PCRES 2000-022PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- 022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN
2000-043 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-049
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395
MADISON/P.T.M. LA QUINTA, L. L C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 25th day of April, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043 and Conditional Use
Permit 2000-049 herein referred to as the "Project"; and,
WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2000-395); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless
mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact could be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification
of said Environmental Assessment:
1 . The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation
measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts.
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 a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
AAPC.Reso.EA.2000-395.wpd I
Planning Commission Resolution 2000-022
Environmental Assessment 2000-395
April 25, 2000
3. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
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 for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of April, 2000, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PC KTRK, Chairman
ity of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JE Y ERMA , Community Development Director
tof Qui ta, California
A:\PC. Reso. EA. 2000-395. wpd 2
1
2.
3.
a
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: Point Happy Specific Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Fred Baker
760-777-7125
Project Location: Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Madison Development
938 North Mountain Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762
6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial/Non-residential
Overlay
7. Zoning: Community 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 establishing development standards for a 9.8t acre site. The
project will -include 12 individual lots, with project buildout expected to include a
gas station, restaurants, general retail space and office space.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The site is bordered on the north by the Coachella Valley Storm Water
Channel, on the west by steep hillside, on the south by the Vons Shopping
Center, and on the east by the Albertson's/WalMart project.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
X
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
X
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Water
Hazards
X
Cultural Resources
X
Air Quality
X
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Finds of
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
Signature Date
Christine di lorio City of La Quinta
Printed Name For
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all
answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole
action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "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 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). Earlier anaylses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
g) 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)
agencies are free to use different ones.
This is only a suggested form, and lead
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan X
Land Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted X
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General X
Plan Land Use Map, Figure 4, Figure 4 of Specific Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
(Figure 2 of Specific Plan)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p.
2-32 ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly X
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Figure 4 of Specific Plan)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan ElR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
__®M
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3. page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page X
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) I I X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from X
excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-41)
g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43)
h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7, X
Specific Plan text)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and X
amount of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 28 & Figure 5)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document, p. 28)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
(Specific Plan document, p. 28)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
V
VI.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan X
EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 X
ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X
available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57
ff.)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Project Description, X
Specific Plan document)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any X
change in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Project Description, Specific Plan X
document)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result
in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Wildan, letter X
report dated February 16, 2000)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Wildan, letter report dated February 16, 2000)
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Specific Plan Land Use Plan)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan X
Land Use Plan)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific Plan X
Land Use Plan)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan
Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) I I I I X
VII. 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)? (General
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-
69.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
M==
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, X
page 4-71 ff.)
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
MIIIII
IX.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General
Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or
trees? (Specific Plan Project Description)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit X
4.9-1)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan EIR, X
Exhibit 4.9-1)
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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.)
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan X
MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 X
ff.)
XII. 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)
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4- X
20)
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): significant unless significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?(General Plan Exhibit X
CIR-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan X
EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description) X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed X
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Historical/Archaeological X
Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999)
c) Affect historical resources? (Historical/Archaeological Resource X
Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Historical/Archaeological
Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X
impact area? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM
Tech, December 21, 1999)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan, X
Exhibit PR-1)
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
10
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
9
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to X
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directory or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER Anaylsis.
Earlier anaylses 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 anaylsis used. Identify earlier anaylsis and state where they are available for review.
General Plan EIR and MEA are available at the Community Development Department at
City Hall.
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
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site -specific conditions for the project.
P:\EA 00-395-Checklistmpd
11
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 00-395
Ill.a),b) & c)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located in
a Zone IV groundshaking zone, immediately south of an Inferred and inactive fault. The
City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas.
The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will
ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level.
lll.t)
Construction of the proposed project will have the potential to create unstable soil
conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is
proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis
to the City Engineer for review and approval. The recommendations contained in this study
will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance.
III. g) & h)
The proposed project does not occur in an area susceptible to subsidence or expansive
soils. The potential for ground subsidence during a seismic event is considered to be low
at the site'. In addition, the provisions of item Ill.f), above, will ensure that potential
impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
IV.a) & b)
Construction of the proposed project will reduce the amount of land available for absorption
of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff, as well as
degrade the quality of such runoff. Leakage from automobiles onto parking lots can cause
water pollution. It Is not expected that the quantity of leakage at the project site will
represent a significant impact.
IV. c) & d
The Specific Plan area is part of the Lake La Quinta Master Drainage Plan, previously
approved for this area. The proposed project will direct flows to the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel, and discharge surface water into this Channel. The channel is under
the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The project proponent will
be required to meet the standards of CVWD in order to discharge into the channel. These
standards assure that contaminants in the water are eliminated prior to their entering the
channel. The impacts of discharge into surface waters is therefore not expected to be
significant.
IV. f), g),h) & i)
The proposed project will result in the construction of retail and office development, in
conformance with the City's General Plan Community Commercial designation. As such,
the potential impacts of the project were previously analyzed under the 1992 General Plan
EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that time to be mitigated for
Geotechnical Engineering and Limited Geologic Report, Earth Systems Consultants,
March 8, 1999.
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
12
development at the proposed project site. The City also implements water conserving and
water protection measures. Such measures shall reduce the potential impacts to
groundwater quality and quantity to a less than significant level.
V. a) & b)
The implementation of commercial land uses on the project site was analysed under the
1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are expected to continue as
buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts,
particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future have the
potential to reduce impacts. The City determined at the time of certification of the General
Plan EIR that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which
determined, as regarded air quality, that the impacts to air quality of development of the
Plan would be cumulative only when considered in conjunction with regional development,
and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its
boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have
a significant impact on air quality resources.
VI. a) &b)
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan'. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic volumes.
The proposed project will take access from three points: a signalized driveway extending
Channel Drive on Washington Street; a right in/right out access at the mid -point of the
project along Highway 111; and a signalized intersection at the western property boundary,
extending Plaza La Quinta on Highway 111, The total estimated traffic generation is
estimated to be 6,085 daily trips, of which 305 are expected during the morning peak hour,
and 575 during the evening peak hour (these numbers reflect a pass -by trip reduction
typical for retail commercial centers). At project buildout plus five years, all intersections
in the project area are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The type of
development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the City's
General Plan in 1992, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that analysis.
The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) controls access on Highway 111,
designated a state Highway. CalTrans will require that the access from the westerly drive
into and out of the proposed project be aligned to the existing Plaza La Quinta
intersection3. CalTrans will be responsible for approving final design of this intersection. In
order to assure safe ingress and egress at this intersection, all such improvements shall
be complete to the satisfaction of both the City Engineer and CalTrans prior to issuance
of the first occupancy permit for the proposed project.
All project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) at project buildout. The project Is therefore not expected to have a significant impact
on the circulation system.
'- Traffic Study for "Highway 111 and Washington Retail Center," Wildan,
February 16, 2000.
California Department of Transportation, letter dated March 15, 2000.
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
13
VII. a) & b)
The site has been highly impacted by roadway construction on its east and south
boundary, billboard installation, and use by off road vehicles. Its value as viable habitat has
therefore been significantly reduced. In addition, the site is isolated by the above -
referenced roadways, the occurrence of the Stormwater Channel, and the rock outcropping
at Point Happy. The site occurs outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts to biological resources on the site are not
expected to be significant.
IX. a), c) & d)
The proposed Specific Plan includes the location of a gasoline service station in the
southwestern portion of the project site. Such service stations store and dispense
hazardous materials which have the potential to explode. Service stations are highly
regulated, however, and are required to implement technological safety measures in both
their construction and operation. The implementation of these safety measures will
adequately reduce the potential impacts of the service station to less than significant
levels.
X. a) & b)
The Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection is an impacted area for noise levels,
based on analysis performed for the General Plan EIR. The proposed project, however,
is not considered a sensitive receptor, and must meet a exterior noise level of 75 dBA
CNEL. No sensitive receptors occur adjacent to the project site. No discussion of outdoor
dining is included in the project Specific Plan. Should outdoor dining be proposed for the
project site, the proponent shall be required to demonstrate that noise levels will not
exceed 75 dBA CNEL in the outdoor dining area. Such analysis shall be completed and
approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the building
permit. The Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impacts of
noise to a less than significant level.
XI.
All public services were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992
General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant
impact to public services is expected from the proposed project.
KO
All utilities were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General Plan.
Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact to
utilities is expected from the proposed project.
09
The proposed project occurs along the Highway 11 and Washington Street corridors,
designated Primary Image Corridors in the General Plan. The City has established
standards for structural setbacks within such corridors, which will be met by the proposed
project. The project proponent will be required to implement the Highway 111 Design
Theme to connect the project site to other projects along this corridor. No significant
impacts are expected to result from the project to the aesthetic environment.
P:\EA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
14
XIV.
An archaeological and historic resource analysis was performed for the project site°.
Previous investigations had also been conducted in 1989 and 1990. The 1989 and 1990
on -site investigations identified and recorded two potential archaeological sites on the
project site. Historic investigations on the project site in conjunction with the current
archaeological investigation identified a historic component to one of the previously
identified archaeological sites. The current investigation also identified a new
archaeological site, east of the known site. The investigation resulted in a recommendation
that further site testing be performed on CA-RIV-3659/H. This recommendation was
confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The following mitigation measures
shall be required of the project proponent:
A Phase II site investigation of CA-RIV-3659/H shall be performed, meeting the
standards of the City of La Quinta. A final report shall be provided to the Historic
Preservation Commission for its review and approval prior to issuance of the first
building permit.
2. Artifacts visible at CA-RIV-6385 shall be collected.
3. An archaeological monitor shall be on -site during all grubbing, excavation and
grading activities on the site.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts on
cultural resources to a less than significant level.
"Historical/Archaeological Resource Report," CRM Tech, December 21, 1999.
PAEA 00-395-Checklist.wpd
15