Center complex
East: Existing City Park, City Hall
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
08
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
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
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
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
11
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. AMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
971
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I MI
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" 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.
1:1
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
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EK including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
June 11, 2003
Sigilature Date
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
G9
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the reference 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) "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 EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 XVIII, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis 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). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section
XVIII 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.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and
other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question;
and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less
than significance
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (Aerial photograph)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the
California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan EIR p. 111-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in
proximity to project site)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10
Plan for the Coachella Valley)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
KI
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
4
11
L
IV.
V.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either 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 Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any 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
Biological Resources Element, all exhibits)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other
activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (General Plan Biological
Resources Element, all exhibits)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan Biological Resources
Element, all exhibits)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (General Plan Biological Resources Element, all
exhibits)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, EA 87-
073)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
/ .l 4.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
5
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or
site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it contains information needed to answer
important scientific research questions, has a special and
particular quality such as being the oldest or best available
example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person)? (General Plan Cultural Resources Exhibit, EA 87-
073)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan Cultural
Resources Exhibit, EA 87-073)
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, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Geotechnical letter Report, Earth Systems Southwest, May
2003)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan Exhibit
8.1)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code 0 994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
(General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
43
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chk1st476.wpd
R
V11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Application materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Application materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside
County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport 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 private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map)
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR,
p. III-187 ff.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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 (i.e., 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-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading
Plan)
X
1_1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E1
P:10scar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
7
d) Substantially alter the existing 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? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use 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
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment p. 74 ff.)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist 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 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.)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Parking
lot-- no ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.)
X
X
I
x
x
x
x
x
I
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chk1st476.wpd
8
.5
d) For a project located within an airport 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)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth 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 existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Application Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
X111. 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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.)
XIV. RECREATION:
X
X
X
X
X
n
X
X
►_I
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X
would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials)
'16
.L
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chk1st476.wpd
9
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 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 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 patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Site Plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
Description)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of 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 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) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined 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.)
P:1Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chk1st476.wpd
10
X
X
X
X
X,
X
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are 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 project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVII1. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
X
X
Q
Earlier analysis 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 1987-073, prepared for the Civic Center Master Plan, was used in this
analysis.
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.
See attached Addendum.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
11
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Environmental Assessment 1987-073
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EA Chklst476.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2003-476
I. a)-d)
The proposed library building will result in the construction of a quasi -public
building similar in style and architecture to those which already surround it,
including the Senior Center and City Hall. The maximum structure height will
be about 36 feet, for the central tower feature. The bulk of the structure will
be under 30 feet in height. The project is not located on an Image Corridor,
and as a single story structure will not have a significant impact on scenic
vistas. Impacts to aesthetics are expected to be less than significant.
II. a)-c)
The property is not in agriculture, nor is it surrounded or near agricultural
land uses. The site is in the traditional "village" of La Quinta, an area in urban
use for many years. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the property.
III. a),b) & d)
The proposed library has been previously analyzed in the EA of 1987, and in
the General Plan EIR in 2002. The construction of a 20,000 square foot
building, and its associated air quality impacts, will have no significant
impacts on existing plans, nor would it violate stationary source standards.
No sensitive receptors are located adjacent to the project site. The library will
not generate concentrations of pollutants. The primary source of pollutants
resulting from construction of the library are those associated with vehicular
trips. The library can be expected to generate about 540 daily trips within its
10,000 square foot envelope, and 1,080 daily trips once built out'. For
purposes of this analysis, the buildout trip generation was used to determine
potential impacts. The pollutants which could be generated by the proposed
project at buildout are shown in the table below.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM 10 PM 10 PM 10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
40 mph 44.0 2.10 6.48 -- 0.19 0.19
6
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 1,080 trips/day and average trip length of 8 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos
at 75"F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for
assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
no
P:\Oscar\LQ Libra ry\EAAddendum476.wpd
The impacts to air quality standards or existing plans is expected to be less than
significant.
Ills) The construction of the library will result in the creation of dust during
construction operations. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area
for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller).
The proposed project would result in the precise grading of about one acre of
land. The rough grading has been done on the site, as part of the overall grading
undertaken for the Civic Center. This has the potential to generate 26.4 pounds
per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. Grading is expected to
require less than one week. The contracto- will be required to submit a PM 10
Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity, which will
address the measures to be taken during the grading process, which may
include the following:
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities:
Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation,
track -out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind
fencing, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: 'Minimal track -out, stabilization of
unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance
In order to assure that surrounding development is not impacted significantly
during grading activities at the site, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced' on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
P:1Oscar\LQ Library\EAAddendum476.wpd 21.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaping surrounding the building shall be installed as quickly as
possible following project construction.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
10. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards
included in the 2002 SIP for PM 10 in the Coachella Valley.
III. e) The construction and operation of the proposed project will not generate any
objectionable odors.
IV) a)-f)
The project site has been previously graded, and contains little if any native
vegetation. Further, the site is isolated, and surrounded on all sides by other
developments or by previously graded lands. No significant biological resources
are expected to occur on the site, nor is any significant habitat in existence
there. The impacts associated with biological resources are expected to be
negligible.
V. a)-d)
As previously stated, the site has been mass graded. The 1987 Environmental
Assessment required that the City bring in a monitor, should resources be found
during this process. No resources were identified, and no monitor employed.
Conditions relating to archaeological resources have not changed since the
preparation of the original Environmental Assessment, so no further impact is
expected to result from construction of the library. Impacts associated with
cultural resources are expected to be negligible.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The library site occurs in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with
the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event
of a major earthquake. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -
specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans
for the proposed library. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground
shaking are reduced to a less than significant level.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EAAddendum476.wpd F
VI. b) The site is not located in an area of the City subject to high winds. As such, the
primary hazard associated with soil erosion will be due to rain, rather than wind.
The City Engineer will require the implementation of NPDES standards to
prevent water erosion during construction. These standards will serve to reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development
proposed. The soils in the area can be collapsible, as is common in this area of
the City. The City Engineer will require the preparation of a site specific
geotechnical analysis prior to the issuance of grading permits for the site, which
will establish the standards and construction techniques required for the site.
These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with collapse to
a less than significant level.
VII. a)-h
The construction of the library will not generate hazardous materials, or a risk
of upset associated with those materials. No impact associated with hazardous
waste is expected as a result of the proposed project.
VIII. a) & b)
The construction of the library will not significantly impact water supply, nor
will it violate water or wastewater requirements. The library's primary use of
water will be in landscaping. The City's water efficient landscaping ordinance
will be implemented with this project, encouraging the use of drought tolerant
landscaping and low water usage methods.
VIII. c) & d)
The City will be required to contain drainage with the Civic Center site. The
City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on -site. The
proposed project will be required to conform to this standard, which is expected
to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g)
The construction of the library will not have an impact on the City's storm
drainage system. The site is not located within a FEMA designated 100 year
storm area.
IX. a)-c)
The project will not divide an existing community. The library represents a
logical extension of community services within the Civic Center site. The site
is outside the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan fee area.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EAAddendum476.wpd
� 23
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & b)
The construction of the library will have no significant effect on the noise
environment. The project will not generate either excessive noise levels or
ground borne vibration.
Xl. c) The construction of the library will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the south and west of the site but are
separated by roadways and intervening structures. The construction will be a
sufficient distance away that noise levels at the residential property lines should
be well below City maximum permitted standards.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The proposed library represents a municipal service to the existing population,
and is not expected to induce growth. No impacts are expected to population
and housing.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the library will have a less than significant impact on public services.
The library will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City
contract. The library is expected to generate very little need for police or fire
services, and will have no impact on schools or parks.
XIV. a) & b)
Recreational facilities in the City will not be impacted by the addition of the
library structure.
XV. a) & b)
The proposed library will generate approximately 1,080 trips on a daily basis at
buildout. The development of the site is a continuation of the structures
envisioned in the Civic Center Master Plan, which was previously analyzed in
the 1987 Environmental Assessment. Further, the proposed "Major Community
Facilities" land use designation on the property was analyzed and incorporated
into the 2002 General Plan EIR. The impacts associated with traffic generation
at the site are therefore expected to be equivalent to those previously analyzed
in the General Plan EIR. The EIR found that in this portion of the City, levels of
service will remain at an acceptable level.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EAAddendum476.wpd y 24
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create
any hazardous design features. The driveways have been previously established
through construction of the senior center, and access a central parking area,
which will meet City standards for library facilities. The proposed library will be
accessible through Sunline's service in the village area.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The library will be a limited user of
utilities, and will be constructed using energy saving techniques and fixtures.
No significant impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed
project.
XVII. a)
The proposed project has been previously graded, and contains no or little native
habitat, and has no potential to degrade natural communities or impact species
in the area.
XVII. b)
As a municipal facility, the library represents a long term beneficial goal for the
City.
XVII. c)
The impacts associated with the project are not cumulatively considerable. The
project is consistent with the provision of municipal services, and was
previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR, thereby reducing anticipated
impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan.
XVII. d)
The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due
to air quality impacts during the construction process. Since the Coachella
Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, which can cause negative health
effects, Section III), above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce
the potential impacts on air quality to a less than significant level.
P:\Oscar\LQ Library\EAAddendum476.wpd 25
O
O
O
O
_M
O
C�
M
O
0
M
a�
ti
O
U
cl
tn
r-
N
00
i—
. •
0
0
04
V
ti
a
a
a
..
.0
H
..
zz
V
H
�
r�l
~
a
A
V
W
d
E•�
A
U �
�A
aU
�W
ox
UV
�
c?
H
«i
Q
U
m
c
•--•
-�
r.ycts
U
IIIE
V
O�
�
N
...
O
o
.�
►a
S
O
O� N041
U
c
15.
cn
c
°A
c
o
'b
C
O
w
O
�
bn
in
UU
ao
°
u
°
G
•O
0
O
b
•••,
o
�,
O
C13 c
c
a
E
�
zz
�.
c
C
�
�
• �
• �
�
�
�' �
aoo
con
o00
U
U
U
UQm
04
N
.o
H
O
O
O
Q
M
a
c
a�
o
v o
O'
d
o
o
°
b
3.�
A
V
a
in
N
o
a
C:
N
cu
0-4
cl
P.
0
a
00-4
vo E
►5
►aq
a
26