Loading...
CC Resolution 2000-047 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 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 City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of May hold a duly-noticed Public Hearings to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043 and Conditional Use Permit 2000-049 herein referred to as the "Project" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of April, 2000, at a duly-noticed Public Hearing adopt Resolution 2000-022 recommending certification of 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 approl~riate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. Resolution No. 2000-47 Environmental Assessment 2000-395 May 16, 2000 Page 2 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. 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 City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendure, on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Perkins ABSTAIN: None J H 0 City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2000-47 Environmental Assessment 2000-395 May 16, 2000 Page 3 ATTEST: City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN C. HONEYV~/4(1LL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California // -- Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Point Happy Specific Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: Northwest comer 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 9.8+ 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 descdbe 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 La Quinta Plaza Shopping Center, and on the east by the Highway 111 Shopping Center 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) ·. 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/Cimulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral 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 IORIO THE CITY OF I A QUINTA Printed Name For Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1 ) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the .project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if them is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If them am 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 Signfficant Impact." The lead agency must descdbe the mitigation measures, and bde~y 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 analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. -. , . -_ Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Signmcant unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan i I I X Land Use Map) b) Con.~ict .with applicable environmental lans or policies ado ted b X ~f.3encle. with junsdiction over the projeCtS. (General Plan Sl~, ,. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan I ~ ~ X Land Use Map, Figure 4, Figure 4 of Specific Plan) d) Affect agdcuiturel resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.1-4, page 4-15) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X I community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Figure 2 of Specific Plan) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. 2-32 ft.) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. X through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? (General Plan page 2-14 ft.) of Specific Plan) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan X EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ft.) a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant ' Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from X excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR. p. 4-41) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7, T I X I I } 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) flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) · c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water X quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document, p. 28) (Specific Plan document, p. 28) 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 if.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X (General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ft.) PotenUally Potentially Significant Les__- Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ft.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othenNise ~ X ~ ~ '* I available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ft.) '- V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 fT.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Project Description, Specific Plan document) " in climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ft.) document) Vl. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: ' :~ ' dated FebruaW ,6, 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 FebmaW 16, 2000) ~...;;... c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Specific X Plan Land Use Plan) Use Plan) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X (Specific Plan Land Use Plan) .~, Potentially PotenUal Significant Less Than Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ly Mitigated impact Impact Signffica nt impact 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 X MEA) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their X habitats (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 ft.) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? X (General Plan EI R, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4- 71 if.) : :. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (.General Plan EIR. Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69.) ~'~' d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, ripadan, and vernal X pool)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? (General Plan X EIR, page 4-71 ft.) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ft.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact impact b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ft.) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Possible interference with an emergency response X ) plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ft.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? (Specific Plan Project Description) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? (Specific Plan Project Description) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, X grass, or trees? (Specific Plan Project Description) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan EIR, X Exhibit 4.9-1 ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General X Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.9-1) -- PotenUally Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): impact eiUgated impact impact Xl. 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: d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X (General Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, X page 4-14 ft.) Xll. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4- X 27) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, X page 4-20) Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?(General Plan X Exhibit CIR-5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) I c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project X Description) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological X Lakebed Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? X (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) c) Affect historical resoumes? (Historical/Archaeological X Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? (Historical/Archaeological Resource Report, CRM Tech, December 21, 1999) -- potenUally :- - " * " Potentially Significant Less Than Significant' Unless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mmgated impact impact XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General X Plan, Exhibit PR-1) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of a rare to endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify eadier analyses 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 eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the ea~ier analysis. ' ~-_ c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Signfficant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and fie:" extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. , .: .. '.-',.:,.,, · :. ;~:~! ~: · ~..:~ :..; Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 00-395 III.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 signfficant level. Ill.f) 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 insignfficance. 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 site1. 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 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 analysed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that time to be mitigated for development ' ' ~ Geotechnical Engineering and Limited Geologic Report, Earth Systems Consultants,. March 8, 1999. at the proposed project site. The City also implements water conserving and water protection measures. Such measures sh~ll 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 Specffic Plan2. The analysis included existing conditions analysis, tdp generation forecasts, and future traffic volumes. The proposed project will take access from three points: a signalized ddveway 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 westem 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. Traffic Study for "Highway 111 and Washington Retail Center," Wildan, February 16, 2000. California Department of Transportation, letter dated March 15, 2000. .. ~ All project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at project buildout. Th~ project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the circulation system. 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 signfficantly 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 forthe 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 analysed 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. XII. All utilities were analysed 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. XIII. 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. % XIV. An archaeological and histodc resource analysis was performed for the project site4. Previous investigations had also'been conducted in 1989 and 1990. The 1989 and 1990 on- site investigations identffied and recorded two potential archaeological sites on the project site. Historic investigations on the project site in conjunction with the current archaeological investigation identffied a histodc component to one of the previously identified archaeological sites. The current investigation also identffied 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: 1. 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. 4 "Historical/Archaeological Resource Report," CRM Tech, December 2% 1999.