CC Resolution 2003-100RESOLUTION NO. 2003-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-481
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-066
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-481
APPLICANT: THOMAS ENTERPRISES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 7t' day of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider this
request by THOMAS ENTERPRISES for Environmental Assessment 2003-481 for
Specific Plan 2003-066 which allows construction of a 175,200 square foot
shopping center at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street, more
particularly described as:
APN's: 649-020-043, -063, -064, and -065,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment 2003-481 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 pre ared an Initial
Study (EA 2003-481) and has determined that although the propose project could
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not e a significant
effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of
this Assessment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact should be certified; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on the 9" day of September,
2003, did consider this request, and recommended to the City Council, certification
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-066; and,
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2003, the Community Development
Department mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and
comment on the proposed project. All written comments are on file with the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the
Public Hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on September 16, 2003, for the
City Council meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public Hearing notices
were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
Resolution No. 2003-100
Environmental Assessment2003-481 - Thomas Enterprises
Adopted: October 7, 2003
Page 2
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the
following findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either directly, or indirectly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2003-
481.
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.
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 in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project
that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited
or cumulatively considerable when considering planned, or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area
will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential
or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment in that mitigation measures
are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Resolution No. 2003-100
Environmental Assessment2003-481 - Thomas Enterprises
Adopted: October 7, 2003
Page 3
8. The City Council has. considered Environmental Assessment 2003-481 and
said Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
9. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption
of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico,
La Quinta, California, 92253.
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 it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2003-481 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Plan on file in the
Community Development Department and attached hereto (Exhibit "A").
3. That Environmental Assessment 2003-481 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Council held on this 7' day of October, 2003, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 2003-100
Environmental Assessment2003-481 - Thomas Enterprises
Adopted: October 7, 2003
Page 4
ON ADO PH, M6yor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JU S. GREEK, CMC, Cit Jerk
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KAT ERINE JENSg4, Cit Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
RESOLUTION 2003-100 EXHIBIT "A"
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 7, 2003
Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Assessment 2003-481
1. Project title: Specific Plan 03-066
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: Northeast comer of Adams Street and Highway 111
APN: 649-020-043, 649-020-063, -064, -065
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Thomas Enterprises
73-333 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General plan designation: Regional Commercial 7. Zoning: Regional 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.)
Specific Plan to establish the design standards and guidelines for a commercial center to
include up to 175,200 square feet of retail and restaurant space, located within one central
building and 4 smaller building pads. The smaller building pads are to be adjacent to
Highway 111, and range from 3,500 to 9,000 square feet. The primary structure, to be located
along the northern boundary of the site, totals 154,800 square feet, and is envisioned to
contain both anchor stores and in -line shops.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings:
North: Vacant, World Gym and Future post office, Coachella Valley Channel
South: Highway 111, Auto Center
West: Regional Commercial, including gas station and Wal-Mart
East: Vacant, Regional Commercial
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
CalTrans
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc 4-
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 NIITIGATED 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 R PACT 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
September 2, 2003
Date
P:\STAN\sp 03-066 thomas\ea 03-481 checklist.doc -2-
012
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 XVH, "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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -3-
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
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 resources,
X
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) & b) The project site is located within the Highway I I I Image Corridor. The project's
landscaping along Highway I I I will be required to include the specific design standards
included in the "Highway 111 Design Theme," including its plant palette and design
standards, particularly for setbacks.. The current plant palette provided in the Specific
Plan does not include these standards. This design reduction will not provide the high
level of aesthetics mandated in the General Plan for this primary corridor through the
City, and will result in a "choppy" or inconsistent approach to landscaping within the
Highway I I I corridor. In order to assure that the project provides the level of aesthetic
amenities expected in the General Plan for the Highway I I I corridor, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. The plant palette (Table 2) in the Specific Plan shall be amended to include only
those plant materials prescribed in the "Highway I I I Design Theme." The project
proponent may, at his/her discretion, provide a second plant palette for plant
materials outside the landscaped setback on Highway 111.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -4-
2. The landscaping along the entire frontage of Highway 111 shall be installed with
the first phase of project development.
I. c) The proposed project includes a very large main building or buildings (attached) totaling
over 154,000 square feet, and potentially as' long as 720 feet. The Specific Plan depicts
the north elevations for this building with no articulation or architectural detail, and with
a number of loading docks .(see Figure V), which will have a potentially significant
aesthetic impact on both commercial buildings and residential land uses to the north. Of
particular concern is both the lack of aesthetic applied to this side of the project, and the
need to assure that in the long term, this side of the project will not become visually
blighted. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
1. The Specific Plan shall be amended as follows:
a. Architectural elevations shown in Figures 16 to 21 shall be amended to
reflect improvements to the north side elevations consistent with the
architectural style of the facades of the building(s).
b. The text of the Specific Plan, under Section "Architectural Guidelines"
shall be amended to include a discussion of the importance of architectural
details on all building elevations, and particularly on the "back of house"
elevations on the north side of the site.
C. The Specific Plan shall be amended to include, under Section
"Architectural Guidelines," a requirement for screened and/or sunken
loading docks, to assure that the visual impacts of these facilities is
minimized.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will assure that aesthetic impacts are
reduced to a less than significant level.
I. d) The project will generate light from parking lot and security lighting. The project will be
required, however, through the Site Development Permit process, to demonstrate that the
lighting on the site will remain contained to the site, in conformance with the City's
lighting ordinance. In addition, this ordinance requires that all lighting be directed
downwards, and be shielded, to assure that the security lighting on the north side of the
site does not impact the adjacent land uses. The implementation of these standards will
assure that the impacts associated with light and glare will be less than significant.
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -5-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21
f)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
X
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?
(No ag. land in proximity to project site)
II. a)-c) The project site is vacant desert land and is not in agriculture. Lands surrounding the
project site are planned, and partially developed in regional commercial land uses. There
are no Williamson Act contracts on the properties, nor on properties in the immediate
vicinity. No impacts to agriculture will result with development of the proposed project.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any air quality standard or
X
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
X
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)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site
inspection)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people? (Project
Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
III. a), b) & c) The City's primary source of pollution is the automobile. The proposed project includes
the development of up to 175,200 square feet of commercial retail space which will
generate approximately 12,895 daily trips at the site'. Based on this traffic generation, and
an average trip length of 15 miles, the following emissions can be expected to be
generated from the project site.
Based on Table IV-1, of "La Quinta Corporate Centre Traffic Impact Study," prepared by Endo Engineering, May
1999, and assuming 158.4 thousand s.f. commercial retail and 9.0 thousand s.f restaurant, categories 820 and 832.
SACity Clerk%ResolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -7-
Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout
(pounds per day)
Ave. Trip Total
Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Length (miles) miles/day
12,895 x 15 = 193,425
PM10 PM10 PM10
Pollutant ROC CO NOX Exhaust Tire Wear Brake Wear
Grams at 50 mph 171,408.25 452,614.50 921,844.00 - 1,934.25 1,934 25
Pounds at 50 mph 38.43 999.15 204.95 - 4.27 4.27
SCAQMD Threshold
(lbs./day) 75 550 100 150
Assumes 12,895 ADT. 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 above, the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's recommended
daily thresholds for both carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The potential impacts of the
proposed project were analysed in the General Plan EIR, as the land use proposed is
consistent with the Regional Commercial land use designation. The City found at that
time that although the potential impacts associated with air quality in the City could be
considerable, the potential benefits of buildout of the General Plan outweighed these
potential impacts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and
adopted in conjunction with the certification of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan
EIR included a number of mitigation measures to assist the City and project developers in
reducing potential impacts associated with air quality. In order to lower the potential
impacts associated with air quality emissions, mitigation measures have been provided
below.
The City and Coachella Valley are a severe non -attainment area for PM10 (Particulates of
10 microns or less). The Valley's 2002 PM10 Plan adopted much stricter measures for the
control of dust both during the construction process and during project operations.These
measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These
include the following control measures.
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
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -8-
The proposed project will generate dust during construction. Under mass grading
conditions, this could result in the generation of 461.5 pounds per day, for a limited
period while grading operations are active. The contractor will be required to submit a
PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the
potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
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.
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. Any area which remains undeveloped for a period of more than 30 days shall be
stabilized using either chemical stabilizers or a desert wildflower mix
hydroseeded on the affected portion of the site.
8. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
wind erosion. Parkway landscaping on both Adams Street and Highway 111 shall
be installed immediately following mass grading of the site.
9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour
11. The project proponent shall notify the City and SCAQMD of the start and end of
grading activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the
2002 PM 10 Management Plan.
12. Any business on the proposed project site which employs 100 or more persons
shall be required to implement the standards and conditions of the City's
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -9-
13. The project proponent shall coordinate the location of a bus stop adjacent to the
project site with Sunline Transit, and shall construct the bus stop and amenities
(shelter, trash cans, benches, etc.) to Sunline and City standards.
14. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the General Plan EIR shall be
applied to the proposed project during both construction and operation.
SACity ClerMesolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -10-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
X
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?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
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?
(Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 f)
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? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or
X
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental
Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -11-
habitat conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.)
IV. a)-f) The proposed project site is currently vacant desert land. Biological resource analyses
have been conducted in the past for portions of the project site'. There are no species of
concern identified for this property in the City's General Plan. The project site is within
the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. The site has been
impacted by off -site construction and dumping in the past, and is isolated due to
surrounding development. The site is likely habitat for common desert flora and fauna,
which will be lost at the time the site develops. However, the City's requirements for
desert tolerant landscaping will result in the planting of materials which will be habitat
for these species upon project buildout. The impacts associated with biological resources
are expected to be less than significant.
James Cornett, "Giant Sand Treader Cricket Survey and Habitat Analysis," July 15, 1999
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -12-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in'l5064.5? ("Interim Cultural
Resources Report, Hotel I I I Project Site," CRM
Tech, December, 1998 and "Archaeological
Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta
Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
X
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to.'15064.5? ("Interim
Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111 Project
Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and
"Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at
La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August
2, 1999.)
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? "Interim Cultural Resources
Report, Hotel I I I Project Site," CRM Tech,
December, 1998 and "Archaeological Testing
and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate
Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.)
V. a), b) & d) Cultural resource surveys have previously been completed for the proposed project site'.
The surveys and site investigations identified significant resources on portions of the
project site. Site CA-RIV-6190 was found not to constitute a significant resource, and no
further action is required on this site. A portion of Site CA-RIV-2936, however, was
found to be significant. Two potential mitigation measures were offered for the historic
site: to either fully excavate the site, or to cover the site and protect it from further
disturbance. The City determined that, in conformance with CEQA, Section
15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place is the preferred mitigation measure (also see Staff
Report and Minutes, Historic Preservation Commission, August 19, 1999). However, the
Historic Preservation Commission determined that excavation of the site should occur as
recommended by the archaeological testing and evaluation report prepared by CRM
TECH. An interim Phase III data recovery report was completed in December, 1999, and
accepted by the HPC in January, 2000, subject to submission of a final report. The site is
also to be monitored during earth moving activities to ensure that any additional resources
3 "Interim Cultural Resources Report, Hotel 111 Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 1998 and "Archaeological
Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, August 2, 1999.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -13-
potentially uncovered are appropriately studied. The following mitigation measures shall
therefore be implemented:
1. The final report for the Phase III data Recovery for the Historic Site on CA-RIV-
2936, including artifact laboratory analysis shall be submitted to and be approved
by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) prior to issuance of first building
permit for project (Required by HPC on January 6, 2000).
2. An archaeological monitor shall be present during grubbing, grading, trenching or
other earth moving activity on or off the project site. The archaeologist shall be
empowered to stop or redirect earth moving activities. The archaeologist shall file
a report with the Community Development Department immediately following
completion of earth moving activities, on the findings at the site.
V. c) The site is outside the historic lakebed for ancient Lake Cahuilla, and is therefore not
expected to contain resources.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -14-
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA
X
Exhibit 6.2)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General Plan
Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
X
the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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 Exhibit 8.1)
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
Exhibit 8.1)
VI. a) i), iii), iv),
b)-e) The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it
subject to landslides or liquefaction. The soil in the area is not expansive, and would
support septic tanks. The proposed project will have no impact on these geologic hazards.
VI. a) ii) The City and project site will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of
significant seismic activity. The City Building Department has implemented California
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -15-
Building Codes which is intended to lower the potential impacts associated with
groundshaking to less than significant levels. In addition, no critical facilities will be
built at the site. The structures will be required to implement the most recent building
codes in place at the time of construction. Site specific studies prepared for the subject
property, and reviewed for the proposed project, include construction standards which
will be implemented by the City Engineer during review of the project grading and
building plans 4 Impacts associated with groundshaking are expected to be less than
significant.
4 Letter report, Sladden Engineering, dated August 19, 2003.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part l.doc -16-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
X
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? (Application materials)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
X
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Application materials)
d) Be located on a site which is included
X
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Riverside County
Hazardous Materials Listing)
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 ft)
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -17-
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, result in the construction of commercial and retail space.
Should any of these businesses store or transport hazardous substances, they will be
heavily regulated by regional and state agencies. These agencies will impose conditions
of approval and monitor the businesses to assure that the applicable standards are
implemented. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are therefore expected to be
less than significant. The site is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, nor
is it subject to wildland fires.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Ldoc -18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- 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? (Project Grading,
Site Hydrology)
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?
(Project Grading, Site Hydrology)
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? (Project
Grading, Site Hydrology)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsWes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -19-
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 flood hazard
X
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
VIII. a) & b) The construction of commercial space will not significantly impact water supply, nor will
it violate water or wastewater requirements. The project proponent will be required to
implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, which will
ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the buildings. The Coachella
Valley Water District will impose conditions of approval for the treatment of wastewater
from the facilities constructed on the project site. 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 proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows, and has
been designed to include retention areas within the project. The City Engineer requires
that these retention areas retain the 100 year storm on site, which is expected to lower
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. e)-g) The construction of the proposed project 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.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Ldoc -20-
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 is surrounded by vacant or commercially developed land, and will
continue this pattern of development. The land is designated in the General Plan for
Regional Commercial, and will not include the development of residential property. The
site is within the fee payment area of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan, and will be required to pay the fee in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -21-
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.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XI. NOISE B 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? (WA p. i i i ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
X
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Project
description)
c) A substantial permanent increase in
X
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Project description)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
X
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan land use
map)
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)
fl 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)
SACity ClerMesolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -23-
XI. a)-f) The proposed project will result in the development of commercial and retail land uses,
which are not considered sensitive receptors. Although persons visiting the center will be
subject to higher noise levels, due to the project's location adjacent to Highway 111, this
exposure will be temporary and periodic, and will not result in any significant impacts.
The proposed project will generate elevated noise levels during construction, but there are
no sensitive receptors located adjacent to the project site (residential and school uses),
and therefore, there is expected to be no impact to adjacent land uses as a result of project
construction or operation. Commercial and retail land uses are not expected to generate
ground borne vibrations. The project is not located in the vicinity of either an airport of
airstrip.
SACity ClerMesolutionsWes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -24-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
X
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff.,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
X
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application
materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of
X
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
XII. a)-c) The proposed project will result in the constriction of commercial land uses which will
generate a need for employees. However, the project is well within the development
potential assessed in the General Plan EIR, and is likely to have jobs filled by new City
residents and residents new to adjacent communities. No impacts are expected to
population and housing.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -25-
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 and sales tax which will
offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project will be required to pay the
mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits. There will be
no impact to City parks due to the construction of commercial facilities.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -26-
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 construction of retail commercial development will not impact the City's recreational
resources.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -27-
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? (No air
traffic involved in project)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access? (Project description)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
(Project description)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
X
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a)-g) Several traffic impact analyses have been conducted for portions of the project sites.
These analyses included a number of mitigation measures, which will be applied to the
5 "Traffic Impacts Associated with the Adams Street Hotel and Restaurants" and "Adams Street Hotel Access Traffic
Signal Warrant Analysis," Endo Engineering, November 30, 1998 and January 8, 1999, respectively. Also "La Quinta
Corporate Centre Traffic Impact Study," Endo Engineering, May 10, 1999.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -28-
proposed project as applicable. In addition, the project site and the construction of
regional commercial development were included in the City's General Plan EIR. The EIR
found that traffic in this area of Highway 111 will operate at acceptable levels of service
at General Plan buildout. The driveway proposed on Adams Street, midway between
Corporate Drive and Highway 111, may pose a traffic hazard if full turn movements are
permitted, primarily due to the short distance between it and the Highway I I I
intersection, and the high number of trips from the adjacent commercial development to
the west. The City Engineer, however, will condition the permitted turning movements
from each driveway, including this one, as part of his review of the proposed project.
With imposition of these conditions of approval, impacts to safety hazards are expected to
be less than significant. The mitigation measures previously applied to the project site
shall apply, as follows:
1. All internal drives and streets shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer during the Design Review process to ensure compliance with City
standards.
2. Off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
3. All internal street shall be fully constructed to their ultimate cross -sections as
. adjacent on -site development occurs.
4. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on -site in conformance with the
Municipal Code.
5. All internal street intersections shall provide clear, unobstructed sight distance.
6. All site driveways exiting the project site shall include a STOP sign and clear
unobstructed sight distances.
7. The lane geometrics shown in Figures VI-2 and VI-3 of the traffic impact analysis
shall be installed adjacent to the project site. Phasing of the intersection
improvements shall be in conformance with the conditions of approval provided
by the City Engineer.
8. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
program.
9. Turning movements permitted on Adams Street and the project driveway, midway
between Corporate Way and Highway 111 shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of grading permits for the site. Should the City Engineer require
additional study of the potential turning movement hazards at this location, the
project proponent shall provide this analysis for review and approval.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to the City's circulation
system should be less than significant.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -29-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS B Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
X
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
b) Require or result in the construction of
X
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of
X
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
X
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Result in a determination by the
X
wastewater treatment provider 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.)
SACity Clerk\ResolutionsVes 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -30-
XVI. a)-g) Utilities are available at the project site. The land use intensity was included in the
analysis of the General Plan, and levels of service were found to be acceptable. No
impacts to utilities are expected as a result of the proposed project.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -31-
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 project site is disturbed vacant desert, and is not habitat for sensitive species in the
area. The proposed project will not, therefore, degrade existing habitat for fish and
wildlife. The site has been identified as having potentially significant cultural resources.
However, mitigation measures included above will assure that these potential resources
are protected, and that potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
XVII.b) The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by adding to the
economic base of the City.
XVII. c) The project will not have considerable cumulative impacts, and will not exceed those
impacts identified in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City, or the City as a whole.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part I.doc -32-
XvU. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality
impacts. Since the Coachella Valley is in a non -attainment area for PM10, and the site
will generate a high level of criteria pollutants, which can cause negative health effects,
Section IIn, above, includes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the potential
impacts on air quality. The impacts are not expected to be any more than those identified
in the General Plan EIR, which included analysis of regional commercial development at
the project site.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -33-
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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 analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessments 98-373 and 99-383 were utilized in preparation of this Environmental
Assessment.
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.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\res 03-100 ea 03-481 exh A part Woc -34-
L
Q
F-
m
W
O
O
N
0
H
J
U)
LU
cc
co
O
N
Z
LU
Q
Q
Z
2
0
ac
Z
W
W
a
C
Q
E-+
A
U p�q
�A
a�
�V
O�
O
U
CC
w
as
y
rA
y
Oq
CD
G7
O
�
O
O
cd
18.
O
W
W
Cd
V
O
44
.O
O
a
O
o
as
a
•0
as
a�,
wV
a p
A
.'
a
W
�v
a
V A
W
V A
U A
rA
•°
' e
'
.0
> C
O
�
O `�'
co
x+
vn
O)
E-+
A
U
p�q
�A
CIO
Ox
UV
H
-u
•b
a,
a.
a.
A 0
Cd
vl rA�
v�
Cd
a
v�
cd
�N>H
U
Cd
tb
o
b
tb
b
Cd
�b
O
44
O
44
C)
.0
4-4
0
Q
�
ti
bb
b4
C
C)
Q
U
Q
U
A
E"
v�
o
Cd
rA
o
Cd
. CA
• p
Cd
Cd
a
Cd
V
•4
V
•�
a�i
a
0
Cad
on
Cad
a'�
tb
•,
� .4
.�
C
°
°
°
ao
on
o
o
o ..,
•o
,o
•o
•o
'd
_
_ _
_
a
a
a a
a
,O
4 Cd,o
a a Rio
Q
A
A
a
,o
a
.�
o
.�
a
a
c,
A
Q.
a
a
a
Q
A
A
00
0
A
•'�
A
A
A
A
v�
.�
an
bn
on
an
.'�•'�
o
•'�
w
w
b
b
v
b
bCd
U
V
U
W
V A
GU
GA
GA
U Au Au
A
Z
b
b
a�
o
o o
[••�
..,
>,
Cd
b
bn
.ti
Cd
'a
CA
�.
Cd
,�3CA7.4
r,
q
a,
.moo
~
o
o
°
�
04=
�'.-••3aid
•~
3�
U
�
3
C
o i
� >
°
A
°
o
5 Cd
Cd
a
..,
S
o
x
>,
Q
on ,
.�
a
Cd
a�
s
00
Cd Cd
Cd
tb `� v� °'
a�
0
C7
• -�
>
Cd
O
0. O
•
o o
4
� -p(40.
�
do
o
U
3
w
F
A
U p�q
�A
a�
�V
O�
U
co
rA
y
o p b,p
O
wU
a a
0 0
4)
UAUA
z
o
o
w
V
rA-
O�
y
a -o o
ZF .2 0y
00(D
y U
F
A
V pFq
�A
OV
V
-
-
g
,
y
y
y
y
y
W
N
o.0
.0
.0
t�
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
id
ed
cd
•�
,W
,W
.W
a a
w
a
a
o
o
a�oi
p0.,0
c
A
0
0
bo
U
UA
V
GA
U
U
U
�
�
b
"
a
0
U
NN
v�
.� cd
an'a
o
cd
o
�0
a�
b j
• �
O id
V „�
.b �
v
y
U � �
w°
Uou
O
a� a
0 0
-c
a a
bn cn
c c
b b
4-4 w
0 0
a� W
U U
C
cd cis
N W
.4 .14
O O
,O .O
a Ow P-4
U 0
a �
an bo
w w
U U
b
a�
3
0
3
� � U
U � �
y
co
a o