PCRES 1999-032PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-060, ZONE CHANGE
98-089, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, SPECIFIC PLAN
98-034 AND PARCEL MAP 29052
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-375
LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 11"' day of May, and 27`" day of April, 1999, hold duly -noticed Public
Hearings as requested by LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY on the Environmental
Analysis for General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-089, Tentative Tract
Map 29053, Specific Plan 98-034, and Parcel Map 29052, located at the northwest
corner of Jefferson Street and 50"' Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director
has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 98-375) and has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made conditions of approval for
Environmental Assessment 98-375, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation for certification of said
Environmental Assessment; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, said recommendation for certification
was based on findings and subject to certain mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following
facts to justify recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract,
Specific Plan and Parcel Map will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
P:\pc res ea 98-375.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Environmental Assessment 98-375
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract,
Specific Plan and Parcel Map will not have the potential to achieve short term
goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract,
Specific Plan and Parcel Map will not have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed
development in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract,
Specific Plan and Parcel Map will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human health, safety, and welfare, either directly or indirectly,
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and
certification of Environmental Assessment 98-375 for proposed General Plan
Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-089, Tentative Tract Map 29053,
Specific Plan 98-034 and Parcel Map 29052, provided all mitigation measures
are complied with per the attached Initial Study.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11"' day of May, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Butler
ABSTAIN: None
R BERT T. TYLE ,Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
PApc res ea 98-375.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Environmental Assessment 98-375
ATTEST:
)evelopment Director
P:\pc res ea 98-375.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
EA 98-375
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: La Quinta Vista Specific Plan SP 98-034
Tentative Parcel Map 29052
Tentative Tract Map 29053
Zone Change 98-089
General Plan Amendment 98-060
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: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50" Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lundin Development Co.
16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite
207
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC)
7. Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
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.)
This Environmental Checklist and associated addendum review a total of five
application requests for 45.5 net acres at the northwest corner of Jefferson
Street and 50" Avenue. These applications include:
A Specific Plan of Land Use and associated parcel map to allow for the
development of a supermarket -anchored shopping center with adjacent
retail pads on 12.5 acres at the corner of Jefferson Street 50t" Avenue.
The parcel is designated and zoned for Community Commercial (CC) use.
The balance of the parcel on the west and north sides of the proposed
commercial Specific Plan are proposed for a General Plan amendment and
change of zone from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential. A
residential subdivision, allowing 103 lots and 10 lettered lots on 33 net acres,
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD 1
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
is proposed for this area, through Tentative Tract Map 29053. The minimum lot
size is proposed at 7,704 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,009 square
feet. All interior streets in the subdivision are proposed to be privately owned.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The project site is currently vacant. Lands surrounding the project site are also
generally vacant, with scattered single family residential. The approved Rancho
La Quinta Residential Specific Plan occurs to the north of the proposed site.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
City of Indio - for street encroachment permits
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375. WPD 2
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.
Land Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
X
Public Services
Population and Housing
X
Biological Resources
X
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Geological Problems
Energy and Mineral
Aesthetics
X
Water
Hazards
X
Cultural Resources
X
Air Quality
X
I Noise
Recreation
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or
potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that', are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
C'H�'I5%lwE✓ C G'li ?02, c� �i��yq�L�9 (�cr�•GI�4
Printed Name For / �—
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. `Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier 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 XVII at the end of the
checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below.
A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
P1STANTA Cklst 98.375.WPD 4
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigated
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
X
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan,
and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably
not need further explanation.)
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
X
(General Plan Land Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
(General Plan EIR, p. 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
X
(General Plan Land Use Map, General Plan Goal 2-2,
page 2-11)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
X
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit
4.1-4, page 4-15)
c) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Aerial Photograph)
H.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
X
population projections? (General Plan Land Use and
Zoning Maps)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension or major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal
2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies 2-3.1.1, 2-3.1.3, page
2-14)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
X
housing? (Aerial Photograph)
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375. WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
III.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page
X
4-35)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30
X
ff., General Plan, Exhibit EH-1)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page
4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR,
X
page 4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30
X
ff.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (General
Plan EIR, page 441)
g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43)
X
h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43)
X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan,
X
page 8-7)
IV.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan
X
document, Section 2.30)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
X
such as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page
4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document Section 2.30, letter
from CVWD dated 2/17/99.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
X
body? (Specific Plan document Section 2.30, letter from
CVWD dated 2/17/99)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
X
movements?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
PP g
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR,
X
page 4-57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
X
otherwise available for public water supplies? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
V.
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
X
existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-171 ff., Air Quality Report for TPM 29052,
Air Quality Report for TTM 29053, Synectecology,
11/5/98)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Aerial
X
Photograph, Air Quality Report for TPM 29052, Air
Quality Report for TTM 29053, Synectecology, 11/5/98)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
X
any change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33
ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Specific Plan Project
X
Description)
VI.
TRANSPORTATION/CIItCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (General
X
Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Specific Plan Site Plan and page
17)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
X
(Specific Plan Site Plan; TTM 29053)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
X
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
X
(Specific Plan Site Plan)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Specific Plan Consistency with General Plan, page 1)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (General Plan
X
MEA)
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
impact
Unless
impact
Mitigated
VIll.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats
X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69,
and page 4-71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
X
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
X
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit
4.4-1, page 4-69)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
X
pool)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? General Plan
X
EIR, page 4-71 ff.)
VIll.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
X
inefficient manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
IX.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)? (Specific Plan Project
Description; TTM 29053)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
X
or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page
6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
X
hazard? (Specific Plan Project Description; TTM 29053)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
X
health hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description; TTM
29053)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
X
grass, or trees?
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375. WPD 8
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
hnpact
X.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Noise Study for the
Construction and Operation of Commercial Land Uses on
Tentative Parcel Map 29052, Synectecology, 11/5/98;
General Plan MEA, page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4)
X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General
Plan MEA, page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 64)
X
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
X
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
X
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(General Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
X
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-14 ff.)
X
XH.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
X
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page
4-29)
X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
X
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
X
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
X
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
X
XIII.
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
X
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigated
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
X
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project
X
Description)
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontologic
X
Assessment Tentative Parcel Map #29052 and Tentative
Tract #29053, Paleontologic Resource Assessment
Program, 2/99)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Cultural Resource
X
Report Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 & 29053,
11/14/98; Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on
Tentative Tract 29053, 4/6/99)
c) Affect historical resources? (Cultural Resource Report
X
Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 & 29053, 11/14/98)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Cultural
Resource Report Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 &
29053, 11/14/98; Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation on Tentative Tract 29053, 4/6/99)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
X
potential impact area? (Cultural Resource Report
Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 & 29053, 11/14/98)
XV.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
X
or other recreational facilities? (TTM 29053)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General
X
Plan, Exhibit PR -I)
XVI.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
X
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 to endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD 10
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
Significant
Sigluricant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigated
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIL
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 analysis used. Identify earlier analysis 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 Incorporated," describe the
Iitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375. WPD 11
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 98-375
I. b)
The General Plan and Zoning designations for the proposed site are currently Community Commercial. The
proposed project consists of a neighborhood shopping center with a supermarket anchor and associated retail
development at the southeastern corner of the site, with single family residential on the western and northern
sides of the commercial site. The residential requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
The requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a net loss of 33 acres of Community
Commercial in the City. Single family residential uses are considerably less intensive than commercial land
uses. The City has concentrated most of its Commercial zoning along the Highway 111 corridor. This parcel
is currently an isolated island of Community Commercial surrounded primarily by single family residential land
use designations. The proposed project represents a continuation of existing development patterns, and is
compatible with existing designations.
The commercial component of the project proposes a floor area ratio of 0.20, well below that allowed under
the Community Commercial designation. The project will serve the rapidly developing residential
neighborhoods, primarily to the west and north. Although the project is less intense than the type of
commercial development envisioned for the site, it is nonetheless compatible with nearby designations which
allow for low density residential development, and will serve this development as it occurs. No mitigation is
therefore required.
III. b) & c)
The proposed projects occur in a Zone III groundshaking zone, approximately one quarter mile east of an
inferred and inactive fault. The project site can expect to experience significant groundshaking in the event of
a major earthquake in the Coachella Valley. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of groundshaking on
buildings throughout the City, the Building Department has implemented the Uniform Building Code, as
amended, which requires reinforced construction in groundshaking zones. The projects do not occur in an area
prone to liquefaction, and their distance from an active fault makes ground rupture unlikely. The projects will
be required to meet or exceed the City's building standards, thereby reducing the potential impact from
groundshaking hazards to a level of insignificance.
III. f)
The project site occurs within the City's blowsand hazard area. Soils at the project site have a high potential
for wind erosion'. The project proponent will be required to submit, for review and approval by the City
Engineer, a PM 10 management plan which meets the requirements for such plans, prior to approval of the first
grading permit for the site. Should the residential and commercial components of the project be graded
separately, individual PM10 management plans shall be submitted for each component.
Mitigation measures to ensure the stabilization of soils may include, but should not be limited to, soil cement
or re -vegetation of any portion of the site not immediately under construction after grading; frequent watering,
' United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Survey for Riverside County,
California, Coachella Valley.
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD 12
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
including watering during the evening and weekends during significant wind events; street sweeping or washing
during construction; and the chemical stabilization of unpaved construction roadways. The implementation of
such a plan will reduce the potential impacts of soil erosion at the project site to a level of insignificance.
The project site falls within an area of soils at risk for erosion. The proposed Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, in and of themselves, will not cause a hazard. However, construction of either
the residential or commercial project will have the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth
moving activities. At such time as any phase of either project is proposed for development, the project
proponent will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. The
recommendations contained in this study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of
insignificance.
IV.a)
The construction of any project on vacant land reduces the potential land available for the absorption of surface
water, and changes surface water runoff patterns. Both the Specific Plan (for the commercial component) and
the Tentative Tract Map (for the residential lots) have proposed, in conformance with the City Engineer's
requirements for the retention of the 100 year storm event on site, the construction of retention basins. The
conceptual design for each component is described individually below.
The shopping center development proposes the construction of retention basins behind the 20' setback along
the entire site frontage on Jefferson Street. The retention basins shall be designed to meet the City's standards
for such structures, and shall be incorporated into the landscaping concept for the proposed project.
The residential Tentative Tract Map design includes a retention basin along most of the project's boundary with
the commercial development. This area is also proposed for use as a landscaping feature. Fourteen of the
residential lots will have back yards adjacent to this retention basin. A Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD) well site is also proposed for this area. The design of adequate retention basin area to contain the 100
year, 24 hour storm shall not include the area proposed for a well site.
The retention basins will provide for the absorption of water, and reduce this potential impact. The basins will
also control the flow of storm water generated on both sites, and will reduce the potential impacts to an
insignificant level.
IV.c)
Impermeable surfaces within the proposed projects can increase the potential for pollutants to occur in surface
water at the site. The potential for such contamination within the Tract Map area will primarily be from cars
parked on driveways, and either leaking fluids or being cleaned with chemicals. The potential hazard is greater
within the commercial shopping center area, due to the higher concentration of vehicles, and the high
percentage of impervious surface area.
The sites will drain to retention basins, either along Jefferson Street, or on the eastern boundary of the
residential tract. The retention basins are required, in order to meet City standards, to include filtration devices
or other methods to ensure that water being absorbed into the ground does not contain pollutants or other
PASTANTA Cklst 98.375. WPD 13
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
foreign materials. The drainage system shall be required to meet the standards established by the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), as implemented by the City. The implementation of this
program will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
V. a.) b.)
An air quality analysis was prepared for buildout of the proposed projects','. Each of the analysis are discussed
separately below.
Specific Plan, Commercial Shopping Center
The air quality analysis was performed for both construction (short term) and operational (long term) emissions
from the commercial project site. The analysis utilized the threshold criteria established for the Valley by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, as required by the Air Quality Management Plan. The project
will exceed threshold criteria during the construction period, and will exceed thresholds for operational
emissions of CO, Nox and ROG. As recommended in the air quality analysis, the project proponent shall be
required to implement the following mitigation measures:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition, and shall be properly
serviced and repaired as needed.
• Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the project proponent shall demonstrate, or cause to be
demonstrated to the Community Development Department that all construction equipment to be utilized
shall be low emission, or how the use of low emission construction equipment is infeasible.
• Low VOC paints, primers and coatings shall be required for all buildings on the project site. All paints
shall be applied using either a high volume/low pressure spray or by hand.
• The proposed project shall provide a bus turnout, shelter and associated improvements on Jefferson
Street and on Avenue 50, unless Sunline Transit provides written confirmation that no such turnout(s)
or shelters are needed.
• As required by the Municipal Code, the businesses operating within the proposed project shall conform
to the Transportation Demand Management requirements in place at the time they begin operation.
• Deliveries to the project site shall occur during off-peak periods.
Even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project
could be significant. The air quality analysis does not, however, make appropriate reductions for pass -by trips,
which will reduce the number of vehicles which come and leave the site; improvements in technology which
"Air Quality Report for Construction and Operation of Commercial Land Uses on Tentative Parcel Map
29052 in the City of La Quinta, CA." Synectecology, November 5, 1998.
Air Quality Report for Construction and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 29053 in
the City of La Quinta, CA. Synectecology, November 5, 1998.
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.wPD 14
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles; or transit route improvements in the future.
Tentative Tract Map, Residential Development
The analysis performed for the residential portion of the project demonstrated that the long term impacts of
the proposed project will not be significant, and will not exceed state and federal threshold criteria. The
analysis did show, however, potential significant short term impacts from nitrogen oxides and reactive organic
gases emitted at the site during the construction of the subdivision, based on state and federal threshold criteria.
The assumption made in the report is that construction of all 103 homes would occur during a one year period.
Since this represents an ambitious absorption rate, the concentration of emissions is likely to be lower than that
anticipated in the analysis. However, in order to lower the potential impacts to an insignificant level, the
following mitigation measures are to be implemented during construction:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition, - and shall be properly
serviced and repaired as needed.
• Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the project proponent shall demonstrate, or cause to be
demonstrated to the Community Development Department that all construction equipment to be utilized
shall be low emission, or how the use of low emission construction equipment is infeasible.
• All site grading shall be complete prior to the construction of homes on the parcel.
• Low VOC paints, primers and coatings shall be required for all buildings on the project site. All paints
shall be applied using either a high volume/low pressure spray or by hand.
Conclusion
Finally, the proposed projects fall within the anticipated land use studied in the General Plan EIR. The City
determined at that time that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding Considerations for air
quality, that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulative only when considered
in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce
emissions within its boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have
a significant impact on air quality resources.
VI.b)
Access to the commercial component of the proposed projects has been limited to two driveways each on
Jefferson Street and 50`h Avenue. One access point is provided at the northeastern boundary of both
components, to allow for direct access from the residential tract map area to the shopping center. Access to
and from the residential lots will be taken from one drive on Jefferson Street, and one drive on 50' Avenue.
These are designed to meet City standard, and should not represent a significant impact or hazard.
The access points within the commercial component of the project meet the City's standards, and generally
offer ease of circulation into and out of the site, except that most of the drives are well below the City's
standard of 90 feet for parking lots with more than 450 parking spaces. Thess access points represents a
potentially hazardous condition for motorists within the proposed project. The following mitigation shall be
PASTANEA Cklst 98.375.wPD 15
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
implemented to reduce the impact of this hazard to a less than significant level:
• The proposed site plan shall be redesigned to provide at least 90 feet of stacking at all access points or
dedicated right turns in to the driveways shall be provided. If one of these standards cannot be met, the
applicable access point shall be eliminated.
VI.f)
The proposed shopping center Specific Plan allows for 530 parking stalls, a 20% increase over the standard
of 444 spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. No adequate justification is provided in the Specific Plan for
such an increase. No analysis of the potential for shared parking facilities is provided.
The provision of such a large percentage of additional parking spaces may have a negative impact on the
aesthetic value of the site. Those portions of the site which are taken up by additional parking spaces could be
landscaped, and provide additional visual interest and shade to the site. It can be estimated that the additional
parking spaces represent approximately 35,000 square feet, or .80 acre which could be dedicated to landscaped
areas.
Finally, the additional parking spaces do not further the General Plan's policies regarding alternative modes
of transportation. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
• The project proponent shall reduce the number of parking spaces by 5 % (27 spaces) within the shopping
center site, and enhance the project landscape plan.
• The Site Development Permit application(s) for all portions of the shopping center shall include the
provision of secure bicycle racks at selected locations within the project, to facilitate alternative
transportation to and from the site.
VII.a) & b)
The project site occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Conservation Fee
Area. Eventual development of the site will impact this resource. With the adoption of a Habitat Conservation
Plan for this species, payment of a $600.00 per acre fee was established as mitigation for any taking of this
endangered species. The site is not within the habitat areas for other species of concern in the City. No further
mitigation is necessary.
X.a) & b)
Site -specific noise analysis was prepared for the proposed project,'. Both Jefferson Street and 5Yh Avenue are
currently impacted, and exceed 60 dBA CNEL. All new development is required to mitigate to the City's
' "Noise Study for the Construction and Operation of Commercial Land Uses on Tentative Parcel Map
29052 in the City of La Quinta, CA." Synectecology, November 5, 19998.
s "Noise Study for Construction and Operation of Residential Land Uses on Tentative Tract 29053 in the
City of La Quinta, CA." Synectecology, November 5, 1998.
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD 16
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
standards for noise, as required in the General Plan (Table EH-1). The commercial and residential components
of the proposed project are discussed separately below.
Commereial Development
The development of commercial land uses requires an exterior noise level not exceeding 75 dBA CNEL. The
noise levels within the project site will not exceed the City standard at buildout. Short noise impacts can be
expected during the construction phase of the project, as detailed in the report. In order to reduce potential
impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
• All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of construction permitted by Municipal Code
Section 6.08.050.
• All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
• All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units.
• All on -site deliveries shall be limited to 7.00 a.m. To 10.00 p.m.
• The proposed perimeter wall shall be 8 feet in height.
Residential Development
As stated above, both Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 are currently impacted, and experience noise levels above
the City's standard. The General Plan requires that all new development provide mitigation to reduce impacts
to the City standard of 60 dBA CNEL. The noise analysis performed for the proposed site shows that lots
adjacent to both Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street will be significantly impacted by off -site noise sources without
mitigation. Without mitigation, noise levels at the project boundary on Jefferson Street will be 76 dBA, and
73 dBA on Avenue 50. In order to reduce potential long term impacts to an acceptable level, mitigation
measures, in the form of berming and walls will be required, and are provided below.
• No two story units shall be permitted for lots adjacent to Avenue 50, Jefferson Street or the commercial
development. All units shall be single -story only.
• The project proponent shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Department, that all
construction plans will result in interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less in all residential units.
• To the extent possible, the homes to be located on Jefferson Street shall be constructed in the first phase
of development, so as to act as noise buffers to the rest of the site.
• The project proponent shall construct a 2 foot stem wall, 7 foot berm and 6 foot wall along the entire
frontage of the property on Jefferson Street. The stem wall and berm shall be located within the 20 foot
setback required on the street, and shall meet all City standards, including a meandering sidewalk and
3:1 slope. The City Engineer shall review and approve plans for the stem wall, berming and sidewalk
prior to the issuance of grading permits.
• The project proponent shall construct a 3 foot berm and 6 foot wall along the entire frontage of the
PASTANEA Cklst 98.375.WPD 17
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
property on 50`h Avenue. The berm shall be located within the 20 foot setback required on the street,
and shall meet all City standards, including a meandering sidewalk and 3:1 slope. The City Engineer
shall review and approve plans for the berming and sidewalk prior to the issuance of grading permits.
In addition to long term operational noise, the site and surrounding development will be impacted by two other
sources of noise: construction equipment, and well -site construction.
Construction noise will result in a potential short term impact to a residential unit 200 feet east of the proposed
project, across Jefferson Street. Noise and well construction noise can be expected to result in noise levels of
80 DBA and 63 dBA, respectively at this residence. A second residential unit, located 500 feet from the eastern
project boundary, will experience construction noise levels of 69 dBA, and well construction noise levels of
61 dBA. As a short term, periodic impact occurring during daytime hours, such temporary conditions are
considered acceptable. Mitigation measures, however, are included below to lessen the impact to residential
units near the proposed project site during the construction period.
• All construction activity shall be limited to the hours of construction permitted by Municipal Code
Section 6.08.050.
• All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers.
• All stationary equipment shall be located as far as practical from adjacent potential residential units.
• If the well drilling is to be performed on a 24 hour basis, temporary noise barriers shall be placed
around all internal combustion engines used for drilling.
• All well construction shall be complete prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any residence on
the site. The well site shall be walled and landscaped to meet City standards.
These mitigation measures will reduce impacts from noise to a less than significant level.
XI11.a)
The proposed projects occur on a Primary Image Corridor (Jefferson Street) and a Secondary Image Corridor
(Avenue 50). This designation requires added setbacks and enhanced landscaping treatments to mitigate
potential aesthetic impacts. Both the residential and commercial components of the project have included
additional setbacks in their plans, and will conform to the standards and requirements of the Primary and
Secondary Image Corridor. This is expected to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XI11.c)
All or part of the shopping center will operate during the evening hours. The residential lots created by the
proposed tract map could be impacted by light and glare. The shopping center site could also impact 501"
Avenue and Jefferson Street with added light or glare, which could have a negative impact on passing traffic.
The City has implemented, through its Site Development Permit and building permit processes, standards
PASTAMEA Cklst 98.375.WPD 18
Planning Commission Resolution 99-032
which require lighting to be contained, and at a low level, to preserve the dark night sky. These standards will
be implemented for this project, thereby reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XIV. a)
A paleontological assessment was completed for the proposed project'. The study found lacustrine sediments,
consistent with ancient Lake Cahuilla and the type of sediment in which fossils are often found, on the project
site. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to this non-renewable resource, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
• A qualified paleontologic monitor shall be on -site during any and all excavation of the proposed project.
The monitor will be empowered to stop or divert excavations to allow for removal of abundant or large
specimens.
• All recovered specimens shall be professionally prepared, identified and preserved.
• All recovered specimens shall be professionally curated into a museum repository with permanent
retrievable storage.
• The paleontological monitor shall prepare a report of findings, including an appended inventory of
specimens for submittal to the City.
XIV.b) & d)
An archaeological resource analysis, as well as site investigation, were prepared for the project site. Two sites
of potential significance were found in the commercial area of the property, and seven sites within the
residential area. The sites were tested, and were determined not to meet the CEQA criteria for significance.
Artifacts were collected and removed from the surface. The results of test pits indicate a low potential
sensitivity for subsurface artifacts. In order to ensure that no subsurface artifacts occur, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
• The project proponent shall provide a qualified archaeological monitor during any excavation or grading
of the project. The monitor shall be empowered to stop of divert excavation should artifacts be located.
The monitor shall file a final report of findings with the City.
These mitigation measures shall reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
"Paleontologic Assessment Tentative Parcel Map #29052 (Commercial) and Tentative Tract $N29053
(Residential)." Paleontological Resource Assessment Program, revised February 1999.
7 "Cultural Resources Report,Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 & 29053," December 14, 1998; and
"Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation on Tentative Tract 29053," April 6, 1999. Both by CRM
Tech.
P:\STAN\EA Cklst 98.375.WPD 19