PCRES 2002-024PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN #97-029
(1997) AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (1998), STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97011055
PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-067, AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 30420
CASE: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th of February 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report for approval of a Site Development Permit
for a retail shopping center having 334,117+ square feet, a Conditional Use Permit for a
plant nursery/garden center, an auto repair/specialty shop, and an auto service station in
conjunction with retail Building "B", and a Tentative Parcel Map to create 18 numbered and
two letter lots ranging in size from .47 to 19.44 acres for the 87-acre Specific Plan area
located immediately south of State Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams Street, approximately
300 feet west of Dune Palms Road and approximately 1,850 feet north of Avenue 48
and more particularly described as follows:
APNS 649-030-057 thru 063
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and "The Rules to implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the
La Quinta City Council); 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 certifying said Addendum:
The current applications for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Tract Map Permit (the "Application" or "Proposed- Project"), with
respect to a portion of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, constitute further
discretionary approvals needed to implement the previously approved Project
("Prior Project"). The Application reflects necessary entitlements to proceed
with development of approximately 334,117 square feet of retail commercial
space, on approximately 29 acres within Planning Area III of The Centre at La
Quinta.
P:\J ERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env, wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development
Adopted: February 26, 2002
2. On July 15, 1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta (the "City")
certified the adequacy and completeness of a Final Environmental Impact Report
[SCN 970110551 (the "Final EIR") and adopted Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, in connection with its approval of the Prior Project.
In December 1998, the City certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with its
consideration and approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan to reflect
modifications in the internal layout of the Prior Project and further refinements
of the development concepts. The Proposed Project is consistent with the
amended Specific Plan analyzed in the 1998 Supplemental EIR.
3. The Proposed Project does not constitute a substantial change to the previously
approved Prior Project, which will require major revisions to the Final EIR as
augmented by the 1998 Supplemental EIR (collectively "Prior EIR"), due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects. In fact, the Proposed
Project reflects a reduction in intensity of development within Planning Area III,
in that the Proposed Project develops only 334,117 square feet of retail
commercial space, substantially less than the maximum square footage
previously approved for the Prior Project (i.e., 400,000 square feet or .25 FAR).
4. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions to the Prior EIR, due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
5. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could
not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Final EIR and Supplemental EIR were adopted, has become available which
shows any of the bases described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), for
requiring a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
6. Based upon these findings and the Addendum/Initial Study, the City has
determined that no Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is required or
appropriate under Public Resources Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is
sufficient to make the Prior EIR apply to the Proposed Project.
7. The Addendum/Initial Study, which was prepared to evaluate whether the
Proposed Project could cause any new or potentially more severe significant
adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed potential secondary
land use impacts based upon an updated Market Impact Analysis prepared by
the Natelson Company. Based upon the facts and analysis contained in the
Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that the Proposed Project will not have
P:\J ERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development
Adopted: February 26, 2002
any new or more severe adverse secondary land use impacts, in the defined
Study Area, including no significant adverse blight -related impacts due to
Wal*Mart relocating from its existing site in La Quinta to the Retail B Building
in Planning Area III of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan.
This finding is based upon the Natelson Company's updated analysis and the
conditions imposed by the City, with respect to the continued maintenance of
and future occupancy of the existing Wal*Mart store in the City of La Quinta.
8. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's
potential effects on traffic and circulation, both with respect to the public roads
in the vicinity of the Project and the internal circulation of the Project site,
based upon an updated traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads. Based
upon the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City
finds that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant
traffic or circulation impacts, either on public roads or the internal circulation
system at the Project site.
9. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's
potentially new or more severe significant noise related impacts. Based upon
the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds
that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant
adverse noise -related effects. In addition, noise monitoring conducted after the
retail "B" building is fully operational must demonstrate compliance with the
City's noise ordinance at the property line.
10. The prior EIR estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522 feet of
water per year. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this
demand would not exceed their current or projected water supplies. No
substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Prior Project
and no wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. The Proposed Project
would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses, in Planning Area
III, which is less than the previously approved square footage of 400,000
square feet, or 429,000 square feet, under the .25 FAR specified in the Centre
at La Quinta Specific Plan. Since there is a direct relationship between the size
and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total
building area under the Proposed Project would result in an overall decrease in
the amount of water required for the project site. Therefore, as the total
amount of water required for the Proposed Project is less than that necessary
for the Prior Project, no new or more severe impacts with respect to water
demand would occur.
P:\J ERRY\stam ko-pc-reso-env.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development
Adopted: February 26, 2002
1 1 . The Proposed Project does 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.
12. The Proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no new or more severe significant adverse effects on environmental factors
have been identified by the Addendum/Initial Study.
13. The Proposed Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity.
14. The Proposed Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health or public
services.
15. These factual findings are based upon the previously certified Final EIR and
Supplemental EIR, the Addendum/Initial Study, the submissions of the applicant,
the updated Market Impact Analysis report prepared by the Natelson Company,
the updated traffic report prepared by Urban Crossroads, the noise impact
analysis conducted by Impact Sciences, and the records and files of the City's
Planning Department related to the Project.
16. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the
City.
17. 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).
18. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
P:\J ERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-024
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development
Adopted: February 26, 2002
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Addendum.
2. That it does hereby certify the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on
file in the Community Development Department.
3. That the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent
judgement of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of February 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ES ABELS, Chairman
La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
munity Development Director
of La Quinta, California
P \JERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd
0
Addendum to
The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Final EIR (1997) and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998)
State Clearinghouse No. 97011055
Approved by Reso
Planning Commission � na-o�y
,City Council
0 Community Dev. DepL
Initials
Case No. f�y7 7-337 AqcWr �{t��8fdooD J67
FAh4 R ShPv - 7aSr.YPm 3oy'ac
O With Conditions
Prepared for.
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Prepared by:
Impact Sciences, Inc.
30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, California 91301
February 2002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum with an incorporated Initial Study (Addendum/Initial Study) to the
Final FIR and Supplemental EIR ("Previous EIRs") for The Centre at La Quinta (Specific Plan) (State
Clearinghouse no. 97011055). The Final EIR assessed the potential impacts associated with development
of the Specific Plan, while the Supplemental FIR (SEIR) evaluated an amendment to the Specific Plan.
Specifically, the SEIR analyzed four potential development scenarios, including the development of two
large big box commercial centers for the undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan site ("the Previous
Projects"). The SEIR was certified in September 1998.
Purpose of an Addendum
When a Final EIR has been certified for a project, CEQA provides for the update of the information in the
certified EIR to address changes to a project or changes to the circumstances under which a project will
occur. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that where
the Lead Agency determines that neither project changes, changed circumstances, nor new information
requires the preparation and circulation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, the Lead Agency may
prepare an Addendum to an EIR. An Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if
changes or additions to the FIR are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring a Supplemental or
Subsequent FIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the purpose of an Addendum
is to provide a way of making minor changes or additions to an EIR. Circulation of an Addendum for
public review is not required.
This Addendum to the Previous EIRs has been prepared because: (1) no substantial changes are proposed
in the Previous Project which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs due to the involvement of
new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts;
(2) no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Previous Project is undertaken will occur
which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and (3) no
new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Previous EIRs were certified as complete, shows any of
the following: (A) the Previous Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
Previous EIRs; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the Previous EIRs; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
1 ddendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Previous Project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative(s); or, (D) mitigation
measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Previous EIRs
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. These determinations are supported by the Initial
Study incorporated into this Addendum, in Section 2.0, and additional updated studies/reports
appended to this Addendum in the appendices.
Regional and Local Setting
The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of land area located in the
southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in eastern Riverside County. The Coachella Valley is
located between the San Bernardino Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains (see Figure 1). La Quinta
is located approximately 18 miles southeast of the resort community of Palm Springs. It is surrounded by
the Cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert to the northwest, Indio, Coachella, the Augustine Indian
Reservation and Thermal to the east, and the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west. The Interstate
10 Freeway (I-10) provides regional east -west access to the Coachella Valley communities. Washington
Street provides vehicular access from I-10 south to State Highway Ill, which leads to the Project site.
The 87-acre Specific Plan area is located immediately south of State Highway 111 and immediately east of
Adams Street, in the northern part of La Quinta (see Figure 2). Dune Palms Road lies approximately 300
feet east of the eastern site boundary and Avenue 48 lies approximately 1,850 feet south of the southern
site boundary.
Description of Previous Environmental Review
On July 15, 1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta unanimously adopted a Specific Plan to permit
and control development of an auto/sales services mall and a large mixed -use retail commercial 'power
center' on the Project site. A specific plan is a planning tool authorized by state law that allows a local
government to recognize the unique characteristics of a particular planning area and to establish
customized land use regulations that will achieve the objectives of the General Plan for that area. The
City Council approved the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, which addresses the requirements of state
law, including a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. The Specific Plan
established specific performance, design and development standards to guide the
2 ddendun, to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
/
1
1
I
R 1.
pa -
Sprig.
CNy
R.n
mwa
Bernardino
National
5 mi. 2.5 mi. 0 mi. 5 mi.
n �o-
HM
spring%
San Barna rdiao a _
—r Rive Hide Counay
Joshua Tree
Ink, I
Cabam
National
Monument
ly
FI :I IRF l
Regional Location
Country Club Dr.
I
Zboindn D'nm
s;.pa..
+rpssa<
� Bermuda Dunes 10 ya
MP: Country Club Dd'�
� r�0
b
g A
Fred Waring Dr/.
Indian Springs e9�
�Nu et CountryClub
S am c
111
Indian wells
country club
Alks�¢.e
e v BnlFr qs+� ep
r °�4 A. 4 fV a
LMAUrtIa� ra i.�"44Mtf��r .`s s- —'� s `xse �
S�ovleasaKr. #pp?4aM 3 i
4. i idi4s BOih Ave.
al Y44 i✓`�-N:CIpaAbk 1 'n s' asi t P
se
ph ka %nP°2`.t�r< `Sa➢' 9 '1 s
IN
�S ss'm
Ms ilrv�t 1srr.r'.
��'"' u ^s4 r3 ? ,€.'`e..R .ram
5 x r I i§ +'d`4 &TM.Y y°)
`62ntl Ave.
to
al a � Md3 ras Y'sr ea
p a
Nr� u.
t q � roMac i 1a�'ez¢ ``�
£ a". ��a'' `^aMR �W,
r �
54,
z 9
0
d ry, A d e aE r rx a s:1'i A'" i may ass h¢
m
d qp;�1 tt a qd fp4aat j e .ev<i In
I a .%' 'ro_+s✓�'t'r m s '. a s e�
s x �.� roe Cora
m
n
r � ova
m2
6000' 3000' 0' 6000'
FIGURE2
Project Site Vicinity
development of the subject property in a manner that is intended to implement the City's General Plan,
and also provided flexibility to respond to phased development and changing conditions. The Specific
Plan also augmented the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing design guidelines, a tailored list of
allowable, conditionally allowable and prohibited uses for the site, and, in some cases, unique
development standards.
The originally approved Specific Plan allowed the development of up to 275,000 square feet of auto
sales/service facilities, and approximately 400,000 square feet or .25 Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of
retail/commercial space. The potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the
Previous Project were assessed in an EIR (State Clearinghouse no. 97011055) which was also certified by
the City Council. The specific actions approved by the City Council on July 15,1997 were as follows:
• Resolution 97-62: Certification of Environmental Impact Report
• Resolution 97-63: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28525
• Resolution 97-64: Adoption of Specific Plan 97-029
• Resolution 97-65: Approval of Site Development Permit 97-603
• Resolution 97-66: Approval of Conditional Use Permit
• Ordinance No. 306: Approval of Development Agreement
The certified Final FIR, assessed the Previous Project's potential impacts on the following environmental
areas:
• Potential Secondary Land Use Effects;
• Geotechnical Considerations;
• Hydrology/ Water Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Water Distribution and Storage;
• Solid Waste Disposal;
• Public Services;
• Aesthetics; and
• Cultural Resources.
5 ddendum to the Centre at La Quints
February 2002
This Final EIR also assessed the Previous Project's potential growth inducing impacts and evaluated five
alternatives to the Previous Project.
In 1998, the project applicant proposed an amendment to the approved Specific Plan to reflect
modifications in the internal layout of the Previous Project and the further refinement of the development
concepts. As approved, this amendment allowed development of four different mixes of auto
sales/service and retail commercial land uses, including the development of large retail stores, commonly
know as "big box" stores or commercial power centers. A SEIR was prepared that analyzed each of the
proposed four development scenarios in equal detail and was certified in December 1998. This SEIR
analyzed the same impact topics addressed in the original EIR completed in 1997. The development
scenario now proposed for implementation by the applicant's current, more specific entitlement package,
was previously subject to CEQA compliance review in the Previous EIRs.
Description of Proposed Project
The current proposed Project requests three discretionary actions. Specifically, a Site Development
Permit, a Conditional Use permit for the auto serving uses and garden center as well as approval of a
Tentative Tract Map (the Project).
The Project site is located within Planning Area III, as defined in the Specific Plan, and maintains the
general layout and configuration analyzed in the Previous EIRs. The Specific Plan allows the
development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III, under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000
square feet or a FAR of .25. A .25 FAR applied to the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results
in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet ("the Previously Approved Square Footage').
Prospective tenants for the proposed commercial center include Wal-Mart and Kohl's. For purposes of
this analysis, the operational characteristics of these tenants (Wal-Mart and Kohl's) have been assumed.
The Project proposes development of 334,117 square feet on approximately 29 acres within the 39± acre
Planning Area III. This proposed development is substantially below the Previously Approved Square
Footage analyzed in the Previous EIRs. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land uses, while Figure 3
presents the proposed Site Plan. The Project site is located on the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan
area, south of Highway 111 and to the east of La Quinta Drive. Development is currently proposed on
parcels 1, 5, 6 and 11. As shown,19,200 square feet of specialty stores and associated parking stalls would
be located on the northeast portion of the site on parcel 6. The retail uses would be setback from
Highway 111 by a 50 foot landscaped buffer to the north and located approximately 60
6 Addendum to the Centre at In Quinta
Februanj 2002
AGT our ACCESS �HWY I11 EiV ;RY MONUMENT111 �--� IGN (FACT) —WAVe Ge
1.
ENT
?n &7
M +c
Z �
t
t
PHASE
rwrs
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
AREA
FIGUI
Proposed Site P
feet from the eastern property boundary, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer setback.
Immediately south on parcel 5, a 86,584 square foot Retail A Building is proposed, with parking provided
to the west. The Retail A Building is also positioned 60 feet away from the eastern Project boundary, 10
feet of which also includes a landscaped setback. To the southwest of this parking area is parcel 11, which
includes the 115 square foot gas station, associated with the potential occupation of Retail B Building by a
Wal-Mart Supercenter. The gas station is on the southeast corner of the Auto Centre Drive and La Quinta
Drive intersection. However, access is only provided to the station from within the Project site. The gas
station is approximately 50 feet from La Quinta Drive, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer. To the
south of the gas station is parcel 1, which includes parking and the proposed 228,218 square foot Retail B
Building. This building would include a garden center and a tire installation and express lube facility on
the western side of the building. Retail B Building is located 60 feet from the southern boundary and 30
feet from the eastern boundary. The southern boundary also includes a 10 foot landscaped setback.
Access to the Project site is provided from Highway Ill, La Quinta Drive and Auto Centre Drive. As
proposed, two access points would be provided off of Highway 111, just west of parcel 6. This access
extends south, through the Project site down to the Retail B Building. This is the only major internal north
and south drive aisle. Three access points would be provided along La Quinta Drive. One would be
north of Auto Centre Drive, the second would be the entrance at the intersection of La Quinta Drive and
Auto Center Drive, while the third is located to the south of this intersection. The northern access extends
east, into the site, up to the 19,200 square feet of shops. at the eastern extent of the site, while the southern
access extends east into the site, along the frontage of the Retail B Building. As proposed, 1,743 parking
stalls would be provided, of which only 1,336 is required by applicable City Ordinances.
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Parcel Proposed Use Acreage Square Feet Parking Provided
1 Retail B/ Parking 19.44 228,218 1,124
5
Retail A/Parking
7.35
86,584
484
6
13 Specialty Stores/Parking
1.82
19,200
135
11
Gas Station
0.47
115 and 8 pumvs
0
TOTALS: 29.081 334,117 1,743
129.08 acres represents total land area of the proposed Project within the 38.35 acre Planning Area III
8 Addendum to the Centre at In Quinta
February 2002
Findings of this Addendum/Initial Study
This Addendum relies on an Initial Study Checklist Form, as suggested in State CEQA Guideline Section
15963, assessing a wide variesty of potential environmental impacts. Section 2.0 of this document
contains the Initial Study and explains the basis for each response to the questions on the environmental
form, and that analysis is expressly incorporated into this Addendum. The City also requested that
additional updated information be collected for this addendum with respect to three potential issues:
Secondary Land Use Impacts, such as blight, Transportation and Circulation, and Noise.
Impact Sciences, Inc. retained the Natelson Company to review and update its prior Market Impact
Analysis that was prepared for the Previous EIRs, in light of this specific Project and, in particular, the
potential relocation of the existing Wal-Mart store in La Quinta to the proposed Retail B Building at the
Centre at La Quinta. A copy of this study is included as Appendix A. In summary, five key topics
associated with the economic impact of the Project were addressed including (1) whether there is
sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in La Quinta;
(2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the Kohl's store; (3) whether there is sufficient
consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a larger Wal-Mart
Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 square feet of
commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the re -use
of the existing Wal-Mart store located in the City of La Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the
Natelson Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 square feet of
new retail stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants, such as Wal-Mart. As a result, no new or more
severe secondary land use impacts were determined to occur.
An updated traffic analysis, which was prepared by Urban Crossroads, and is presented in Appendix B,
was based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square footages, land use (including the proposed Wal-
Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in the updated traffic analysis, the proposed
Project would not generate a volume of traffic that would significantly impact any of the studied roadway
segments or intersections. Furthermore, the updated traffic analysis examined the internal circulation
network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause internal circulation
conflicts. It was concluded, based on this analysis, that the Project would not result in any new or more
severe traffic conditions either on public roads or internal to the Project site.
9 Addendum to the Centre at La Quin to
February 2002
Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed, based on
full buildout as originally envisioned in the 1998 Specific Plan amendment. An updated noise analysis
was prepared as specific land uses and operational characteristics of the Project are more defined at this
time. Vacant land, zoned as regional commercial, exists to the east and south of the Project site. The
regional commercial zone allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre on this property. Therefore, there is a
potential for future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses.
In order to make reasonable assumptions regarding a future exterior noise environment, operational
characteristics from Wal-Mart Supercenters, including truck delivery rates were utilized. Noise
monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by Impact
Sciences. Based on these noise levels and environmental factors, and comparing them to La Quinta's noise
standards, the resulting noise level attributable to Project operations is less than the accepted threshold
for determining the significance of impacts. Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts are expected as
a result of noise generated from the project.
10 9ddendum to the Centre at la Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
2.0 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL STUDY
1. INTRODUCTION
The Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines).
Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to
1. Provide the lead agency, in this case the City of La Quinta, with information to use as the basis for deciding
whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared,
thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of a FIR, if one is required, by
a. Focusing the FIR on the effects determined to be significant,
b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
C. Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of a
project's environmental effects.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have
a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared FIR could be used with the project.
According to Section 15063(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the lead agency determines that there is substantial
evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do
one of the following:
1. Prepare an EIR,
2. Use a previously prepared EIR which the lead agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand,
or
3. Determine, pursuant to a program FIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were
adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. The lead agency shall then ascertain which
effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later FIR or negative declaration.
11 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
2. PROJECT INFORMATION
Case No(s)Rroject Title:
General Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning: RL and RM
County Assessor's Information:
The Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan
Regional Commercial
Map Book No. Page
List of other agencies whose approval is required: None
(e.g., permits, financial approval, participating agreement)
Parcel
Site Description: (Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, historical or scenic aspects.)
La Quinta is located within the Coachella Valley portion of central Riverside County, in southern California. This
area forms the northwest extension of the Colorado Desert in southeastern California. It is characterized by arid,
sparsely vegetated desert land. The valley Floor is composed generally of sandy soils that were deposited through
the effects of water and wind erosion. Westerly winds are persistent, and contribute to extensive erosion and the
formation of blowsand activity and sand dunes. Vehicular access to the Coachella Valley is provided by the
Interstate 10 Freeway, providing an east -west linkage to the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the west, and the
desert areas to the east.
The City of La Quints encompasses approximately 31 square miles of both mountainous and desert terrain land area
in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is a community of which nearly 13 square miles
consist of protected mountain open space, parkland or golf course open space designations. Roughly 70 percent of
the land within the city is undeveloped, and much of this consists of steep, rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa
Mountains.
The Project site consists of approximately 29 acres of vacant land within the 38± acre Planning Area III of the Centre
Specific Plan. The elevation of the site is approximately 285 feet above sea level (asl).
Surrounding Properties: (Describe the surrounding properties and the effect the proposed Project will have on the area.)
The irregular -shaped Project site is generally bordered by State Highway Ill to the north, Dune Palms Road on the
east, and Adams Street to the west. Uses immediately surrounding the site include open space to the north, east,
south and west with the auto center component of the specific plan to the northwest.
Project Sponsoi s Name and Address: Stamko Development Co.
78-060 Calle Estado, Suite 5
La Quinta, CA 92253
Project Description: (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.)
The applicant is requesting approval for a 29± acre regional commercial development within the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan Area. Specifically, the Specific Plan allows the development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area
Ill under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000 square feet or a Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of .25. A FAR of .25 applied to
13 Addendum to the Centre at La Quanta
February 2002
the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet ("the
Previously Approved Square Footage'). As proposed, the applicant would develop only 334,117 square feet of
regional commercial uses, which is substantially below the development intensity originally evaluated in the
Previous EIRs. Planned uses include 19,200 square feet of specialty stores, two stand alone retail buildings totaling
314,802 square feet, and a 115 square foot gas station with 8 gas pumps.
14 Wdendum to the Centre at la Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
3. DETERMINATION
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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the analysis
on the following pages.
❑ land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑
❑ Geophysical ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination.
The basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
The proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE ❑
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 have been added to the project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ❑
REPORT is required.
The proposed Project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has El
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 the following pages, 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.
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 EIR, including revisions or mitigation treasures that are imposed upon the proposed Project.
COMMENTS:
15 Addendum to ti. Centre at LA Quinta
February 2002
To be considered by the La Quinta Planning Commission
on February 26, 2002
16 4ddendum to the Centre at [n Quinta
February 2002
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanation of Evaluations:
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 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 of the 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.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
❑
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
C. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
El
❑
❑
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
❑
❑
❑
established community (including a low income or
minority community)?
Documentation:
As stated in the Previous EIRs, retail demand analysis indicated that there was sufficient retail demand to
support the redevelopment of commercial retail buildings for other retail commercial uses should any
retailers relocate to the new commercial development in the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Land Use
impacts on the surrounding areas were not determined to be significant for any of the four development
scenarios, including full buildout of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III up to 400,000 square feet of .25
FAR. The Project was also expected to add to the growth of commercial development along the Highway 111
corridor, and further increase competition among auto dealers and other retail uses within the Coachella
Valley.
The proposed 334,117 square feet of development is less than the intensity of development previously
approved by the Specific Plan and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. As a result, the total amount of retail that could
be drawn from other locations would be reduced from the level assumed in the 1998 SEIR. In order to assess
the potential impact associated with secondary land use issues, for this proposed Project, an updated market
impact analysis was prepared for the Project by the Natelson Company, Inc. which is included in Appendix
A. five key topics associated with the economic impact of the Project were addressed including (1) whether
17 Addendum to the Centre at to Quinta
February 2002
there is sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in La
Quinta; (2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the Kohl's store; (3) whether there is
sufficient consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a larger
Wal-Mart Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 square feet of
commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the re -use of the
existing Wal-Mart store located in the City of La Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the Natelson
Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 square feet of new retail
stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants. As a result, there are no new or more severe secondary land
use impacts as a result of the proposed Project.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
Potentially
Significant
Less than
proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Cumulatively exceed official or local population
❑
El
❑
projections?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
❑
❑
❑
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
C. Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑
housing?
Documentation:
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Population and Housing impacts were determined not to be significant. The
proposed Project would develop approximately 334,100 square feet of
commercial
uses in Planning Area III.
No homes would be built or demolished as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore
the Project would not
result in any new or more severe impacts to population and
housing.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Fault rupture?
❑
❑
❑
b. Seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
C. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑171
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
❑
❑171
e. Landslides or mudFlows?
❑
❑
❑
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
El
El
Elconditions
from excavation, grading or fill?
lZi
18 Addendum to the Centre at In Quinta
February 2002
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
i. Unique geologic or physical features?
Documentation:
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Project development was expected to expose persons and structures to severe ground shaking during an
earthquake along the San Andreas fault, and possibly during earthquakes along other regional faults. No
threat of ground rupture was expected in the plan area; although, a trace of an inferred fault was identified on
the western property boundary. Additional study was suggested to determine whether it presents any special
constraints or design considerations for development of the western portion of the Specific Plan Area.
Preliminary studies indicated that the potential for liquefaction was very low as expansive soils are not
present and ground lurching was not expected. Settlement potential was significant and required special
consideration for grading and foundation design. Wind erosion potential was also very high and construction
and post -construction control measures were implemented. As previously concluded in the prior EIRs, the
site is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. Additionally, the Previous EIRs
determined that the Specific Plan development would not contribute to cumulative impacts involving
geological hazards or features on any other site.
19 Draft Addendum to the Centre at la Quinta
February 2002
The proposed Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses that was analyzed in the
1998 SEIR. Additionally, the total square footage of the Project would be substantially less than the Previously
Approved Square Footage approved by the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment, resulting in an overall decrease in
land use intensity. All grading, site preparation and construction plans would be developed according to
current building standards and subject to approval by the City. Furthermore, as the Project location is
situated on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area, issues associated with the inferred fault are not
relevant as the Project site is on the opposite or eastern side of the plan area. As a result, the proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe geotechnical impacts.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact No Impact
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
❑
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
❑
❑
b. Exposure of people or property to water -related ❑ ❑ Elhazards such as flooding?
C. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ Elsurface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑
water body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ ❑ ❑
water movements?
I. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
direct additions or withdrawals, or through
❑
El
Elthrough
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
❑
❑
❑
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
❑
❑
❑
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation
The prior EIRs determined that uncontrolled grading and site preparation activities could result in erosion
and runoff of loose soils and other contaminants that could adversely affect downstream water quality. The
developed site was expected to substantially increase impervious surface coverage that would, in turn,
increase the amount and rate of runoff and which would change the composition of existing runoff to include
more urban pollutants. The Project drainage system is planned to retain all runoff on site (up to 100-year
storm) and would filter runoff in retention areas. As a result, the analysis in the prior EIRs did not identify
any significant flood hazards or any significant Project or cumulative water quality impacts.
20 Addendum to the Centre at La Quints
February 2002
u
All storm drainage improvements would be developed to City of La Quinta standards. It should be noted
that, as with any urban Project, runoff entering the storm drainage system would contain minor amounts of
pollutants (including pesticides, fertilizers and motor oil). This would incrementally contribute to the
degradation of surface and sub -surface water quality. Additionally, grading activities would temporarily
expose soils to water erosion that would contribute to downstream sedimentation. However, through the
incorporation of standard conditions of approval, construction activities would minimize the extent of erosion
and runoff from the exposed soils. As the site is currently unpaved and exposed, development of the
proposed Project would lessen the existing site contribution to sediment runoff at Project completion. Finally,
the Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses as was analyzed in the Previous
EIRs. As the Project only proposes 334,117 square feet within Planning Area III, overall land use intensity
would be substantially less than that which was originally approved and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. With the
approval of the storm drainage facilities by the City Engineer, incorporating standard conditions of approval
into the Project's design, as well as complying with all applicable storm water discharge permits, no new or
more severe impacts would occur.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
El
❑
❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
❑
❑
C. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
El
❑
❑
cause any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation
Construction period emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds as would long-term traffic emissions.
These impacts were previously identified as significant in the Previous EIRs. However, no significant
localized pollutant concentrations were identified in the former environmental analysis. It should also be
noted that the Project was not in violation of the AQMP and therefore, Project development would not
interfere with attainment of the air quality standards within the AQMP. In summary, implementation of
SCAQMD-recommended mitigation measures, construction -related and operation -related emissions would be
considered unavoidably significant, while .cumulative impacts would be avoided.
The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in Planning Area III,
which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage as analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. It
should be noted that air quality emissions resulting from a development Project is directly related to its
intensity and scale, assuming similar uses. As the proposed Project would develop less than what was
originally approved, air quality emissions, both construction and operational, would be less than originally
calculated. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with regards
to air quality emissions.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
21
Addendum to the Centre at la Quinta
February 2002
Potentially
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Would the proposal result in:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
❑
❑
❑
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
❑
❑
Elcurves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
C. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
El
El
❑
uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
❑
❑
❑
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
❑
❑
❑
I. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
❑
❑
Elalternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑
Documentation:
The traffic analysis for the Specific Plan projected, at buildout, that between 19,900 and 20,250 average net
daily vehicle trips would be generated. Significant congestion impacts were projected at two intersections in
the year 2000, and at four intersections in the year 2005. Traffic signals were warranted at the main Project
entrances at Highway 111 and Adams Street. The proposed Project would construct street, sidewalk and
landscaping improvements along Highway 111 and Adams Street frontages in accordance with City's
Circulation Element standards. Significant cumulative congestion impacts were projected at the same two
intersections in year 2000, and the same four intersections in the year 2005. However, implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures would reduce Project and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of retail stores, substantially less than previously
analyzed and approved in the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment and SEIR. This less intensive development
would result in a direct reduction in vehicular trips when compared to higher square footages. An updated
traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed Project based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square
footages, land use (including a proposed Wal-Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in
the updated traffic analysis, the proposed Project would not generate a volume of traffic that would
significantly impact any of the studied roadway segments or intersections. Furthermore, the updated traffic
analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads and presented in Appendix B, examined the internal circulation
network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause internal circulation conflicts.
The Project, as proposed, would not result in any new or more severe traffic conditions either on public roads
or internal to the Project site and consequently, would not result in any new or more severe impacts.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact No Impact
06
Addendum to the Centre at In Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
insects, animals, and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?VN
❑
❑
❑
C. Locally -designated natural communities (e.g., oak
Elforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal
❑
❑
❑
pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation
Grading would remove all existing vegetation and would displace much of the on -site wildlife. This would
result in loss of potential habitat for one threatened species (Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard), which was
identified as a significant impact. Buildout of the site would attract urban -adapted wildlife that would
compete with native species in nearby open areas which was identified as an adverse but not significant
impact. The loss of potential habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard would contribute to a net
cumulative loss of habitat for this threatened species. However, with the previously approved mitigation,
impacts were reduced to a level that is less than significant.
The Specific Plan was approved in 1997 and amended in 1998 and as a result, the plan area has been graded,
streets and infrastructure supporting the plan area has been installed and some of the auto dealers have
occupied other portions of the plan area. This is supported by the existing regional commercial zoning
designation for the entire Specific Plan Area. The loss of potential habitat to rare, threatened or endangered
species has already been evaluated in the former environmental review process in 1997 and 1998. As the
proposed Project would not develop outside of the Specific Plan Area, no new or more severe impacts to
biological resources would occur as a result of Project implementation.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Documentation:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Energy and Mineral Resource impacts were determined to be less than
significant. The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Area
III of the Specific Plan Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage.
Consequently, the proposed Project is less intense that what was originally approved. It should be noted that
there is a direct relationship between the size and scale of a Project and the total amount of energy and
mineral resources required for the development, assuming similar uses. Consequently, the total energy and
mineral resources required for the Project has also been reduced. The proposed Project would not develop any
uses that would be inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts
would occur.
23 Addendum to the Centre at to Quinta
February 2002
IX.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
El
❑
❑
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
❑
❑
❑
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
C. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
❑
El
Elhazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ❑ ❑ ❑
health hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable El ❑ Elbrush, grass, or trees?
Documentation:
Hazard impacts, as concluded in the 1998 SEIR, were determined to be less than significant. The proposed
Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan
Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Consequently, the proposed
Project is less intense that what was originally approved. As such, hazard issues associated with originally
analyzed construction, and operational characteristics of the Project would also be reduced as there is a direct
relationship between size and scale of a Project and the potential for hazardous occurrences. As the potential
for hazardous impacts has already been analyzed in the Previous EIRs. This Project does not alter, that
analysis.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
24
Wend= to the Centre at [n Quinta
Februar�j 2002
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑
❑
❑
It. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑
❑
❑
Documentation:
The Previous EIRs determined that construction noise would temporarily increase local noise levels, which
could lead to complaints at some nearby residential areas. This impact was determined to be adverse but not
significant. The developed site would increase noise levels on and immediately surrounding the Project site,
but was not predicted to exceed City standards contained in the City's Municipal Code. Deliveries for some
commercial uses, such as grocery stores, could occur during nighttime hours when people are most sensitive
to noise, causing a potential significant impact. Project traffic would add to cumulative traffic volumes on the
surrounding street system, near several sensitive receptor locations. With the implementation of the
previously approved mitigation measures, noise impacts would be less than significant.
Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed based on full
buildout of the Previously Approved Square Footage. However, as the current Project would develop less
than the total allowable building space in a land use configuration similar to that which was originally
analyzed, noise impacts resulting from construction, operation and mobile sources would be less that
previously approved and analyzed in the SEIR. As all uses within the Specific Plan Area are commercial in
nature, noise associated with the Project would not generate any significant impacts to on site uses. However,
existing residential uses are located to the southwest of the proposed Retail B Building. Additionally,
although vacant land zoned as regional commercial exists to the east and south of the Project site, the regional
commercial zone may be developed with up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, there is a potential for
future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses. Noise generated
from the proposed commercial uses could affect the existing and potential residential uses near the Project
site.
As shown on the proposed site plan, both retail buildings A and B have been located 60 feet from the eastern
Project boundary. Given the land use configuration of the proposed Project, the buildings themselves would
serve to attenuate noise generated from within the entire Specific Plan Area to potential residential uses that
could be located to the east of the Project site. This is because all activities from within the site, including
mobile source noise, parking lot cleaning and outdoor activities, would be blocked by the retail structures
themselves from traveling further east.
Assuming a worst -case scenario, noise impacts to potential future residents would most likely result from
delivers to the loading docks on the eastern and western side of the Retail B Building. In order to make a
reasonable assumption regarding future delivery schedules, truck delivery rates from Wal-Mart Supercenters
were utilized. Typically, Wal-Mart Supercenters average 60 deliveries per week. These deliveries would
arrive at the store and either utilize the western or eastern loading docks. Each of these docks are recessed
and have a 3 foot support wall around them. The trucks would back into these docks at which time they
would be unloaded. Given that the unloading would occur within the loading dock that is recessed and
behind the truck, noise associated with the unloading process would not be significant. Consequently, the
only potential significant activities would be the trucks maneuvering into position to deliver goods and leave
the site.
Noises associated with truck deliveries usually include engines starting and doors opening and closing. Of
these types of noises, back up signals while the delivery truck is maneuvering into position could be the most
audible. Noise monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by
25 Addendum to the Centre at La Quints
rehruanj 2002
Impact Sciences. Monitoring was conducted about 25 feet away from a lightweight van, a medium-sized
truck and a tractor -trailer truck making deliveries. Over a 10 minute monitoring period, these trucks
generated a 56.7 dB(A) Lq noise level. This is a relatively low noise level. Instantaneous noise levels
monitored while a tractor -trailer took two minutes to enter the area, turn, and back up averaged 62.0 dB(A)
Leq. A small truck using a backup horn averaged 70.0 dB(A) Laq over the 30 seconds that it backed up. This
monitoring demonstrates that over an average 10 minute period, the existing noise level would be increased
by only about 0.5 dB (A) by the 56.7 dB(A) L q noise level generated by 3 trucks. It should be noted that
changes in a community noise level of less than 3.0 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear.,
Changes from 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in
noise. A greater than 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10.0 dB(A)
increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound.
The City of La Quinta's zoning ordinance has specific standards with regards to screening commercial and
loading dock areas from residential uses to minimize the effects of noise and aesthetics on sensitive receptors.
For example, § 9.100.300, 9.100.050 and 9.100.210 all include regulations that would screen the loading docks
from the potential future residential uses that could be located to the south or east of the Project site with a
wall. With a 6-foot perimeter wall along the eastern and southern property boundary acting as a noise
barrier, noise from the Retail B Building loading area would be attenuated by approximately 5 dB(A).
Therefore, utilizing the tractor -trailer noise level of 62 dB(A) at 25 feet, including the attenuation provided by
the solid perimeter wall and accounting for the distance to the property boundary, instantaneous noise levels
resulting from truck deliveries to the Wal-Mart Supercenter are expected to be approximately 51 d(A), at the
property boundary. It should be noted that actual noise levels would be less at the residential property as
they are located further than 100 feet away. It should also be noted that this noise level is not a CNEL noise
value. The city's noise ordinance allows for the land use noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for any 5 minute period.
Given that the residential uses are considered sensitive receptors; the most restrictive noise standard for this
use is 50 dB(A) between 10 PM and 7 AM. For any five minute period, such as a truck maneuvering into
position, the La Quinta Noise Ordinance allows for community noise levels plus 5 dB(A). As the resulting
noise level is less than 55dB(A), no new or more severe impacts are expected as a result of noise generated
from tractor -trailer deliveries.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
Potentially
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
Potentially
Significant
Less than
sm,ices in any of the following areas:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Fire protection?
❑
❑
b. Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
C. Schools?
❑
❑
0
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
❑
❑
❑
e. Other governmental services?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation:
Project development was anticipated to increase demand
for services by the Riverside
County Sheriff
and Fire
Departments. Both departments indicated that the Project would not have a significant impact on service
Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S.
Department
of Transportation,
Federal Highway
Administration, September 1980), p. 81.
26 Addendum to the Centre at !n Quinta
February 2002
levels in the City of La Quinta or other surrounding environs. Project development was also anticipated to
contribute to increasing demand for services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments
along the Highway 111 corridor and throughout the Coachella Valley. Plans to add a Sheriff's substation at
Kohl Ranch, and another fire station along the Highway 111 corridor in La Quinta were sufficient to mitigate
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels.
The proposed Project would be developed within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan Area. As currently
proposed, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. As a
result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and intensity than originally analyzed. Therefore, impacts to
both fire and sheriff services would be less than originally forecasted. No new or more severe impacts would
occur as a result of Project implementation.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
27 Addendum to the Centre at LA Quinta
February 2002
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
Potentially
proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the folloroing utilities::
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Power or natural gas?
❑
❑
❑
b. Communications systems?
❑
❑
❑
c. Local or regional water treatment?
❑
❑
❑
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
❑
❑
❑
e. Stormwater drainage?
❑
❑
f. Solid waste disposal?
❑
❑
❑
NN
Documentation:
The prior EIRs estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522-acre feet of water per year. The
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this demand would not exceed their current or
projected water supplies. No substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Project and no
wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. CVWD studies projected a continued overdraft of regional
groundwater supplies as the Coachella Valley continues to grow. Water storage and distribution facilities will
need to be expanded substantially to accommodate growth. No significant Project or cumulative impacts
were identified in the prior EIRs.
The Project was calculated to generate roughly 7,900 tons of construction wastes and between 2,040 and 2,400
tons of solid wastes per year at full occupancy. It was determined that if construction and operational
controls are implemented to divert wastes from landfills, in accordance with local and state regulations,
impacts would be less than significant. The Edom Hill Landfill was the only landfill available to dispose of
solid wastes from the Coachella Valley. Solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts were needed to
minimize cumulative solid waste impacts and meet the requirements of AB 939 to reduce total landfill
disposal. Given the shortage of local landfill capacity at the time the EIR was prepared, cumulative impacts
were considered significant.
The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in Planning Area III
which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Since there is a direct relationship
between the size and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total building area
would result in an overall decrease in the amount of water required for the Project. Therefore, as the total
amount of water required for the proposed Project is less than that previously required for the Proposed
Project, no new or more severe impacts would occur.
There is also a direct relationship between the size and scale of the development and its overall solid waste
generation, the reduction in total building area would result in an overall decrease in the amount of solid
waste generated by the Project. Additionally, it should be noted that since the prior EIRs were prepared,
additional landfill sites have been developed. Specifically, Azusa Land Reclamation Co, Lamb Canyon
Disposal Site and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are all available for waste disposal from the Project site.1
Therefore, as the total amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project is less and the availability of
additional disposal site is greater, no new or more severe impacts would occur. It should be noted that, as
new landfill space has been afforded to the City of La Quinta, cumulative solid waste impacts originally
identified in the environmental impact reports have in fact been reduced.
1 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/
28 Addendum to the Centre at to Quinta
February 2002
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
29 Addendum to the Ckntre at La Quints
February 2002
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
❑
❑
❑
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
❑
❑
c. Create light or glare?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation:
The developed Specific Plan Area would replace a formerly vacant area. The proposed arrangement and size
of buildings in the mixed -regional commercial areas along Highway 111 would substantially obstruct views
of the Santa Rosa Mountains from westbound lanes of Highway 111, which was identified as a significant
impact. Proposed landscape setbacks along Highway 111 and Adams Street were consistent with City's
policies for primary and secondary image corridors, while the proposed development intensity was below the
maximum allowed under the City's General Plan for Mixed/Regional Development. Proposed berming
provided along Highway 111 would not fully screen views of vehicles in regular new vehicle display areas
located between the special vehicle display pads along Highway 111 or vehicles displayed on the rest of the
dealership pads. This was not consistent with the standards in Section 9.150.L.1 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code for the screening of parking areas and the Highway III Design Theme guidelines for screening "outdoor
storage/display areas." This inconsistency represented a significant aesthetic impact. Unscreened views of
entrances in and out of dealership/repair buildings on Pads 1, 2, and 3 was also a significant aesthetic impact.
Project development would continue expansion of commercial development along Highway 111 corridor as
envisioned in La Quinta General Plan. However, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,
no significant Project or cumulative impacts were anticipated.
As discussed above, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square
Footage as originally analyzed in the Previous EIRs. As a result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and
intensity. Additionally, as the Project is within a specific plan, all building, landscape and other design
features would be subject to consistency with the guidelines established within the plan area. As a result of
the Project being less intense than what was formerly approved and since it would be constructed in a manner
consistent with other uses in the plan area, no new or more severe impacts would occur as a result of Project
implementation.
Further Study Required:
The Project's potential aesthetic impacts should be studied further.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
❑
❑
❑
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
❑
❑
❑
C. Affect historical resources?
❑
❑
❑
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which
❑
El
Elwould
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
❑
Elpotentialimpact
area?
30 -Addendum to tlu Centre at In Quints
Februanj 2002
Documentation:
Previous site surveys did not identify any significant cultural resources within the plan area. Site grading and
development was not expected to have a significant impact on cultural resources, however, there is always
some potential for buried undiscovered artifacts to be damaged during grading activities. Project and
cumulative impacts were deemed less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed Project would develop all land uses within the boundary of the specific plan. As originally
reviewed in the former environmental impact reports, the proposed land uses would be developed in a
manner consistent with the original land use configuration. It should be noted that the total amount of
building space would be less than what was originally analyzed. As no part of the proposed Project would be
developed outside of the area that has previously undergone cultural resource surveys, the proposed Project
would not disturb any un-surveyed land. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or
more severe impacts from that of the approved Project.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
❑
❑
❑
parks of other facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation:
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Recreational impacts were
determined
to be less than
significant.
There are no
residential uses planned for the site. The proposed Project would
not develop
any uses that
would be
inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts would occur.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to significantly
❑
Eldegrade
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?
C. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
❑
Elterm,
to the disadvantage of long-term,
31 Wend= to the Centre at !a Quinta
February 2002
environmental goals?
b. Does the project have impacts which 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.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ Elwill cause significant adverse effects on human El
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Documentation:
Nothing in the proposed Project would result in any new or more sever impacts, than those previously
disclosed in the Previous EIRs. Therefore, the Project would not, apart from any impacts previously
addressed in the 1997 and 1998 EIRs, significantly degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term
goals at the disadvantage of long-term goals, have individually limited but cumulatively significant impacts,
nor would it result in impacts that would cause a significant adverse impact to humans.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
32 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002