Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
EA 1997-337 Centre at La Quinta Final EIR (SP 1997-029)
Ilk -•��- yy i`. gip;;. THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA Auto Sales/Services Mall and Mixed—Use Regional Commercial Center FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse No.97011055 T-11 IN IMPACT SCIENCES INC JUNE 30, 1997 1j EC-MVE' JUN 3 0 1997 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 Title............................................... ,.......... ,.................. ,............................ 1 Purpose...................................... ................................. ........... ....................... A Environmental Review Process... ............................................ -- ........ ......... 1 Content and Format of the Final EIR...............................................................2 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS.....................................................................................................4 2.1 List of Commentors...................................................................................4 2.2 Letters From Public Agencies ............................................. ........................ 5 2.3 Letters From Special Interest Groups ....................................................... 51 3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS..................................................................... 53 3.1 Responses to Comments From Public Agencies ........................................... 53 City of Indio, Community Development Department ............................... 53 City of Indio, Law Offices of R. Zaiden Corrado ...................................... 73 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.............................................................. 82 California Department of Fish and Game ............................................... 88 California Department of Transportation ............................................... 89 Coachella Valley Water District...........................................................90 Imperial Irrigation District.................................................................... 91 Southern California Association of Governments ..................................... 92 3.2 Responses to Comments From Special Interest Groups ............................... 92 Coachella Valley Archaeological Society..............................................92 4.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................... 93 Pages 3-9, 3-10, Figure 5, and Page 3-14 Pages 5.4-2, 5.4-7, 5.4-13, 5.4-16, 5.4-17, and 5.4-18 Page 5.5-14 Pages 5.8-1, 5.8-2, 5.8-7, and 5.8-8 Page 5.9-10 and 5.9-11 Page 5.11-12 Page 5.12-7 I The Centre at In Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Title This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for "The Centre at La Quinta" project, State Clearinghouse Number 97011055. It will be referred to hereafter as the "FEIR." Purpose This FEIR synthesizes, in one document, by inclusion or incorporation by reference, all of the environmental information and analysis prepared for the proposed project, including comments on the information and analysis contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), and responses by the City of La Quints to those comments. The intent of an FEIR is to provide a forum to address comments pertaining to the analysis contained within the Draft EIR, and to provide an opportunity for clarifications, corrections, or minor revisions to the Draft EIR, if needed. Environmental Review Process In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of La Quinta conducted a preliminary review of the application for the proposed project and determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Permits. To solicit comments from other public agencies, and from residents of La Quinta and surrounding areas, the City of La Quinta distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which described the proposed project, stated that an EIR was going to be prepared by the City and requested input on issues that should be studied in the EIR. The NOP was distributed on January 21, 1997. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, a 30 -day period was provided for responses to the NOP. This review period ended February 24, 1997. The City requested that each recipient of the NOP identify in a written response any specific topics of environmental concern that should be studied in the EIR. Following the close of the 30 -day NOP review period and receipt of all comments, an Initial Study checklist was completed to determine the topics to be addressed in the Draft EIR. This Initial Study considered all comments made by public agencies and the public during the NOP review period, studies 1 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 1.0 Introduction and information submitted by the project applicant and their consultants, environmental documentation compiled for the 1992 La Quints General Plan Update and other planning documents prepared by the City of La Quinta. For each environmental topic contained in the Initial Study checklist, a determination was made of the potential for the project to result in a significant impact, and a "yes," "no," or "maybe" response was marked on the checklist. For some potential impacts, measures were identified that would result in the impact being mitigated to a level considered less than significant. It was determined that some potential impacts required further study in the Draft EIR to determine the significance of the impact, and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on this initial review, the following topics were analyzed in the Draft EIR: • Potential Secondary Land Use Effects • Geotechnical Considerations • Hydrology/Water Quality • Biological Resources • Transportation/ Circulation Air Quality • Water Distribution and Storage • Solid Waste Disposal Public Services Aesthetics • Cultural Resources The Draft EIR was released for a 45 -day public review period, as required by CEQA, on Monday, April 21, 1997. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR closed on Wednesday, June 4, 1997. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta has carefully evaluated a 11 comments submitted concerning the Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to all comments which address environmental issues. Content and Format of the Final EIR Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines define the required contents of an FEIR. This section states that an FEIR shall consist of the Draft EIR; comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in 2 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 1.0 Introduction summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting an the Draft EIR; and the response of the Lead Agency to any significant environmental points raised. The Draft EIR, dated April 18, 1997, is incorporated by reference. It is available for review at the office of the City of La Quinta Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. The sections following this introduction include all information required by the CEQA Guidelines in an FEIR. The FEIR consists of one document and is organized as follows: Section 2.0, Comment Letters, includes a copy of each letter received by the City of La Quinta commenting on the Draft EIR. Section 2.1 presents a list of the public agencies and individuals or special interest groups who submitted letters. Section 2.2 contains the letters from public agencies and Section 2.3 contains the letters from individuals or special interest groups. Each comment contained in a letter is numbered for reference. Section 3.0, Responses to Written Comments, contains written responses to the comments in the letters in Section 3.0. Section 3.1 includes the responses to letters from public agencies and Section 3.2 includes the responses to letters received from individuals and special interest groups. Section 4.0, Corrections to the Draft EIR, includes a copy of pages in the Draft EIR that required minor revisions to correct typographical, graphic, or printing errors, as well as minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR necessary to add useful information that clarifies analysis presented in the Draft EIR. None of these corrections represent significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR, as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS This section identifies those public agencies and special interest groups who submitted correspondence containing written comments concerning the Draft EIR, along with a copy of each of their letters. 2.1 List of Commentors A. Public Agencies 1. City of Indio, Community Development Department 2. City of Indio, R. Zaiden Corrado, a Law Corporation 3. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 4. California Department of Fish and Game 5. California Department of Transportation 6. Coachella Valley Water District 7. Imperial Irrigation District 8. Southern California Association of Governments B. Special Interest Groups 1. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society 4 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 2.2 Letters From Public Agencies w 2.0 Comment Letters The Centre at la Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 l 7 J'ii 4 PFi 1 `i7 4c> IF 11r�"10 L C I Y CLERK Community Development Department June 3, 1997 Jerry Herman Director of Community Development City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 Le Quinta,, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman - This letter transmits the City of Indio Community Development Department's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Centre at La Quinta (State Clearinghouse No. 97011055) auto sales/services mall and mixed use regional commercial report. Because of the proposed project's potential effect on the City of Indio, the DEIR was carefully reviewed to ascertain whether it responded to our Notice of Preparation Comment Letter (February 18, 1997) and to the fundamental content required to communicate potential environmental impacts to all parties, as established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the document contains a substantial amount of information, the City of Indio has concluded that the DEIR fails to address many issues, Contains substantial errors in forecasting impacts, relies upon flawed methodology, defers analysis and mitigation measures, and lacks consistent application of the cumulative impact analysis. The fundamental content of an EIR must be adequate to provide the reviewer and ultimately the decision makers, with sufficient information to adequately disclose the potential adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. The DEIR starts cut with an admirable approach in the project description, but in many situations fails to carry out the evaluation in accordance with the outlined methodology, particularly in the area of cumulative impacts. In other instances, the DEIR contains conclusionary statements that are not supported by any information and that do not meet the forecasting test set out in State Guidelines: "Drafting an EIR or Negative Declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While forecasting the unforseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." (Section 15144 State Guidelines), "Best efforts" are not impiemented for the potential CITY OF IVDIO. 100 CMC CENTER MALL • P.O. DRAWER 1788 • INDIO, CA 92202 DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ALL IN 619 AREA CODE CrTY CLERK 342.6570 • CITY MANAGER 342-6580 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 342.6500 FMNCE 342-6560 • FIRE 347-0756 • HUMAN RESOURCES 342.6540 • POLICE 347.8522 & FAX 347.43:7 PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERtNG 342.6530 0 CITY HALL FAX 342-6556 • CITY YARD 347.1058 s� CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 2 secondary land use effects, geotechnical considerations, biological resources, transportation/circulation and air quality analyses. The following detailed and specific comments outline the concerns that the City has with regard to the DEIR for the La Quinta Centre project. It is our conclusion that the DEIR is not adequate in its present form and that the DEIR requires additional content of such substantial nature that it cannot be corrected by responding to the comments which follow. The additional information needed for the La Quinta City Council to make "an informed and intelligent decision" in accordance with Section 15159 of the State CEQA Guidelines, is so extensive Aa to justify additional peer review by recirculating the EIR as a draft for public review. Prior to recirculating the EIR, the issues raised by these comments need to be fully addressed. Our concern is that without the benefit of peer review, the information presented may contain flaws similar to or greater than those identified below. P 2 kr--1 Comments The opportunity for early consultation was lost in February 1997 when La Quinta Community Developrnent Department staff misinformed Indio Community Development Department staff by saying that an FIR was going to be prepared for the project without the use of an Initial Study. When India staff contacted the City of La Quinta, to request a copy of the Initial Study after receiving a copy of the Notice of Preparation, the La Quinta Planning Manager and Community Development Director were evasive and directly misinformed Indio staff by indicating that an Initial Study was not being prepared as part of the project. Because the City of Indio was udder the impression that an Initial Study was not being prepared in regards to the project, the City of Indio responded to the Notice of Preparation by reviewing the Draft Specific Plan for the Centre at La Quinta. Approximately two months passed until the City of Indio, quite accidentally, learned the truth about the issue in late April, at the April 1997 CVAG meeting of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan working group. At the close of that meeting Indio staff again asked the La Quinta Planning Manager if are Initial Study had been prepared for the project. The Planning Manager indicated that an Initial Study had been prepared in February 1997. Indio staff then asked why the Initial Study was not made available to the City of Indio at that time. La Quinta staff did not respond to the question. Indio staff then requested a copy of the Initial Study. The La Quinta Planning Manager provided Indio staff with a copy of the Initial Study stated February 1997. Apparently. an Initial Study had been prepared and was released to the public and responsible agencies by the City of La Quinta Community Development Department in February 1997, however La Quinta staff had undertaken calculated and defiberate efforts to withhold this information from the City of Indio. Aside from the ethical questions involved in the deliberate dissemination of misinformation to a neighboring jurisdiction, the misinformation required that the 7 1 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 3 City of Indio respond to a Notice of Preparation with incomplete prosect information ,and a lack of understanding of substantive environmental impacts that had previously been identified by La Quinta staff at the outset of the project. Such misinformation does not help to create a spirit of understanding and a climate of cooperation, both of which are necessary for the sustainable econom►c development of the region In addition, the deliberate dissemination of misinformation is contrary to established American Planning Association planning practices of acting in good faith and does nothing to foster good will between two neighbors. The process of allowing an applicant to oversee the hiring of an environmental consultant and managing the process of environmental analysis results in a process which is highly suspect from the outset. Because the applicant was able to manage the environmental assessment, rather than staff managing the process, there exists an inherent conflict of interest and the possibility that the applicant may have had an opportunity to exert undue Influence over the content of the analysis contained in the DEIR. Thus, the accuracy and objectivity of the entire document, including the findings and mitigation measures, was compromised from the outset. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an agency preparing an EIR provide an objective, good -faith attempt at full disclosure of project impacts. It would be difficult to contend that the City of La Quints prepared the DEIR in a fashion consistent with the aforementioned guidelines. 2 Had the City of Indio been supplied with accurate, complete and timely information from the outset of the project, the City of Indio would have been able tQ 'respond to the Notice of Preparation and address all of the issues of concern A timely response by the City of Indio, based on unfettered access to full and 3 complete information, would have allowed the City of La Quinta to prepare a DEIR which addressed all of the project's environmental impact in a comprehensive fashion. Q11—MilO Comments Pilge 1-77 The diagram is flawed and should indicate the preparation of an Initial Study (IS). Although the IS was prepared, it was not made available to the City of Indio as Part of the "early consultation" provided for under CEQA (Public Resources Code 4 21080.3). FAgg-L- 3. Levels of significance are not referred to or cross-referenced in this section No mitigation measures are proposed. 5 Pow 2.5 Regarding the Hydrology/ Water Quality section, mitigation measures include the on-site retention of 100 -year storm flows. Such flows will be directed to 6 8 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 4 landscaped drainage areas located throughout the project. However, the Specific Pian proposes to k)Cate and display inventory in the landscaped setbacks, which are to be designed to contain 100 -year storm flows The location of merchandise in these areas will result in a reduction of the absorption capacity of the retention areas and could create a hazardous situation by having merchandise and debris 6 carried away by flood waters. The storage and display of inventory In the retention areas should be omitted from the project design for these reasons. Regarding the Biological Resources section, the levels of significance are not referred to or cross-referenced in this section. In Appendices Section J, the Biological Report indicates that many of the studies were not conducted at the appropriate time of year, Hence, we believe the Biological Resources analysis to be inadequate. New biological studies should be performed at the appropriate time(s) of year and the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the new biological study needs to be provided in a revised DEIR. P!We 26 Levels of significance are not referred to or cross-referenced in this section i 8 Given the regional Significance of the project the mitigation measures included for this area need to address impacts at the regional level. For example, the project will attract trips from the surrounding jurisd;ctK)ns, both in the eastern and western Coachella Valley. However, given that the City of La Quinta is not involver} in the CVAG Uniform Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF), the DEIR proposes to mitigate region -wide impacts on a local basis. Using this approach, it is impossible to mitigate the transportation/circulation impacts to a 9 level of less than significance. It is unacceptable to require that other jurisdictions became responsible for mitigation of regional transportation impacts which result from this project. The mitigation measures do not discuss the funding mechanism for the mitigation of these impacts outside of the City of La Quinta The DEiR's attempt to shift the burden of mitigating these impacts to neighboring jurisdictions is another example of the lack of good faith displayed by the City of La Quints throughout the EIR process, Because this project will result in region -wide transportation impacts, a provision for establishing an alternative east -west corridor to State Highway 111 needs to be considered. One appropriate alternative to State Highway 111 is tV'liies Avenue. Given that the project will generate sufficient trips to require the creation of an alternative to State Highway 111, the applicant should be required to 10 replace the Miles Avenge bridge over the Coachella Valley Storm Drain, which Is located in Indian Wells. Another alternative is to widen Avenue 48 and connect it as a four lane travel arterial between Jefferson Street and Adams Street. Lastly, to reduce congestion along Highway 111, a north south connection will be required between Avenue 48 and Miles Avenue. The construction of a bridge on Adams Street over the Whitewater River Storm Channel should also be 11 considered as a potential project mitigation measure to improve circulation and is an important means of ensuring that locally generated transportation impacts are 9 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 5 mitigated by facilities capable of mitigating regional impacts of the project to a level of less than significant I 11 Lastly, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program needs to be developed as part of the DEIR. Without this document, the call for a TDM program is deferred mitigation. 12 -7 The concentration of nine automobile sales dealerships in a single project combined with the creation of a regional commercial center in.a single location will result in the creation of a regional hot -spot for CO2, CO, NOX and PM -10. Creating a hot -spot for air pollutants in an EPA certified non -attainment area (see DER Page 5.6-3) which is directly adjacent to a residential community and an educational institution should be considered a significant impact. Mitigation measures for this project should include the relocation of La Quinta High School and the Adams -Truman School and the new elementary school proposed by the Desert Sands Unified School District near Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street away from the hot spot. Alternative mitigation measures include moving the project to another location away from the large number of school age children which are sensitive receptors. Because the magnitude of air quality impacts is directly proportional to the size of the project, in order to reduce the air quality impacts of the project to a level of less than significant, it may be necessary to reduce the scale of the project by 50% or more. The Aesthetics section indicates that project impacts will be less than significant. However, this finding is not consistent with the depiction of the visual corridor in Figures 25 and 26. According to these computer simulated views, the pristine views of the Santa Rosa Mountains will be destroyed forever. Goal 6-1 of the La Quints General Plan (Page 6-10) states "The scenic resources of the Coral Reef and Santa Rpsa Mountains lasting in perpetuity." However, the computer siMulated views of developed conditions in Figures 25 and 26 directly contradict this General Plan Goal. In this instance, the scale and massing of the proposed structures is out of context with the historic development patterns along State Highway 111 which, in the City of La Quinta, has historically been single story construction. Should the applicant desire to build to the maximum height allowed by the development standards for the Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) land use designation, setbacks greater than the minimum of 50 feet will be necessary to protect the scenic vistas and uphold Goal 6-1 of the La Quinta General Plan, in addition, in order to adequately '"softs " th 13 14 n e views created by the massive and imposing structures from passersby, a heavily landscaped perimeter is necessary, The inclusion of two 48 -Inch box trees per 20 feet of pro)ect street 15 frontage is an example of an appropriate mitigation measure. 10 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 6 The project objectives are not adequately described. Please define and describe "fair return on investment_" What is the scale of the investment? 16 The site plan included is not of sufficient detail to adequately assess and analyze the environmental impacts. The extreme lack of detail on Figure 4 requires that dangerous assumptions be made regarding the scope and nature of development on the protect. For example, where will parking be located? Where will handicapped parking be located? Where will the landscaped retention areas be located? Where will bicycle parking be located? Where will transit facilities be located? Where will Pedestrian faciiities such as walk ways, bathrooms and other accommodations be located? Will parking be covered? Will parking be otherwise shaded? This information should be addressed in a revised site plan. By not including such information in the DEIR, a complete analysis of these Impacts is not Provided and thus they are not factored into the development of the rnitigation and monitoring program. As per Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, a good - faith and objective attempt at full disclosure is necessary in the DEIR, An inadequate site plan that poses more questions than it answers is not "full disclosure." Furthermore, the project conflicts with City of La Quinta General Plan Policy 4- 1.2.1 (Pages 4- 7) which requires that the habitat of threatened and endangered plant and animal habitat be classified as ©pen Space (OS). Given the findings of the Biological Study (Appendix E) that many of the individual surveys were conducted at the wrong tune of year for the given species, the presence of threatened and endangered species on site has not been ruled out. Thus, the analysis is incomplete. The DEIR needs to be sensitive studies can be performed at the appropriate timeofyear. In ddition. Project mitigation measures should require that some portion of the site remain undeveloped and be designated as open space. Figure 4 does not conform to the La Quinta General Pian requirements for open space In a given project. La Quinta General Plan Goal 4-5 (Pages 4-9), requiring (Ia network of trails linking and providing access to open space areas" is not addressed in the EIR. A project of this size, scoPe and magnitude should not be allowed to fail to address such a critically important element of the General Plan. In addition, the La Quinta General Plan Parte and Recreation Policy Diagram (Pages 5-7) identifies Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Fred Waring Drive as a Pedestrian Hiking Corridor. Because of the nature and scope of the project, one which will continue to foster dependence upon the automobile, it is appropriate for the protect to include the pedestrian hiking corridor along Adams Street as part of the on-site improvements required by the City. 11 17 18 19 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 7 It is indicated that "special events" will be conducted on a regular basis at the site. The term "special event" needs to be defined in order to determine the Impact of these events. More information is required !n regard to the frequency of these events. how many people and vehicles will attend these events. the length and duration of these events, trips generated special lightening required, the measure of lumens used in lighting, and types of lighting including lasers. 20 What procedure is required for approval of special events? Will they be approved by the Community Development Director or require the approval of the City Council? In adaition, such events require that transportation models be r"lculated to determine the traffic and circulation impacts of these events. P 0 In regard to Circulation and Access, Highway 111 has been designated as a Closs III Shared Facility in the La Quinta Bike Pian. This is not mentioned in the Project description or in the Transportation/Circulation element of the DEIR. 21 Figure 5 needs to be revised to indicate that bicyclists will be sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. pge 3-'12 Regarding Art in Public Places as required by the City of La Quinta City Municipal Code, the EiR needs to identify where art will be located. Will the pieces block and obstruct views of motorists, thereby creating dangerous 22 conditions at project intersections? P e -15 In regard to the Specific Plan, most of the comments provided by the City of Indio were not responded to in the revised Specific Plan, The Specific Plan contains major inconsistencies in relationship with the land use designation and 23 the General Plan. Please refer to the February 18. 1997, Letter from the City of Indio in Appendix C of the DEIR, 3 While the CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program is mentioned, the mitigation measures fail to include the program as a mitigation measure for regional transportation; impacts. Due to the regional significance of the project and its likely impact on valley roads, the project should be required to pay into the CVAG TUMF program. There is a clear nexus between the project and regional transportation impacts resulting from its development, Thus, the mitigation measures should include improvements to the regional circulation system above and beyond those currently planned as mitigation measures. Potential mitigation measures that should be evaluated include, widening, reopening, repairing and paving existing and proposed corridors of regional significance such as Adams Street, Miles Avenue and Avenue 48. Both Miles 12 24 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 8 Avenue and Avenue 48 require the construction of full bridges across the Whitewater Storm Channel. While the mitigation measures require that the Project contribute to the La Quinta program, this does not compensate for use and wear of transportation facilities region -wide which result from trips directly 24 attributable to the project. In addition, both TUMF and the La Quinta program should be described in detail. EPQE4-5 The SCAQ regional Mobility Element nates that land use and site design should Include bicycle and Pedestrian improvements, yet these are not included in the site plan, in the Specific Plan or in the DEIR, even thought the site is adjacent to 25 Class III Bicycle facilities. P c .1-1 The introduction notes that the "section is devoted to a discussion of potential secondary land use effects that may result from economic effects associated With the first phase of the auto dealer mall proposed for the western half of the Project site." Given that this is a three phase project, this prelude indicates that the analysis is, at best, only one-third complete. In order for the analysis to be accurate and comprehensive, the study should also include an assessment of Phases II and III of the project. Given that the site plan, as proposed, contains a total of nine auto dealer sites, as well as a mixed use commercial center totaling 400,000 square feet, these project attributes need to be addressed in order to examine the full range of Potential secondary land use impacts to the City of Indio. The City of Indio currently hosts nine new -car auto dealerships, Given that the project is designed to host a maximum of nine dealerships, the potential secondary land use impacts of all nine of these businesses leaving the City of Indio must be included in the DEIR. In an earlier project planned for this site, the La Quinta Canyon Center was designed so that a number of large Indio -based retailers would be part of the project. Specifically, the project included the three largest Indio retailers, Sears, Harris and JC Pennys, which are all presently located within the same Regional Commercial complex at the intersection of Highway 111 and Munroe Street, who would cease operations in Indio and move to La Quinta, Given that tho La Quinta Centre project has the capacity to absorb these three retailers, and that the Previous project proposed for the site was designed to include these businesses, as well as the fact that the City of La Quinta and project proponents have previously taken steps to misinform the public and the City of Indio about the profew, the Potential secondary land use impacts of these businesses leaving the City of Indio in order to became part of the La Quinta Center must be included in the DEIR analysis. A DEIR must be a full public disclosure document. ?R2ELL 26 27 While Upon appearing COMPrehensive. the which Section 5.1 is Natelson Company Study (Appendix .1), based, is incomplete. The methodology of the I 28 13 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 9 Natelson study is fatally flawed. Aside from the lack of a description of the Methodology in their report, this analysis does not include the three major Indio retailers likely to become tenants of the project. Furthermore, the analysis only includes the four Indio auto dealers publicly committed to the project Given that 28 the project is designed to house nine dealerships and that the City of Indio Possesses nine dealerships, this oversight means that the analysis is fatally flawed. For the record, in the project EIR, please answer the following questions Is it the intent of the City of La Quetta and/or Stamko Development to attract Indio businesses such as the auto dealers and other existing businesses into the Proposed project? If this is not the intent of the City of La Quinta and Stamko 29 Development, would these parties be willing to enter into a legal contract with the City of India stipulating such? If the City of La Quinta and Stamko Development are not willing to enter into such an agreement, why? The proposed market afea analysis provided in Section 5.1 of the DEIR is similarly flawed due to oversimplification and the exclusion of the western Coachella 'Valley from the analysis. The analysis needs to be expanded to include the western Coachella Valley and the High Desert. The legend of Figure 10 indicates that primary market areas respect municipal boundaries, an assumption critical to the analysis, However, this assumption is inconsistent with established standards of economic forecasting and analysis Generally, the analysis is conducted using concentric and overlapping units of analysis, such as one, three, five and ten mile radii from the central paint of a given project. For example, while the La Quinta Center will be located in the eastern Coachella Valley, automobile sales occur as a result of pricing, comparative shopping and purchase negotiations. There is no logical reason to exclude consumers from Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Palm Spring, Desert Hot Springs, Joshua Tree and Twenty-nine Palms from the analysis. Thus, these areas need to be included in the market analysis. Given that two distinct types of shopping activities are co-iocated in this project, two distinct market analysis should occur. Distinct consumer behaviors are associated with bath types of economic transactions proposed to occur on site. it is unacceptable to use a single market analysis for such disparate types of economic activities. Ea e .1-5 30 31 Because of the flawed methodology of the Natelson study (Appendix J) Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 are flawed, These figures are inaccurate. It is counterintuitive to use 09% as a finding in any table. Table 9 indicates that apparel, furniture and sPOciahty items are not being sold to consumers located in Regional Market Area #1, which is a highly questionable finding Table 10 indicates that consumers 32 from Regional Market Area #2 are not purchasing apparel, furniture, specialty or convenience goods in Indio. This finding is also counterintuitive. An informal survey of shoppers asking for their residential location following a purchase will 14 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 10 indicate that the information contained in this analysis is untrue. This analysis needs to be removed from the DEIR. 32 Page .1-11 Given that the methodology of the Natelson is flawed, it is impossible to determine the land use of the project impacts without first revising the Natelson 3 3 Study. Pa�2-22 The science of geology is in its infancy. Special studies. of Alquist-Priolo zones in the area have indicated that the site has been inactive for approximately 10_oUo years. Because of the recent period of inactivity, the site may be "over -ripe" for seismic activity. The finding of an "inferred fault" at the site should ,provide ample warning that seismic hazards could occur at any time on the site. In orcer to Prevent the construction of a large scale, four story commercial facility on a 34 potentially dangerous site, a 500 foot no -build setback zone should be declared on each side of the inferred fault as a standard mitigation measure for any proledt proposed on an inferred fault in an Al+quist-Priolo special study zone. This mitigation measure is necessary in order to prevent the unnecessary loss of life Efte -6 Figure 11 is incomplete in that while it indicates the location of landscape and retention areas, it does not include information about the type of soils and their Percolation renes, which can be crucial factors governing the ability of an area to retain and absorb stormwater flows. In addition, the map does not indicate the 35 plant materials to be used, the overall size of the area and the dimensions of specific landscaped areas. Hence, Figure 11 must be revised to include detailed landscape information, This data should not be deferred to a later date EAJe__. 4 - 1 The biological study is severely flawed. Several studies were not conducted during the appropriate seasons Furthermore, the study should be expanded to include regionally significant species and species proposed to be listed which were omitted from consideration from the first study. In addition, the study fail, to indicate whether the site is located within a wildlife emigration corridor. The section is basest upon the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis conducted by Jaynes Cornett. In that study, Cornett states that several of the studies were 36 conducted at an inappropriate time of year for proper observation. In addition Some plant and animal species may be dormant due to persistent lack of rainfall in rec*nt years. Specifically, Moth the fiat seeded spurge and the milk vetch "may have gone undetected" because the plant surveys were conducted in the fall. The milk vetch is proposed to be listed as a threatened species by the federal government. In regards to animal surveys, a number of species "rimy occur on site but were not deteoted during the winter survey.~ Again, these surveys need to be 37 is a 1 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 11 conducted during the proper time of year. It is unacceptable to conduct such studies when the subject bioioglcai activity is lova. The stuay notes treat in regard to the flat -tailed horned lizard that "field surveys conducted during the spring and earty summer might reveal the presence of this lizard." This species is presently proposed to be listed by the federal government The biological study made one recommendation which is not contained in the DEIR, which stated that the applicant should "enter consultations with US FWS and CDFG to develop a habitat conservation plan for the flat -tailed horned lizard and Coachella Valley milk vetch." This recommendation was not included in the DLIR. The April 17, 1997, consultation of the City of La Quinta, on behalf of the applicant, with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan working group, indicated that a number of species proposed for listing either as threatened or endangered species (Palm Springs pocket mouse, the California ground squirrel and the Jerusalem cricket) were not included in the biological study The working group found that: 1. The observations were not conducted at the correct time of year. 2. There was not enough rain in the pervious year for many of the plant observations, given the ephemeral nature of indigenous plan species. 3. The mitigation plan should include funding for the multi -species habitat plan and land banking mitigation which will occur as a result of the plan, 4. Protocols which exist for proper observations may have been ignored or disregarded (i.e., seasonally, time of day). 37 38 For the aforementioned reasons, it is safe to conclude that the biological studies are fatally flawed. These studies need to be broadened to include the additional species that were not included in the original study_ All studies should be 3 9 conducted at the appropriate time of year. sae .5-11 The La Quinta Bike Route Flan indicates that highway 111, contiguous to the site is designated as a Class III shared facility. The CVAG bion -motorized Transportation Element (August 29, 1995), in Figure 1013, designates the adjacent portion of Highway 111 as part of the proposed Primary System. The Primary System provides regional connectivity at all points along Highway 111 as well as from either side of the freeway, Because of this Class Ill facility's significance in the regional transportation program, all project analysis should include bicycles and other forms of non -motorized transportation For this reason, the Transportation/Circulation element of the DER is flawed. All traffic models should be expanded and rerun to include bicycle, pedestrian, transit and non -motorized transportation as part of the analysis. However, these modes of transportation should not be combined in the analysis. 16 40 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 12 . 5a-3 The City of La Quinta required that the applicant submit a TDM plan as part of the project mitigation measures. in order to adequately address the strength and benefit of the TDM plan as a mitigation measure for project impacts. the plan must be included as part of the DEiR and not deferred to a later stage of project entitlements. Pitoe 5.5-18 liven that Table 17 indicates the project as proposed will result in four intersections operating at deficient levels of service (LCIS) F, an alternative to Highway 111 needs to be established as a mitigation measure. However, Policy 3-2.1.3 of the La Quinta General Plan (Page 3.14) indicates "the City shall establish intersection Level of Service ZI as the minimum acceptable Level of Service." Thus, the DER states that the traffic impacts of the project will violate the policies of the General Plan Furthermore, the traffic models used for this prciect did not examine the most basic of assumptions in this matter. The refurbishment of the Miles Avenue Bridge, which has not been operational for several years, must be considered in the traffic impact analysis. Such a secondary route is necessary to relieve the overcrowding and congestion on Highway 111 The reconstruction of the Miles Avenue Bridge should be included as a mitigation measure for congestion along Highway 111. Please see response to DEIR page 2-6 above. Page .5-23 1 41 42 43 The mitigation measures should include the provision for bus turnouts and covered, electrified misted bus shelters, with emergency safety tele- communications systems to encourage alternative transportation modes. In 44 addition, the TDM pian must be su6mitled with the DEIR. -B The analysis of air pollutants lacks the pollutant CO2. Figure 21 indicates that the Lake La Quinta residential development is immediately adjacent to the site The SCAQMD has indicated that the project is likely to result in the creation of an air pollution "hot spot" for CO2, NOX, CO and PM -10. The project is located immediately adjacent to Lake La Quinta, a residential community, and the La Quinta High School, Adams -Truman School and a nearby elementarlr Proposed by Desert Sands Unified School District. The SCAQNID has indicated that the project could: • "interfere with the attainment of the Federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.. ' • "generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hotspot or prolllect Gould be occupied by sensitive receptors that are exposed to a CO hotspor, 17 45 CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 1? PiLge 6.2o The mitigation measures indicated in the DEIR are both unrealistic and unvnforceabie. Additional landscaping and trees are necessary to reduce and absorb air pollutants generated on-site. Sensitive receptors such as the La 46 Quinta High School and the Adams -Truman School should be relocated away from the site. Page 5.6-26 The section notes that there are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce emissions to below the SCAQMD recommended thresholds of 47 significance. Page .11-5 Figure 25 is not consistent with General Plan Goal 6-1, Objective 6-1.1 and Policy 6-1.1.2. The figure is not an' accurate depiction of what is to be constructed, However, an accurate depiction of the project is necessary to determine the aesthetic impacts of the project. The project, as currently Proposed. will obscure views of the Coral Reef and Santa Rasa Mountains. In order to preserve such views: 1) the applicant needs to rework the scale and 48 massing of the project reducing the height from 46 feet tali directly adjacent to State Highway 111, Adams Street and Dune Palmas Road,; and 2) larger setbacks are required immediately adjacent to project boundaries Highway 111 Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. g_9neAuvion The DEIR for the Centre at La Quinta (State Clearinghouse No, 97011055) contains fatal flaws that are so extensive and pervasive that the document is inadequate for the City of La Quints to use in malting a decision on the project. These flaws include faulty assumptions, fauftyrnethod+ologies, inadequate information, inaccurate information, unsupported conclusions, and un - implementable implementation measures. A major overhaul of the document is required before it can meet its information requirements discussed at the beginning of the Comments. The City of Indio identified several issues that were totally ignored in the DEIR and that are essential to the understanding of the proposed project's potential adverse impact. We strongly recommend that the City of La Quinta consider the comments made in this letter and conduct an extensive revision of the DEIR When revision is complete it should be recirculated because the scope and content of the revisions will require another peer/public review to ensure that the information contained is adequate to make a decision on the proposed project. Please notify the City of Indio of any meetings, hearings or workshops scheduled on the proposed project, including Planning Commission and City Council hearings. When the City of La Quinta completes the responses to comments on the revised DEIR, we wish to be placed on the list to receive copies of these 18 49 so CENTER AT LA QUINTA PAGE 14 materials. Also, when the mitigation monitoring program and any facts, findings and statement of overriding considerations are completed, please make a copy available to the City of Indio In a timely manner that will allow review and 5 0 comment on these critical CEQA documents. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document and if requested. will assist the City of La Quanta in addressing some of the complex issues addressed above. Please contact Alex Meyerhoff, Assistant planner at (760) 342-6500 x528 if you have any questions or wish assistance. cc: City Manager City Attorney File J:"""'ldevd4PPVSWX l6UOMAgcsn4.dx Sincerely, Byron Woosley Interim Community Development Director/ Interim City Engineer Alex Me rhoff Assistant Planner 19 Low ofj5ces of CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS ROBERT L. PIPM MICHAEL A. CPNM IRWIN L. OOLDS MARIE A. aOCRNEWICH AIMEE L. RELLISSWO Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Community Development CITY OF LA QUINTA P. O. Box 1504 La Quints, California 92253 73.350 ALESSANDRO DRIVE SUITE 200 PALM DESERT. CA 92260 June 4, 1997 TELEPHONE: (760) 862.1111 FACSIMILE: (760) 776.4197 � r V11 q JUN , 4 f r99r C'TY OF LA001 1 A ,, I AN Ilkle, -__ - Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report Re The Centre at La Quinta Dear Mr. Herman: I have attached hereto copies of comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report re The Centre at La Quinta prepared on behalf of the City of Indio. These letters are identified as Exhibit "A" being a letter from Mr. R. Zaiden Corrado to Mr. Jerry Herman dated June 3, 1997, and Exhibit "B" being a letter from the City of Indio to Mr. Jerry Herman dated May 30, 1997. Both Exhibits "A" and "B" are incorporated into this letter in their entirety by reference. Please be advised that Granite Construction Company and Mr Jay McQuillen incorporate the content of Exhibits "A" and "B" and adopt them as their comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report re The Centre at La Quinta. Thank you very much for your attention, RLP/cgc . cc: Jay McQuillen 'IPrw-*+wo w.u.IjI . V.* i:1 20 FAX 'TRANSNSSIVN Ysw Uffk= of R. Zia Corrado 90 Z1159 CbdPaa■ Arecae, Suite "C" Oran% CA 12s" (714)2864M Fix Na: (714) 2SS-Sm To: Robat p Pax k (619) 7764197 Pim: Nbbed Evans, Amin" to ha suldarel DW. )vile 3.1997 P4a; 25 oEl�fFa JUN - 4 1997 f CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT SuNca: C to Draft M*wm=W Tma" Report Re rm Came at La Q�=tx C1+1FI+i`S: EMlBr r.,, 21 ria alma SOMMAL, RMO"NAKA04MA tww exrrexa OF ALAWCORPOL43M ao1MrCNA i"VAVV= ""C' OKAXX cALVOU" gm June 3, 1997 Mr. Jwry TIMI mM11 Ditaft of Co m x*y pMrmkpnord CRY of La Qui" P.O. am 1504 La Quff t, CA 52253 MUM&wAOM frame•ftmvm ni.rr Cbmamw A "Qft m4? Fes: waaw+ Re- Commwft to Drat Env" m, mttel kMxug Repoo t Ra The Centre nt Le CMnta These coffvmwft are MAYMW on behalf of to City of Indio. 011110m1a, its r"dsrtft +crud tax-paywo, the Indio City Council, and RedevelopmeW Apncy of Ow City Of India (0011180iv* "Ineio") regarding the Draft EnvVw#Twdal Impad Rept for 1h1 OWft St Lat"ft (Iwrelnelter the'DEIR"). 5 15121(a) Of the 3teta Guidelines for Implementation of the Califvmia Enr►k ntal Ou@My Act rCEOA j ems Lath ft purpose of an Eft "M EIR ke an Wmi,mgkx dvcum&W which will inform public agency deolsiot- M*ws and tha public Qenaraly of the sinficant envim mental stied of s Pr*ct, WNW Possible ways to minimize the signft tt raffeds, and deambe moble mennatives to V* Protea- Guidelines § 15121(a). 22 1 P& k" l Dit+ w of OMMM r D"depam City OrLa C,oEMCw tv Iw Dw CMM art L& QWM ftPlait2 As a D PrgMW 1, Ow loyal of diwussion in an EIR must be evli"t &I 10 ao" CEQA's public ktfamwtWrwI purposes. An EIR must emtise Ow public to .. .. . t . . ... . :f FutVW, Bn Elf; mug fit forth tha tits for its dxtclttsiors; a bwe conclusion Witf an +r l"tian of it#t fsdu*l and anialyticall basis is not a suMckwt analysis of an impid. L aural Ha ghfs lmprpv+enterrts flss'n r. RleMtts of uanrv. at CW.. (19M) 47 Cal.3d 378, 4t?4, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426, 439; Smarr V. Swrd of SUPNV*M, (1979) 88 +C19.App.3d 3971 151 CW.Rptr. 965. As tha fbllvong =Mwds I, La Quirfe's DER f olls short of this isgai standard. L LA OUNTA l" IMPUMINSIBI.Y PFREDETERIMOY ED ITS DECISION LA QUINTA, as the'Lead Agency, has impermissibly predetermined its decision to ° ilii Fx Oidd r69wdWM of th+tf significant onvirunmerdal Impects. An obvious d thiols pattam Of PredaterminMiorr Is the exeartt,r n WhYew LO Q nts and D+�� COIWY, ft project dewtoW, of a Menrrww4um of ung IMOU) MAWng &wn=V and (OspOtive responsibilities for Le Quints arld Stwnko for VO darelopnrerrt of project~ this MOU wus axectASd I& to completion Of this DER A lawsuit has been filed by the Stamico seeking s court t ruling that 1) the Pr's dog not triolata i prior se ttieffmm agr ownent between Lo Quints and Woto whwlby La Ou"s SWOW riot to build an auto mail in its jurisdiction with tax inort msM 23 1 i✓7 J lwt. imy H u Di -actor of onummiq c1W of La Qsim Ooor MM a DW 1 *r cN tte at L Q== PvV 3 d 12 kx W and, Vm the fltww b medwrcm Por the projed is legally sound. M court dacurrw is filed In that acWn. Swfto and Le Quk to have &*rKwle4W d*r wmm*rwittatheproilm This iff"ni�sslbie pvfaWn*%Mon violaW this 2 prevrpt of CEQA fast all wrrirmnerft *cW be Wlequately consktered bB(V dedsiono we made. Sm, e.g., Uixem of GoWe V00y v. &Mrd al SupenriaM (I M) 52 C41.3d 553, 501, L THE AM QVAUTY Cif USMN OM NOT COMPLY WffH tyEQA The DEIR tails to adequately address aril quallty =wwems which May WWI* a. Indic is the nearest sigrKimr tly p9pvWed c ty to Ow ps yet this DEIR folds to OMNI" haw the ernissom geretrarted from thv pi*csad sato mall 3 and =mWcfal aerttw may affect. Indra parrticulatly. The DEIR should ad imm kOds marts fully. b. The DEIR [aIle to consider any nwasLre to redum omfssions by 6% a Year b wmm onrnptia m with aurmrd state standards in tho Southeast Desert Air Bassin. ft ;prix. 5.6-21 of DEIR [MWg*tW Measures for Ar 4 irrtp*Cts we rat rsgiArad but am "re+tx z rrwtd+ej Sm, e.g. Kinp County Fwm &mmw v. City o/ Herrlba (19510) 221 Caf.App.3d 882, 270 t:ompir. aw. 24 W. Jor+Y TV-rm-w Dim dCaMMMiry CIO, du R+aSKI 0 DM 7U CkOM Of Ia QUMM Psp t d iZ Q Cu vAstho hT pacts: i An EtR's valuation of dffMative kr p Kb may be based on a list of paest, present, and reasonably forgeable knure pnaja t pKvdttcinq mtoW Impacts, WKe udlin g "ecft daMido " lead agarvWs c=* , CEQA Gk ide linraes § 15130(b}(1)(A). Altarratively, an ENS analysis of ctxwLMive impeats may be based on a senrnr wy of 13MOCOOM in an ac#drptad gowal plan or related plswaraing dooxr*M them swat sd" f%iWW or ereewide conditions_ Pub. Res. Coda f 21100(d); CEQA Gluidalirns § 15130(bx1)(8). LA QUWT►A dims rat comply wffh either §15130(bK1)(A) or 115130(bx1)(S) of tf* Wdeelines. LA QUINTA merely raileEs on the wrrisalon fmcasts of the South Coast Air Quality Manger,mmit District ("SCAflMl I corttaiifed in its Air Quality Manaq*mw4 Pian rAOMP') (2."e I?EIR, pp. 5 -G -W to 5.&21). Such a reliance on a Plan wigmt a focus an than currWO * conditlons is improper. Sw ONy of Anhoch v. Qty Cound Of ft C Y ofPWhtl? (1998) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 232 Gal.Rptr. 507. A bion of cumulative impads shQuld include, by way of exannple, Pf4aaad dr4o[Oprraants, proposals for tare vom4Wion of ft onrrum"cial stte►s, dxarr011 Proiected bion of rw w housing wttP*n the La Quirlfo I TU aMMON~ is der weft oft ra qwt to MmuJ7wM i it Mwain sWic" a as sadrs DM into& w >L Dt hill b dry PONdul UMMM sN CaVAAMIve hm bwd as t eWd! q aoaffit km bon rubor mim to LOr NLdoo 25 5 W Jary If I Dka*or s(Commuf* DwvOqmm CIWI(LAQWM CMMdgft fa Ow no Come a La QWw INOSOM am, ard any utw pro)ed ~ might ~ air quelfty. By way of *pea c war**, ft OOMQ.XXX site VW IS sirmlyzed as a POSSIbft -WWnWft location' for the pvmpd should be Ckwined in ft DEIKS dlwj*Wm of cumulative Inspacb. This site has been PrOAXWY awnwed I purawt to a conVrehw*ve specific plan (Specift Plan 117-011] " Calls br the d&v*kvnm* of a 775,000 square foot Malift"wrw6al 00W See, DEIR, page 7-13. LA QUINTA also failed to W faffl their ability to emply with the Cie" Air Act. d. The diveLmsim of pr*ctimpapas and axkmi" krosets with r"pect jo W4 fails to analyze the gff*cU of the p*wt with dw actual physical anirirOMIMMit as It exhft today. The DER instuad impr y analym W wroaft bawd on tWpothM"I axdlois reffec*V b%AkkxA uncier OdIft WN use en menta and maximum Warnfiam miar builftA conftkxn of to Ge(wM Plan and AOMP ftmooft. 0. The mftom uwaw"s for ser Mpbeft &* not bWirV W mWft Ild which iff*wopwiy defer any analysis of the a ff a Von v%PMKMkA me of RX:h Mitl%WiOn measum. Sumhftm v. Courdy of Aftndo*r" (10e) 202 CalAppld Z96,246 Caf.Fq*. 352. 'Vine ad 'Promodwe In evock" ift Oslo", LA9 QvkftAwc I 26 naevi dC==Uff* Deix:eaa 64' Qua Qeieee b A'm The Omn est 1A Qdit hFfd12 11. THE WATER RMURCES DISCUSSION HOES NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA The DEIR fella to adeqmte:ly aften Me quality and supply of water in Ow !+pian. Y+II'ater Is sa■roM In this arae and thw * is no quwvitee that cx,rrrant woterr supplies will be evaftft to h.rff'Ill all of the rtes in the basin. The I?EtR t niza that Ow is a coved 'omtraft` situation with reaped to water suppries: 63% mart wow is being dram from they vaWs vrdwground supplies Ow is befit replaced wwvj■Ily and if this current trend continues, the 'overdmfr condition is anticipated to ire�nsass to 50% by ft year 2015. Sees DEIR, page 5.6-2. Additionially, no upe aft reebw prdQrom Is included In then proposed projeO. See DEIR, pages S.M. MOWN 410 Kwtlrg tt facts, the water irm " are deemed inftntflcant because 1) they Po0Ct would ovrrsumw has water' Ow is contemplated as W of the maximum taakkxA scsrrsrfa f&xW in Le Ouinte's { enemi Plan; and 2) the Coachella Valley Water Distrk s rt`.vwcn wixviectivxw I emicipmeld such a dwnvw. The mve m fed that a proposed pnojvct Is consistent with an adoptettf Owwrral Plan doers not mean tf* Its affrc'ts 00nn rt be elgnlflcant. City of Antioch v. City Ccvr4* of the City of PMVbury (19M)187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 232 Cal.Rptr. 507. Z The dfxxsssion of prc)edt Impacts and aunulafty impacts with respect to wvW fails to analyze the effects of that pno ect with the se" physical environment as It 10 OXh is ladey. The DEIR instasd imprvpody arty "es water irnWcts based on !fie QWWL4M 27 a. )a" UK== C1q►4(L QQiAk C7 wmmlb tau= The COMM It L QWCM ,Pape 7d 12 hyporlhrOW cadbqs reflvdhV buikW under a OkV land use errtitfernents and rttaadrrarrrt operaMms urKW b4Ak$N t ooii#I+" of me Gsraertal Pian mid 'WD)vC hone 10 Melded by thee CVWD. The DER fwetar fails to idea* arra dismm ft following: 0. nw DER is vague for nct cwefully wmlyslrrg the ramfiloatlorrs of to 11 pobarrtial urwnn IeWfity of the water from the CVWD. b. The DER falls to address how water replaomortt mein will be I fsiw oed by LA OUINTA. The DER also fails to address from which sources the rep%canwrft warier will mane, whadw More is an additio sl sctrroe, how nNimWe rm" sources we for r+ arplatarr#errt, maxi hm OWOP68t V water from tho" som;es would ~ ovarelf warW quentity or r ile In the basin. There is no disc mion or w4derme t* water is, or WNI las, av&Md)b for pur&mm ars repkmwT ent water. See, e.g., Knpr t' wnty aFmm Owmu v. Cary► of HarrftV, (IM) 221 Gai.App.3d 6sii2, 270 Cal.Rptr. OW. The DER dees not *taste what tris a would be If r*pleoasrmW* wataec Muld not be obtamd elthar tonVoradly or parmnr. Nor does the DER aomrrrertt on how n,tch rsplacs~4 wat vmuld be treated (e.g., Woast rfeM plant or nartut I parcdetior). Titan bra ho" the polorrtial to ser•Irxrsly mislead the public rw■r dk t w adequacy d LA OUINTA's r000mnm art Kog(m. 28 12 I►!r. July 1. - - lap► aru Qvbn OMMMM m DER Tae Cam at la Now heid12 a is tt'N nearerrt signftwitly populatod dty to ft project, yet Me DER falls b addrass how the proposed pro)ed would ham a pernnsner t InVed an the waft- eupply in the Indo area even thcgh the DER admits that 13 #We aw tee 1ous overdraft prnblarrrs and a oonftft dephWon of water ston" in tha Coec t*la Valley. d Tlw DEAR does not take into account that a fully functionft auto mall with Ow danders and oocrrrr nmol comer with up to 4t30.WO sq. It, wou$d 14 CELM suNUetttal growth in ttw area whieh would coup PAw depletion of WON rae urm. s. The MIR gaits to p"Mde any intdr etion with mg a r the Sto"Mveter Polluttort IRMO rt on Plan (SWPPP) with adaqurrte xpw:t" DEAR. Pa. 533 7). The DEIR moldy states in gor*ral the issues Out a SWPPP 15 win addr-ss and leaves to tater for ft estatal rihrnent of ids. This irtadK&OCY WiOLMly curtails the Wbiltty of tha public to v lm ==m regw(WV lfr0se contmis. f. The DER faits to state in its divaAWon of Hydrology " Water Quality, hOW OYwP-OmXv on aquifer can contamirtate the ontirm underground vMW SAW and contwnW*e current PotabW water sources and the 16 txxmequ ems of such oonttarnination. The overpumping of the aquifer Is aPpOwIt *crrtt the DEIR's disc ion that rmv is a curnertt "vverdrW V Qia�c�c 29 )& sm s*- . Direr d(CO Wally cjw art&C Wz" CONDON to Dt:9t mm cmWm ae L Cha Pair 9 of 12 idlwtk)n with reuped to water su;*101: 637E more water is beim drunrn Rom the vslhy's undm9round tsuppNes than is being repleoed armually and If this a rant trerst aomrKm, #A -"NWW condition is artfidpated 16 tDWmrmn*1*W%byth0y9W2015, ThISPOWMadmw s hould be ,, , mmnd inmore d*Wl. Q. CUMUW" bads- An EIR's evaluation -of cumulattvr Impacts may be based an a list of past. prtseM, errd reasonably foresftYbhe future proMM pr'oducJn l related in'rcts, irx jdinp pMeeft &. tsido the lead agencys ocrtW. Guldelwms f 15130(bx1)(A). AftenvdtVaty, ttn EIR"s analysis of cumulative impacts may be basad on a sumrrrary Of prnyftia w in an adopted parasol plan or rela ed planning document three w2lu2tal reCkmW or areeewft conditions. Pub. Res. Cole § 21100(d); § 15130(bX1)(E). LA QUiNTA does not amply with e0w §15130(bj(1)(A) or §15130(bXIXB) of fm Guide4irms. M. PKMNSf9TENCY VM APPLICABLE PIANS 13 NOT PROPERLY t]MCUSSED 17 An EIR muss clam m any kwormim r-ccies between the proposed projed and appilcoble l * pWm am regiorwl pians. Guidellnes 915125(b). A conflict behvem t!'er p(and an errvirorrmerrtal provision of a Umeral or rxpkwW plan will 18 rmmefty by ovideo of a sign?+cam environment ems. CEOA Guidellrms, App G; Sirs. Junin+ . Waf+er Dfst. v KG LAnd Cal. Corp., (1991) 235 Csl.App.3d 1652. 1668, W QWiW dW 30 fir. ysrry t�� Dwour 01�ofVQuft ONNNew 10 vM pop 10 4f 12 1U.Rptr,2d 787, 778. Consistency with exMing pfwm must therefore t* eanvigAd. "Ex*W In tftis carmad awatu Wnd :use designations poor to the Ill CUINTA Spe etic 18 Plan. The inoDrt Wwocy ovuid be anvil bafto the pmpo"d pmt can be spPro+red. V. LA QUINTA'S DRIMISISI)N OF PROJECT ALTERKATIVES IS RMEQUATE L3arWWiy, an EIR must descr" a rw of reasortabla albrratmes to the pmpwaed profit, or to trt focatkx% MW oould foes4bly stuin Vw pact's okt0dives grief It roust OVOUlft the oorrtlrarative rants of each alternative. Guldelirws j 15126(d). Th* sPadhc afterTMANs Of "no hrwject" must also be w atyzW. Guk*lines § 15128(d)(2). The range Of alternatives that must be aelyzed 1n an EIR Is govemsd by a *Mft Of immorl," cndw which the EIR is required to set forth only ttw of ematiues neoeaaary l0Parrott * rs&=wd choice. An EIR must dia4xm project alta rains even N the prafed's sigr� anvir�tal Impacts will be ov*ided or reduced through MMQativn MOSSOeS. See, Leumi Hfthta Impm enwt Assn v. Runts of Univ. of GW, V9W) 47 C49.3d 378, 253 Col.Rpir. 426. As the discussion below IndkMes, the HEIR he$ failad to •de*nhWy discuss these aftemativea. 19 a• H2 EMW Mealdi . The No Project analysis is #tarred in two respects. I The No PmojW alternative must csvnsicW cwxMKw* that preceded wndkkww Is neoessmy to provide ,a uniform baseline for assessrr*M of 00 ms's irs4md as well as the an`acts of not approving it County of 31 I Mr, imy j1a DWckx of Cc - w iq De"*opm w Civ dLtQwAk Cbmteft to DE, T1e cmm sc Lt Qw= Ftw11d12 Inyrca v. Cly ad Los Arepsfss (1981) 124 CAW 1, 9, 177 CR 479. The O'"Mil project In this COW is to QUINTWS w*Cbmt of tw Specific Plan 20 liarfcee, the No Proj" alternative must consider conditIOM prior to ties Proposed Speeft Plan. rA •' ■ 9104wft SiV&wwO &&mrw kf$m ft Or f"X*t to insignificance,iy i1 t{.•% .Rpi•. a.a 1JE01L� IM dmm. m ISIN(dX3). By analyzing an 47�*!Y 200cent 540, Ow DER makes AAknM Of goals t'...aF. ,a. rl•. 71 •, , t• • t. a71r. recimfionj 4 ming to ft extern ttW it sWes MM uch a soler ado we uld resutt in a mdWion of sales tax reams by 25%, The DEIR tails t0 Oxku* VW ttm Qm-wrt Vgect C811m for mftrb,xwmont to the da w4a w of an pro� gwwMed "as taxes up till 32,885,000.00. NO . the DER said indicme if, and how, a 75% redt4k , of ttro size Of the P w R impact tyre viability of the project. The DER mW PrOsw* raesrxN" arternatives to the proposed Prc jed but w w" a arisen of #0 p CAM viat"lity with a MOM* tris of 25% sal" tax is Qaleaa`ek1c m"Snues, the puifaiie is urable to ei+sWmine if ft s Melly is a rxummt4e 32 22 Mx. Jul Haum Dim=r c[ MW13 Dcydgxamw C7q O(Ls Qubm lODm Mw Ows x Ls Qt*w Par 12dn Ownel#vs whidi M&ws or elmirm des the emkonmental T of this t as requ ,edl by C*ms of GoWe va@y v Bost i of 5upervism 22 (1900) 62 Ca1.3d 553, 6C4. Ila key ima is whettw the seteoion a4 discussion of aitornativers kWm l kftivesc! dw*Sion m kft." Gs i"ine s § 15IMd)(5). In this 23 cm, the Reduced Density Projed alternative contains improW wmpWions- VL vMWxr IMRAM M IWMO Gr:.r.r R ZAMEN CCWRADO, A LAIN COMMTION .b.. a.rwa.i. Esq. L griMLc 33 United States Department of the Interior FISH ANN WILDLIFE SERVICE 9-M1081001 Services OULAW Field Off cc 2730 LA= Avenue Wcjt CorkbW, Celikvnia 92008 June 4, 1997 Mr. Jerry Herrman Cvrnmuwtity Development Departrnen: 7$-405 Calk Tampion P-0Box 1504 Lal Quint, CA 92253 Re: I?rtR ErMronm►ental Impact Report for The Centre at LSI Quints Projcm, Riverside Catrnty, C4MO nia Dear Mr, Hain n: Tho U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft 1~nvironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the propvscd The Comm at ,La Quinta Project In the Coachdla Valley area of Rivaa'do Caursty, C 1iFornit, dated April 18, 1997, and we have the fallowing rOMMcnts. Thos 57 am project site is located at the Southeast wetter of Adams Street and State Mghway III, in the City of LG Quint& T10 entire site will be graded, all existing vegetation Wl be MnDVW, and any wildlife on-31le will be displaced, The project will consist of an auto sales and nal[ ort the western half and a trtixed-usc commercial center on the eastern half of the site. Ttee site is bordered on the north by cvrnmerc-W enrsrprises, on the south by residential develvpuruat, on the east by fruit groves, residential and commercial developments, and can the west by Washington Street and developed propiertie9, Despite the past development in this area, the 9110 comaurts Native habitat Of value, to sCnsitive spetiies endemic to the Coachella Va",ley. The DEIR reported that field survey" wcre cvndtuclod on December 27, 28 and 29, 1994, by Jam Cornett for plant and wildli f species. Crwcndolyn Kenney conducted a recoruua gaanee level gold survey ort Februaty is, 1997, astd focused plant surveys on Apn1 10 and 11, 1997. The laggerhoad :shrike (lanlus hrdpvickatrrrja) and Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel (Sjper"Mrr ilrr� rerelic "i$ chlOrw) were observed on the project site during the 1996 surveys The biologi,re.] surveys a180 dcterrr ned t+Putt the project site Contained suitable habitat for the fodenlly threatened Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma in&rnaja), the proposed federally threattrned flat.te3ed horned lizard (Ph►t*wwmamcalliil and the proposed federally endangered Coachella Valley milk -vetch (Astraguhtxlenfiginosus var. cvachellac) 34 1 Mr. Jerry Hem= The proposed project site Is located within the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Mitigation pee Area for the Coachella Valley ffing,c-taut lizard. The project will be subject to mitigation Pecs in acoordwwo with ibe HCP. This nvtig;etivn foe is used to purchase fringe -toed lizard habitat and targets only 9inoe-trod lizards. HnwaVer, the krill of habitat for tlat-tailed horned lizard, CoacheAa Valley milk -vetch, or other sensitive skies would not be covered in part because the re3em system for thrtOsrhella Valley f inge-toed lizard is not largo enough to conserve these DIW spmicti. Additic'nsl tniti Zion would be required to offset impacts to other senshve spemes until ongoing rnultTle;specim planning allows the melding of the steeds of these species under one prop= The 19% site lurveys wart'co &W1ed during a time period not generally considered condscitie to observing flat -tailed horned liatrds. The Service recotrarnencs that focused surveys for this spatia be conducted from mid-May through September. Fla. -tailed horned lizards are knouT to oc,wr let the vicinhy of the pr(bect site. Survtya fbllo",ing the proto00I developed in tl a Flat - MOO Horned Lizard Rangewlde lyl"gerrtent Strategy Plan (prepared by the Flat -tai ied Horncd Lizard Worldq Croup Interagency Coordinating Corrurtic.ee) are needed to determine the presence or absence of the spode:. One of the benefits of doing addltlonel surreys and addressing ads►easie impacts to proposed spocies is that it may be powibic to avoid c.oriilicts that could dsrnlop ahtruld a proposed apedes bvuo:nc lilted before the project is complet;d. Scrondly, these sutwyx will provide additional infarmatiort to our special databe°se and the planning effort for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species HAbimt Conservation plan. I Although fbcuscd plant survey's were conducted on two days in April, the Service recommends that another floristic survey be conducted at the appropriate time of year for the following apeciss: between Febtuary and May for the C08chdlt Valley tt IU -vetch and the ribbed cryptattthR (t'>Planfha costala), between February and September for the flat •scedod spurge (Chamrnrsrcv pltrty4wwa)'between Much and May for :he slender wooly -heads (Nomocauhs denudala var. gracmx); and barweta Cccernber and March for glandular ditaxis (1)itaxis clartr w). Preferably them atTMY dates a read throughout the blooming season should be conduatA to detarnine the preser$-e of the qve special status PlInt species, 7't,e April 1947 surveys. depending on conditions this year, mmy be too late for dctection of flo�,vcring Coachella Valley milk -vetch, ARh wgh the flat -tiled horned lizard and tl',t Coachella Valicy milk -vetch were idenUed in tho ©RIR, to poterrU&Uy occur on the sato, no mitigaziorv'compenwion were developed to cfl'set project gelated irnpacta. Prot related impacts can be both direct and indirect. Indirect impacts include frAgmentation and isoladort of'sa;tahle habitat. We v50 are afrrcarntrd about ot'ha declining sensitive resources that may occur vn the prQlect site, ruch as the Palm Springs little pocket Moura (,perCggrarf:ux !o»gtmemhrfs brrn, ,i}, Coec1ie11a OW rand treader cricket (l4tcacmi near valgum), Coulbella Vallcy )em saiern Cricket (S1#F'gx1a0tuscahru1aensf5) and the burrowing owl (Allwne evnicularia), Thcr'a was no 35 2 3 5 .T Mr. Jerry Herman mention in the document as to their preserve or ebrence, any determination of sig"Tcauce of impacts. or any ani:igation recommendations, These particulu spocies are cansidcred tar,gct 6 rpm for the Coschrlla Vailey Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and should be addressed in the EIEL The Stroh.* rocsmMends that the City of La Quinn address throw concemt so that rninhrn zatioq Of the irttfaacts to these species by the proposed project can be incorporated into the project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report 't85 yet to adequately address potential environmental irnpac:t.s on the biological resources for tba proposed project, Impacts to sensitive species, x tsrtici,,larly 7 those that could be fated in the near future, should be adequa+.ely d sclosed. rnirdmizad, a=id offset. The Service tney provide additional oarnmen!s in the future i; nc:u infcrmation is provided conurning the proposed project. Thr Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the refbrenced Draft Environmental Impact ROPOrt far The Centre at La Quinti► Project and rooks forward to working with the City of La Quints to annue that project impacts a<,e adequately diaeIosed orad :niti�ted. If you have any gveatttit s or c rnm�ents, please cotrtict Jt anrtte ?4iw of my staff at (760) 431-9440. 1-6-97-HGZOS cc' CDFQ, Indio (Sharon Keeney) 36 Sincerely, t l C. Iobcticitd Supervisor �7 F FISH AND GAME Region 5 330 Golden SWT0. Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (582) 590-5113 Mr. Jerry Herman City of Le Quints 78495 Celle Tampico Ls Quints, California 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: June 4, 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Report The Centre at La Quint& Project SCH 97011055, Riverside County Ganem r v' Lull_ it ji JUN - 9 1991 v CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced document, relative to impacts to biological resources. The 87 -acre proposed project consist of an auto sales mall and a mixed-use commercial center in the City of La Quinta (City) in Riverside County. The flat -tailed homed lizard (Phrynosoms mca!!ir), a federally proposed threatened species and California Species of Special Concern (CSC) may be found within the project boundaries. Biological surveys conducted for this project did not include focused surveys for sensitive wildlife species. Surveys must be conducted with 1 a reasonable intent to locate sensitive species. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day, are required for the flat - tailed homed lizard. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 15380 provides that a species of animal or plant may be treated as rare or endangered even if it is not included in an official list. This section has been interpreted to mean that sensitive species should be treated as though they were listed, if the species meets the criteria for listing as 2 described in the section. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), therefore, must include appropriated avoidance, mitigation, and compensation measures for impacts to sensitive species. The proposed project is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Mitigation Fee Area and, as a result, is subject. to the fee of $600.00 per acre. Payment of this fee as mitigation for impacts to the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata) , a federally threatened and state 3 endangered species, is not adequate compensation for impacts to the flat -tailed horned lizard. The mitigation fee was designed to compensate for impacts to the fringe -toed lizard, not for impacts to other species. This HCP is not a multi -species plan. Therefore, additional mitigation will be required if the horned lizard is found on-site. 37 Mr. Jerry Heenan June 4, 1997 Page Two In summary, the Department recommends that the proposed project not be approved until a comprehensive evaluation of the biological impacts and mitigation 4 measures have been prepared. We request the City notify us immediately upon approval of this project. We Also request the City provide us with a copy of any CEQA administrative appeal processes or procedures which may be established. In addition, we request a copy of the notice of determination be mailed to the above address and faxed to the Department within 24 hours of its issuance by the City of La Quinta. Please fax copies to Ms. Sharon Keeney at (760) 347-3580 or Ms Lilia Martinez at (590-5192). The Department appreciate this opportunity to comment on the project. Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Ms. Sharon Keeney, Fishery Biologist, at (760) 347-3145, or Ms. Lilia Martinez, Environmental Specialist III, at (562) 590-1830. Copy: Ms. Sharon Keeney Department of Fish and Game Indio, California Ms. Nancy Andrew Department of Fish and Game Brawley, California Wis. Dee Sudduth Department of Fish and Game Jamul, California Mr. Jim Dice Department of Fish and Game Borrego Springs, Califomia Mr. Kevin -Bary Brennan Department of Fish and Game Idyllwild, California 38 Sincerely, 'icia Wolf ng Regional Manager STATE OF CAtI►ORNIA—&AW*SS, TRANSPORTATMN AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WIL50N, Coromor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 81 P.O. SOX 231 SAN BERNANONiO, CAIOCRNIA 92A02 TDD (0091 M3 -l990 ([� � �LV E n lr -JUN - 3 1997 May 29, 199 e✓ITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEtARTMF-NT 08-Riv-1i-3.2 SCH #97011055 Mr. Jerry Herman Director Commeunity Development Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: EA97-337, SP97-029, PM28525 & DA97-002/ The Centre at La Quinta We have reviewed the traffic study for the above project and have the following comments to offer: • The proposed intersection of La Quinta Center Drive with State Highway 111 located approximately 1/4 mile south of recently signalized Adams Street intersection appears to 1 be properly located for future signalization when warrants are met. Warrants for new intersections shall be used. The project does not propose intermediate access to the state highway. We welcome development of a Memorandum of 2 Understanding with the city of La Quinta for management of access points and types in this area. In the absence of a traffic signal at the project entrance provisions for median refuge area for vehicles 3 making left turns onto the state highway for the interim condition should be implemented. 39 Mr. Jerry Herman May 29, 1997 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, Original Signed By Robert G. Harvey ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning CAK:cI CC: Mr. Chris Belsky, State Clearinghouse ✓Ms. Christine Dii.orio, Planning Manager bcc: Ron Helgeson, Plan Coord Unit, DO:'P Naidu Athuluru, Encroachment permits, RIV Co. Amin. Khalili., Highway Operations, RIV Co. 40 TIl,R ESTAILISHED IN 1918 AS A PUILIC AGENCY jA 1�t COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 'OST OFFICE Box lobs • COACIIELLA, CALIFORNIA 9n35 • TELEPMONE (610) 30&2651 ONECTOM OFF"" TELLIO COMM. PWNKNT TNOMASE.LEVY. COMM MANA IR•CHIEFENGINEER RAYMOND E. NIA00II03. Via FK$VENT UR1NARD114L SMON. SECRETARY J"W.HNIADOEN June 3, 1997 OWENWOOOLASVVMTGENERAL AUNAGER 1xx1 "IL NOCNOLS REI]1:PNEANDWRMLL,ATTORNEYS TNEGLIM J. I& Jerry Herrman City of Ls Quinta Coam=Lty Development Department Post Office Box 1804 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Centre at La inta Project File: 1150.14 JUN - 9 1997 �LJ CITY OF LAQUIN iA PLANUM 'CEPARTME NT We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Centre at La Quinta. The section entitled, WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE. requires 1 major revisions. The section erroneously states that the district does not have an urban water plan. The report accurately states that the aquifers in the valley are in a state of overdraft. However, the figures quoted in the report range from highly 2 suspect to misleading to erroneous. The report also erroneously indicates that the project site is located in the "upper basin." The district is currently preparing a water management plan which will address the long-range water needs of the Coachella valley. It is anticipated that increased demands for water will be met by a combination of additional 3 imported water, conservation (both urban and agricultural), increased use of recycled water and additional recharge of groundwater aquifers. The project, as described, would have a minor impact on the overall water 4 supply of the Coachella Valley. We request that the authors of the environmental impact report consult with the district staff in order to rewrite the WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE 5 portion of the report to correct the many inaccuracies contained in the draft report. The report also does not address sanitary sewer service to the project. The 6 district is the provider of sanitary sewer sNervico to this area and will TPIUE CONB904VATION USE WATER WISELY 41 Jerry Herman -2- June 3. 1997 provide service to the project. The project will require the installation of additional facilities to obtain service. 6 Please contact Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292, to schedule a meeting with district staff to resolve these issues. JSC: Wi\Nq\w1\..y\h•srn Yours very truly. Z:�0�� Tom Levy General ManaSer-Chief En ineer COACH ULA 9All[T WATIR OI=TAICT 42 RM IMP RIAL D ' I - SIR I C1 ..�..,M•.�• ..,.�...,,,.. r .. _ . ,,.... COACMELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 01-000 AVENUE SO • P. 0. BOX 1010 • LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 02253-IOBO TELEPHONE ($19) 390.5054 • FAX (010) 301-5000 IIPD-DDC Ms. Christine Di Iorio, Planning IV City of 14 Quint& P.O. Box 504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 June 2, 1997..10'I :j JUN - + 1997 CITY OF LAQUINTA t' A�''NING; DEPARTMENT Re; EA97-337(EIR), SP97-029, PM 28525 & Dev. Agreement 97-002 The Centre AutoMall, southeast corner of Highway 1 I 1 and Adams. This letter is a follow up to our meeting on April 10. Below I have outlined the topics that we discussed during that meeting. The Imperial Irrigation District (District) will initially serve Phase I (Parcels 1-5) and Phase 2 (Parcels 6-9) of the Centre Auto Mall from the overhead distribution lines that are presently On the west side of Adams Street. An underground circuit will have to be constructed by the developerlowner/contractor under Adams Street in the vicinity of Avenue 47 to connect the Centre Auto Mall to these overhead distribution lines. This underground circuit will be part of a future circuit tie that will go though the entire Centre Auto Mall and join with future projects either to the east or to the south of the Centre Auto Mall property. The District will also install an underground crossing of Adams Street, in the vicinity of the entrance to Lake La Quinta (Via Graxianna), to the southwest portion of the Centre Auto Mall. This second crossing of Adams Street will serve as the alternative source for the underground system until such time that the major circuit tie can be completed to the south or to the east of the Centre Auto Mall. The ultimate electrical service for this project is planned to come from the southeast corner of the project. It is not foreseen that an underground system will be required along Highway 11 l to the east of this project. However, this can only determined when the plans and electrical demand for the area to the east of the Centre Auto Mall is known. The Phase III portion of the Centre Auto Mall (retail stores) is not presently scheduled for construction within the next four years. The District has sufficient substation capacity to serve the Centre Auto Mall. However, when the Phase IIl portion of the project is completed, it may be necessary for the developer/ower/contractor to pay for the installation of an underground circuit from the La Quinta Substation (located at Avenue 48 and Jefferson) to serve the project. Whether this circuit will be required will be dependent upon the electrical load of the Auto Mall and the projected load of the retail stores in Phase 111. The electrical load of the Centre Auto Mall and the retail stores by themselves may necessitate the construction of a dedicated underground circuit from La Quinta Substation. This can only be determined after the electrical demand loads are known for this project. 43 1 2 3 Ms. Christine Di lorio 2 June 2, 1997 If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (760) 398-5818 or John Salas at 398-5834. Our fax telephone number is 391-5999. TFL:nl CC: Enrique DeLeon, IID John Salas, IID Mr. Julian De LaTorre, P.E., MSA 44 Sincerely, Thomas F. Lyons, JR.,P.E, Senior Engineer J 14 11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS May 9, 1997 City of La Quints Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Mr. Jerry Herman •- it .4 15 1997 1 ,1 PtANI�rT, Jc I)SpA"! MENT RE: Cormnents on the City of La Quinta, Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Centre at La Quinta - SCAG No. 19700175 Dear Mr. Herman: Main office Thank you for submitting the City of La Quinta, Draft Environmental Impact 818 West Seventh Street Report for The Centre at La Quinta to SCAG for review and comment. As 12th Floor areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with Los Angeles, California regional plans. 90017-3435 The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the t (213) 236-1800 proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. If you have f (213) 236-1825 any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Floyd at (213) 236-1960. www.scag.ca.gov Sin Y11, C ss: Presides[: SupeM1sor lady hAkcls. 5-, a County - FIM vice Pr-deriv Mayor Bob R t. C[t, of Monrovia - Second Via Pre i(kin sull"U Ytnnne Grath—M Burke. Los Angeles County - Immediate Past President: Mayor Dick Kelly. Palm Desert VFVIANE DOCHE-BOULOS dhm. o. Manager, Intergovernmental Review, peFrohp C ofWsA VIM Y%catne Brathwaite Burke. Los Angeles County • Richard Alarcon. Los Angeles • Richard Alatorres Los Angeles • Eileen Anson. D k d & n r • Sob Bartlett. A{waana ' iiCnfBe B ehI • Sue Bauer. Glendora •Hal Genoa, Liss A n • R{a— Bfattde. Los Angeles - Robert &6 '. Roremrad • f utra Chick- los Aaegetn •. John Crawley, Cerritos - Hector De UTorm, South Cate • Doug Drummond. Long Beach • John R is. Ws Angeles- Michael Feuer' Los Angeles - R Galante-. Lcs Angeles • Eileen 154 am GVyale • µclam (;Mdbeeg, Los Angeles - G"Wid F` 7syaa, dnglewood • Make Hernandez, Los Angeles • Nate Holden, Los Angeles - Barbara Messina. Alhambra • David Myers. Palmdale - G.nntNakano. Torrance - Pam O'Connar. Sana ca - Jenny propwu. lung Berth - &aance P Pico Rfeera •Mak Ridley -Thoma, Los A Jes - Richard Plum n. let Angeles - Harelne Spew, Compton • Ray Smith, BellRmver • Rudy Svonmch, Los Angeles - Joel Wachs. Los Angeles - Rua Waiters- Los Angeles • Paul Zee, South Rna C R of orange: William Steiner, Orange , Y - -sere Apnda- San Clemmi, • Rrm Boer, Los Alan — • Art Bmwn. Buena Park • Jan Dehay, Newpon Beach - Richud Duton, lake Forest C"'• Ar' LtaakeYama, la Palma - Iky P"TY. Brea C ty of Riyerride: lamer Venable. Rawinle i• Nr nis Draeger. Cabmesa • Deck Ray, pBt—Drwn • Ann L. ndge, Rise:sufe • Arid ra Puga, Corona - Ron Robens,Temecula Cooney of San aeirmajdWot Larry Waller' San k itd,ua County • Bill Aloiirder, Rancho �"onga - fans Bagley. T"Fitvn,ife Palms - f ,. jrc Iknneu. Cult- - David €lmossan. Farttans A—crane Miller'. San ik n dtno • Gwerm Nonce. 9vrrx Chino lfdh 45 qf Vcneara:ludY Mlke]a,Yeniwa Caunry Fox,Thoufand bake •John Mellon. S+nia Tsai Ystmg, Pon Hueacanc Mr. Jerry Herman May 9, 1997 Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF LA QUINTA THE CO'ZFR.E AT LA QUINTA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i I I K"8630tial ,31 a1C[1i7►1 The proposed Project involves the development of an auto sales and services mall, totalling approximately 275,040 sq, --re feet and a con t•► -al plan for future development of a mixed-use, regional commercial center of up to 400,000 square feet, on 87 acres of land. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Adams Street and State Highway 111, in the City of La Quinta. INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June 1994), Regional Mobility (adopted June 1994), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain moth core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter. The Regional Mobility Element (RM`E) constitutes the region's Transportation Plan. The RME policies are incorporated into the RCPG. Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the project with those policies. Consistency With Regional Comurehensive Pian and Guide Policies 1. The Growth Management ChWpter• (GMM of the Regional Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to this Project. a. Core Growth Mwwgement Policies 46 1 Mr. Jerry Herman May 9, 1997 Page 3 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SLAG in all phases of implementation and review. SLAG staff comments. As SCAG has designated subregions, the project is situated in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments subregion. Implementation of the project would result in the creation of approximately 700 jobs in the auto portion of the project and from 800 to 1,600 jobs in the retail/mixed commercial center. It is not specified in the Draft EIR, now marry of these jobs would be new ones or transfers from existing jobs, lime those from relocated auto dealerships. This employment growth is consistent with SCAG's forecast for the La C, luintalCoachelia Valley area. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. SCAG staff comments: The Draft OR notes that no significant extensions or installation of capacity -enhancing improvements to water, sewer, electricity, natural gas or storm drainage infrastructure are proposed or required for this Project. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. b. Ancillary Growth Management Policies 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. This project as noted previously reduces the cast of infrastructure construction by relying on existing infrastructure. The Draft EIR acknowledges support of this SCAG policy on page 4-6. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR details actions that support this policy on page 4-5 and 4-6. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact. SCAG staff comments. The Project is designed in a manner which will minimize adverse environmental impacts. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. 47 1 Mr. Jerry Herman May 9, 1997 Page 4 SLAG staff commonts. Discussion of mitigation measures for most of these environmental factors is addressed in the Draft EIR. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions inb the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG staff comments.. The Draft EIR acknowledges support of this SCAG policy on page 4-7 and pages 8-3 and 8-4. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protech.on. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges support of this SCAG policy on pages 4-7 and 4-8. The Project supports this RCPG policy. 2. The Regional Mobility Chapter MMQ also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption. promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies in this chapter are the following: 4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management programs along with transit and ndesharing facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall program while recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions. 4.03 Support the extension of TDM program implementation to non -commute trips for public and private sector activities. 4.04 Support the coordination of land use and transportation decisions with land use and transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a part of the entire package. 4.05 Support the use of market incentives as a mechanism to affect and mods behavior toward the use of alternative modes for both commute and non -commute travel. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges support of these SCAG policies on pages 4-5 and 4-6. The Project is consistent with the four TDWRCPG policies. 4.20 Expanded transportation system management by local jurisdictions will be encouraged. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges support of this SCAG policy on page 4-6. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. 48 1 Mr. Jerry Herman May 9, 1997 Page -5 4.27 Urban form, land use and site -design policies should include requirements for safe and convenient non -motorized transportation, including the development of bicycle and pedestrian friendly environments near transit. SQAQ staff mmments, comments,The Draft EIR. acknowledges support of this SCAG policy on pages 4-5 and 4-6. The Project is consistent this RCPG policy. 3. The Air Quit y Chapter (AQQ core actions that are generally applicable to the Project are as follows: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveledlemi~ssion fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. SCAG staff Omments. See staff comments on policies 4.01, and 4.03 through 4.05. relative to transit and TDM services. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. Conclusions and Recommendations: (1) As noted in the staff comments, the proposed The Centre at La Quinta is consistent with the appropriate core policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and supports a number of other non-core policies. (2) All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. 49 1 Mr. Jerry Herman May 9, 1997 Page 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities, the Association is: 1 Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and zomprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(8)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(f)-(8) et seq., 23 C.F.R. §450, and 49 C.F.R. §613. The Association is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. • Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b) -(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(a) as a Co -Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. • Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506. w Responsible, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. • The authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). • Responsible for reviewing, pursuant to Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. s The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) • Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). G Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. Revised Jerry 19, 1995 50 2.3 Letters from Special Interest Groups 2.0 Comment Letters 51 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 MAY OF 1997 LJ CVAS Goachelia Valley Archaeological Society May 1, 1997 Mr. Randy Nichols IMPACT SCIENCES 30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, California 91301 818; 879-1100 Review of the Drnft Environmental Impact Report for the Centre at La Quinta Project Dear Mr. Nichols: We have reviewed the copy of the draft report referred to above and sent to us by your office. We feel that it is only appropriate for our organization to comment on one portion of the rpnort_ the "APPENDIX I Cultural Resources ,Assessment." While the Cultural Resource Portion appears to have been adequately addressed by -,the site records review and reconnaissance site testing, conversations with long time valley residents indicate that portions of the project site may have produced a number of Indian artifacts to local collectors in the past. This information could indicate the possible need for closer supervision of the site during grading than would be indicated by the records review and site testing. We recommend that the presence of an on-site Archaeologist be considered during all phases of grading. This site might be a good place to consider having an archaeologist present during the 1 geotechnical testing phase to monitor (possible even screen) some of the drill cuttings/backhoe dirt brought to the surface during field testing. The report copy you sent has been placed in file to aid in evaluating future reports from this area. Very truly yours, _HPAiie_Faual�trcchi CVAS President (1.4-- tLan-Y M. Quinn CVAS Vice -President CA RG & REA cc: Mr. Jerry Herman, City -of La Quinta, Community Developemnt Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, Po. O. Box 1504, La Quinta, California 92253 CV ASCLQP.LTR Post Office Box 2344 • Palm S rings, CA 92263 • 619/773-2277 A Nm-'apYt�� ow=&adon 3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS �.1 3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 3.1 Response to Comments From Public Agencies City of Indio A. Community Development Department, Letter of June 3,1997 Response to Comment I The City of Indio was mailed a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) on January 20, 1997. Thus, the City of Indio was given the same opportunity to provide a response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR (NOP) for this project, as every other entity who was mailed a copy of the NOP, as well as the general public, which was notified via a public notice in the Desert Sun, on January 25, 1997. The NOP described the project, its location, the probable environmental effects to be analyzed in the Draft EIR, indicated that project materials were available for review at the City of La Quinta Community Development Department, and requested input to help define the scope and content of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. In addition, it was noted in the NOP that the City of La Quinta would prepare an Initial Study to document the results of the EIR scoping process. This is consistent with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, which indicates that attaching a copy of an Initial Study to an NOP is discretionary. It should also be noted that preparation of an Initial Study is not required under CEQA. Section 15063 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an Initial Study is not required if the Lead Agency can clearly determine after a preliminary review that an EIR is required. As stated above, while not required, the City elected to prepare an Initial Study after the close of the NOP review period. A detailed and annotated Initial Study, describing the results of the City's EIR scoping efforts, including consideration of all comments submitted in response to the NOP, was completed on March 3, 1997, eight days after the close of the NOP review period. A copy of the complete Initial Study, Appendix B to the Draft EIR, was delivered to the City of Indio with the Draft EIR on April 21, 1997. Response to Comment 2 This comment incorrectly alleges that the project applicant managed the process of environmental analysis. The City of La Quinta selected and managed the environmental consultant involved with the 53 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments preparation of the EIR. The City issued a Request for Proposal to prepare the EIR to over 20 environmental consulting firms. After reviewing the proposals submitted, interviews were conducted with several firms and a consultant was selected by the City based on experience with this type of project. The consultant is under contract to the City of La Quinta and all documentation and 12rocedural efforts have occurred under the direction and authority of the City. Response to Comment 3 Please refer to response to comment 1, above. The City of La Quinta met—and exceeded—all CEQA requirements related to the EIR scoping process, and considered comments submitted by the City of Indio, along with all other comments received, in determining the scope of analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 4 This comment refers to the diagram illustrating the City's environmental review process for this project, presented as Figure 1, on page 1-7 of the Draft EIR. Figure 1 correctly reflects the principal steps in the process for this project. The box labeled "City Conducts Preliminary Environmental Assessment" represents several steps taken by the City to determine the scope of the EIR including: (1) conducting a preliminary review of the application to determine if an EIR was required; (2) circulating a Notice of Preparation; and (3) preparing an Initial Study. As stated in response to comment 1, earlier, preparation of an Initial Study was not required here, where the Lead Agency determined after a preliminary review that preparation of an EIR was required. Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta ordered preparation of an Initial Study to enhance the EIR scoping process, i.e., the determination of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A copy of the complete Initial Study was provided to the City of Indio, as part of the Draft EIR, Appendix B. ResponsC to Comment 5 This comment is incorrect. Table 1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which begins on page 2-3 of the Draft EIR presents a concise summary of the various environmental effects analyzed in the main body of the document, including the topic, project and cumulative impacts identified, proposed mitigation measures and level of impact significance remaining after mitigation. It should also be noted that while Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies the contents to be included in an EIR summary, no particular format for an EIR summary, is defined, nor is there any requirement for "cross referencing" in the summary section. For a number of topics, including potential secondary land 54 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments use effects which are listed on page 2-3, no significant impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures were proposed, and the level of impact significance after mitigation is also therefore identified as less than significant. Response to Cornment Detention capacities of the landscape areas will be designed to capture on-site runoff for storm flows up to and including a 100 -year storm, pursuant to existing Coachella Valley Water District, Riverside County Flood Control District and City of La Quinta standards. It is possible and feasible to incorporate merchandise display areas within landscape zones, and still provide adequate retention capacity, either within that particular landscape zone, or within the total site through a combination of landscape, drywell and retention basin facilities. The placement of merchandise display areas within landscape zones will be taken into consideration during final design of the landscape/ retention areas, to ensure that sufficient retention capacity is provided. Response to Comment 7 This comment is incorrect. Levels of significance for project and cumulative impacts to biological resources are clearly identified in the 4th column on page 2-5. With regard to the adequacy of the analysis concerning biological resources, please refer to the responses to the comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, later in this section of the Final EIR. Response to Comment 8 This comment is incorrect. Levels of significance are clearly identified in the 4th column. "Cross- referencing," as used in this comment, is not clearly defined. As stated in the earlier response to comment 5, cross referencing within a summary section is not required by the CEQA Guidelines. Response to Comment 9 This comment fails to define the "regional traffic impacts" that are supposedly not identified and mitigated in the Draft EIR. Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR identifies several intersections that are projected to be significantly congested, with or without the addition of project traffic, and defines the project's contribution to traffic at those locations as a significant impact. Two of those significantly impacted intersections are partially within the City of La Quinta and partially within other jurisdictions (Jefferson St./Miles Avenue in the year 2000 and Washington St./Fred Waring Drive, by 55 The Centre at In Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments the year 2005). In this way, the EIR correctly identifies 'regional' traffic impacts that are projected to occur as the result of the cumulative effect of past, present and anticipated future conditions, together with the project traffic, on intersections located along portions of the regional arterial network and only partially within the City of La Quinta. Mitigation measures are identified for both of these locations that would be implemented jointly by the City of La Quinta, other affected jurisdictions and the CVAG Regional Arterial Fund program, which is a regional transportation improvement program for the Coachella Valley. As such, the proposed mitigation measure does not attempt to shift the burden of responsibility away from La Quinta to other jurisdictions; rather, it recognizes the cumulative effects that are projected to create significant congestion impacts, identifies the proportional share of jurisdictional responsibility and defines how La Quinta and this project will contribute their proportional share to mitigation efforts. In addition, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the agency designated under Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines with determining whether this project is consistent with all relevant regional transportation goals, policies and mandates, has determined that this project is consistent with—and/or supports—all relevant regional transportation goals, policies and mandates. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at pages 47 to 49 of this Final EIR.) Response tQ Comment This comment fails to explain what "region -wide transportation impacts" would be mitigated by an alternative east -west corridor to State Highway 111, or of how this project would contribute to those unidentified impacts. Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the Draft EIR (see Section 5.5 and Appendix C) the City of La Quinta disagrees with the conclusion in this comment that this project would generate sufficient trips to require the creation of an alternative to State Highway 111. The comment that this project should be responsible for replacement of the Miles Avenue bridge over the Coachella Valley Storm Drain is not supported by any facts or explanation, and the City of La Quinta disagrees with this comment, based upon the data and evidence presented to the City. For existing traffic conditions, Miles Avenue does not connect to State Highway 111 across the Whitewater River. For the year 2005 traffic impact analysis, a "worst-case" approach was followed, which included an assumption that Miles Avenue would not be connected to State Highway 111 across the Whitewater River. The recommended mitigation measures listed in Table 19, page 5.5-25 of the Draft EIR, for the intersections projected to be operating at deficient levels of service during the buildout period of the project, would achieve a level of service of "D" or better at all affected intersections. 56 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Improvement of 48th Avenue, between Adams Street and Jefferson Street, is programmed by the City of La Quinta for construction to its "ultimate" cross section (except cross walks), for completion in 1997. Response to Comment 11 This comment fails to explain how a north -south connection between Avenue 48 and Miles Avenue would reduce congestion along Highway 111, or of how such a connection is related to the traffic impact of this project. North -south connections across the Whitewater River are currently available along Washington Street, Adams Street and Jefferson Street. There is an existing concrete at -grade crossing at Adams Street/ Whitewater River that is designed to avoid washout. The City of La Quinta has programmed an extension of Dune Palms Road, from State Highway 111 to the Whitewater Channel, for construction by mid-1998. This project will include a concrete at -grade crossing similar to the Adams Street at -grade crossing. Response to Comment 12 A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program could not be defined as part of the Draft EIR because the complete mix of specific tenants for project phases 1 through 3 is not currently known. A precise TDM program can only be prepared when all participating businesses are known, so that the composition of their work force and commuting patterns can be defined and the most effective methods of reducing employee trips can be developed. This is not deferring identification of a feasible mitigation strategy, only the precise characteristics of the mitigation. No assumptions regarding success rates of a TDM program were incorporated into the traffic impact analysis for the EIR, including calculations of level of service reductions at the significantly impacted intersections. Therefore, project impacts are mitigated by the other mitigation measures specified. The TDM program will further reduce the impacts of the project. For this reason, no particular performance standards for a TDM program need to be identified as part of the EIR or the Mitigation and Monitoring Program. In addition, SCAG has found this project to be consistent with all applicable TDM goals, policies and mandates included in their Regional Mobility Plan. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at page 48 of this Final EIR.) 57 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments This comment incorrectly states as fact that this project will create a "regional hot -spot for CO, CO, NOx and PM,,,, without any analysis, without any evidence, and without any reference to the assessment of air quality impacts included in the Draft EIR. Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR presents a detailed and quantitative analysis of potential air quality impacts, using methodology developed and authorized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This analysis addressed all of the air pollutants normally included in an EIR for a development project, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic chemicals (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, sulfuric oxides (SO.) and particulate matter (PM,J. A "hot -spot" analysis is only prepared for carbon monoxide (CO), pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines. A CO hotspot analysis was conducted for the intersections nearest to the project site, where the project's traffic would have the most impact in terms of new CO emission concentrations, compared to ambient conditions. The results of this hotspot analysis are discussed and summarized in Table 24, on page 5.6-18 of the Draft EIR, which indicates that the project would not result in or contribute to significant CO concentrations or "hot spots" at any of the nearby intersections, based an applicable State and Federal standards. No mitigation measures for such an impact, therefore, are required. In addition, SCAG, the agency charged by the federal Clean Air Act for assessing the impact of this project on regional air quality goals, has found this project to be consistent with, and supportive of, a 11 relevant air quality standards, goals, policies and mandates. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, a t page 49 of this Final EIR.) I e, ponso to Comment 14 As discussed on pages 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 of the Draft EIR, a computer simulation of potential building massing, as seen from eastbound and westbound Highway 111 was prepared to evaluate potential impacts on views of the scenic Coral Reef and Santa Rosa mountains. Worst-case assumption regarding placement, height and bulk of buildings were made to ensure that the simulations represented the maximum obstruction of views that could potentially occur, based on the proposed site plan. These simulations show that significant obstruction of views would occur for motorists traveling westbound along the highway, where potential buildings in the northeast quadrant of the project site could temporarily block mountain views for passing motorists for a period of only several seconds as they drive past the site. This is not a perpetual destruction of scenic views of the mountains, it is a temporary (a matter of seconds) obstruction of views for motorists passing by the site at speeds of 50 miles per hour or so. Because of the high scenic quality of the distant mountains and the added 58 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments quality that the mountain views provide to the driving experience of motorists along Highway 111, this impact was identified as significant (see second paragraph on page 5.11-8 of the Draft EIR.) Proposed mitigation measure AES -1 would limit building heights in the northeastern quadrant of. the project site to 25 feet, or would require proof, via line of sight illustrations or equivalently effective visual impact analysis, that higher buildings would not result in significant obstruction of mountain views from eastbound Highway 111. This measure would sufficiently reduce the temporary, but significant impact on such views to a level that is less than significant. No obstruction of views from residential areas or other stationary public viewing areas would occur as a result of this project. The proposed scale of buildings in this project would be consistent with more recent commercial development along this segment of the Highway 111 corridor in La Quinta, for example the shopping center at the northwest quadrant of Adams Street/Highway 111 and the Home Depot development along the north side of the highway, at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street/Highway 111. Resppnnse to Qo mment 15 The draft specific plan includes a landscape element that proposes an extensively landscaped setback along both Highway 111 and Adams Street, consistent with the landscaping and setback standards established by the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation element policies for these scenic corridors. 12c )o se to Comm -vent ].ii Obtaining a fair return on investment is a typical, indeed, the primary objective for most private development applicants. A "fair return on investment" is defined as making a profit on the investment made in the subject property, to justify the costs and risks associated with land acquisition and project development. Cesponee to Comment 17 The site plan provided in the Draft EIR as Figure 4 (page 3-7) is sufficient to illustrate the primary land use concepts proposed as part of this project. Parking, landscape areas and building footprints for the five auto dealerships included in the first phase of the project are clearly identified on this plan. Details concerning parking, driveways, landscaping, etc., for other future portions of the project were 59 The Centre at !a Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments not shown because those parts of the project have not yet been defined. The draft specific plan, which identifies allowable uses and development standards for all portions of the project site, is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. The assessment of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project is based on the level of detail included in the specific plan and other application materials provided by the applicant. As such, the assessment is more detailed in certain areas, and more general in others, depending upon how much is known at this stage of project planning. This approach is consistent with Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines that states that "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described n the EIR." Plan review procedures already required by the City's Municipal Code, as well as the proposed specific plan will allow the City to evaluate future precise, development plans to ensure compliance with the City's land use regulations, the proposed specific plan, and environmental impact mitigation measures identified as a part of this EIR. If the City had elected to defer environmental review of Phases 2 and 3 of the project until more specificity was available on the design plans for those phases, the City might have been criticized for deferring environmental review of subsequent project phases, thereby violating CEQA's policies favoring early and comprehensive environmental review of proposed projects. The City elected to proceed with early disclosure of potential environmental impacts of all project phases. response to Comment 18 The policy identified in this comment was developed during the City's General Plan update program that was completed in October, 1992. At that time, as is the case today, the subject property was not recognized as containing any significant habitat of threatened or endangered species of plants and animals. The project site is not included in any existing or proposed habitat conservation programs. The biological surveys completed as part of this EIR process have determined that this site has generally low quality habitat, and is in an area where natural open space has been severely fragmented over many years due to human settlement, farming and development activities. No unavoidable, significant impacts to rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species would occur as a result of this project. For further explanation of this determination and the adequacy of the studies prepared for this EIR, please refer to the responses to comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, later in this section of the Final EIR. Given the low biological value of this site and that no unavoidable, significant impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species would result from this project, it is not appropriate to redesignate this property from Mixed/Regional Commercial to Open Space. 60 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Response to Comment 19 No portion of the project site or any adjacent land is designated as open space in the City of La Quinta General Plan, Open Space Element. No public trail linkages have been planned through the project site. This comment correctly states that a Pedestrian Hiking Corridor is planned along Adams Street, adjacent to the project site. As noted on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR, this project will implement that corridor segment, through construction of a sidewalk along the entire Adams Street frontage of the project site. Response to Comment 20 Special events are expected to include promotional activities such as pony rides, radio station broadcasts, free food and beverage give-aways and other types of events that would be conducted to draw interest into the project site to attract potential customers for the on-site businesses. These events would occur more often cn weekends than cn weekdays, and would typically last for one or two days, and in no case any longer than 10 days. Any such event would require prior approval of a Temporary Use Permit, by the City's Community Development Director, so that appropriate restrictions on activities can be imposed, if needed, to avoid traffic, noise, lighting, solid waste disposal and security problems during such temporary events. Response to Comment 21 A shared, eight -foot wide pedestrian/bicycle path will be included in the project's improvements along State Highway 111. This path will lie outside of the roadway, thus bicyclists will not be sharing the roadway with motor vehicles. The information presented on page 3-10 and in Figure 5 are accurate and do not require revision. Response to Comment 22 As stated in the first paragraph, on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR, "...a portion of the landscape setback along Highway 111 could be devoted to an art object. The specific art form(s) and location(s) have not been designed at this time, and will be subject to City approval." It is also possible that the art object could be placed in the interior of the project. If the art object is, in fact, placed within the landscape 61 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments setback along the highway, it would be well outside of the roadway right-of-way and could not interfere with motorists' visibility or vehicular movement within the traveled way. Response to Cgmment 23 This comment does not explain what the alleged "major inconsistencies" are between the proposed Specific Plan and the City of La Quinta General Plan land use designation. In Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, project consistency with applicable local and regional plans is evaluated. As discussed on page 4-4, this project is consistent with the "Mixed/ Regional Commercial" land use designation for the subject property, as defined in the Land Use Element of the adopted City of La Quinta General Plan. The February 18, 1997 letter referred to in this comment is included in the Draft EIR, Appendix C, and was reviewed by the City of La Quinta prior to completion of the Initial Study and the Draft Specific Plan. The comments in the February 18 letter included numerous suggestions for adding a variety of information to the specific plan, most of which are not required by Section 65451 of the California Government Code, but are at the discretion of the lead agency and project applicants to include or not include, and to format as they deem appropriate. All information required in a Specific is included in the Draft Specific Plan that is included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 24 This comment fails to explain what the alleged "nexus" is between this project and regional transportation impacts resulting from its development that would necessitate additional mitigation measures beyond those already identified in the Draft EIR. The traffic impact analysis performed for this EIR identified all intersections that would be significantly impacted by project -related traffic, along with a variety of measures that would adequately mitigate all such impacts to a level of less than significant. The Regional Arterial Program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is identified in Table 19, which summarizes the recommended intersection mitigation measures for project and cumulative impacts, together with the appropriate timing and implementation responsibilities for each improvement. In addition, it must be noted that SCAG, the agency designated under Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine the consistency of this project with regional transportation plans, h a s reviewed this project and found it to be consistent with all relevant transportation goals, policies and mandates for the region. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at pages 47 to 49 of this Final EIR.) 62 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments The City of La Quinta participates in the Regional Arterial Program, to an equivalent level as the other participating jurisdictions. The following explanation is hereby incorporated into this Final EIR, as a revision to Section 5.5, immediately preceding the section heading entitled "IMPACT ANALYSIS." Please refer to Section 4.0 of this Final EIR, where the text revisions to Section 5.5 are presented. Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program The Regional Arterial Program (RAP) administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is the State -approved Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the Coachella Valley, prepared in response to the voter -approved Proposition 111. The CMP and RAP are the adopted planning framework and implementation method, respectively, for mitigating traffic impacts to the regional arterial network at remote locations resulting from land development in general. All jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, including all of the cities and the County of Riverside, rely upon the RAP as the agreed upon mitigation plan for development -related traffic impacts that lie beyond the immediate vicinity of any given development. Each year the Riverside County Transportation Commission reviews CMP activities in the Coachella Valley for compliance and issues a conformance finding to the State if it finds the activities to be in compliance with the plan. The RAP has two funding sources. The first source is 40 percent of the revenue generated by the half percent sales tax increase authorized by Measure A in 1988. The second source is the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) collected from land developments. These two funding sources are intended to provide equal portions of funding to the program. It should be noted, however, that the RAP is not intended to be the complete funding mechanism for all arterial system improvements. Developers are still required to make improvements adjacent to their site. From a macro perspective, the RAP is intended to pay for 50 percent of the improvements that are needed to complete the regional arterial street network. The program is intended to fund improvements at "hot spots" in the arterial system where the adjacent land has not yet developed or is already developed and the existing street network is undersized with no opportunity to secure development -sponsored improvements at that hot spot location. The program is also intended to fund costly improvements like bridges and freeway interchanges that clearly benefit a broad spectrum of developments. The City of La Quinta is a direct participant and equal partner in the RAP. However, the procedures by which La Quinta participates are different than most cities that participate in the program. La Quinta does not collect the TUMF promulgated by CVAG, but instead provides an alternative "in -lieu" contribution to the program for its TUMF share by forfeiting its local share portion of the 63 The Centre at IQ Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Measure A sales tax revenue. The local share is another 35 to 40 percent slice of the Measure A revenue stream which is not dedicated to the RAP; instead, it is distributed directly to the cities that are qualified to receive it on a population prorated basis. In addition to forfeiting its local share of the Measure A revenue to the RAP, La Quinta is also obligated to make the program 'whole' if La Quinta's local share does not equal the TUMF amount that would have been collected from developments in La Quinta under the more common TUMF collection program. La Quinta did not adopt the TUMF in 1989 like most other cities that participate in the RAP because it had previously implemented its own Infrastructure Fee program in 1986 which, in most cases, collects a larger free than the TUMF. The 1 oca 1 share forfeiture and the Infrastructure Fee program provide La Quinta with a strong economic base to fulfill its obligation in the RAP, and, in turn, to enjoy the mitigation benefits that accrue to its sponsors. Response to Comment 25 This comment is incorrect. Page 3-10 of the Draft EIR describes circulation improvements included in the proposed project. These proposed improvements include a sidewalk and bicycle path along Adams Street, in accordance with the City's standards for this Primary Arterial roadway. A shared bicycle/pedestrian path is also proposed as part of the frontage improvements along Highway 111. Response to Contlpent 26 The emphasis of the analysis of potential secondary land use effects is on the four Indio auto dealers who have publicly indicated their intent to relocate to this project site, if the project is approved. No other specific tenants have been identified for the project site and it would be premature and overly speculative to assume that any other particular sites of existing businesses could be affected by this project. It would also be overly speculative to assume that other potentially impacted existing businesses would come from Indio, as opposed to La Quinta or other areas. La Quinta's approach is consistent with Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that a Lead Agency need not evaluate potential impacts which are too speculative. Even if other Indio -based businesses should relocate to the proposed project site, whether in the auto mall portion or in the mixed-use, regional commercial center, the Natelson Study indicates that there is a substantial amount of unmet demand, or "leakage" of consumer purchases that could be captured in da Indio. As shown in Table 15 of the Natelson study (Appendix J, page 11), potential demand for new retail businesses in Indio is estimated to increase from approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space in 1995 to nearly 267,000 square feet in the year 2010. Estimated unmet demand for convenience goods that could be "captured" in Indio is projected to increase from approximately 1,800 square feet of 64 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments building space in 1995, to over 133,000 square feet in the year 2010. Potential demand for new businesses involved in sales or services of heavy commercial goods is also projected to increase from approximately 6,600 square feet of space in 1995, to approximately 63,500 square feet in the year 2010. ReVonse to Comment 27 Please refer to the response to the immediately preceding comment 26. Response to Comment 28 Section III of the Natelson report, which is provided in its entirety in Appendix J of the Draft EIR, provides a complete description of the methodology followed in that report. The City of Indio received a copy of the full appendix materials, including Appendix J. As stated in the previous response to comment 26, it would be overly speculative to evaluate potential impacts on other active business sites, when no other such businesses are identified for relocation to this project site. In addition, the City of Indio has not presented any studies of its own to support its critique of the Natelson report. P.esponse to Comment 29 These questions do not address the adequacy of the information and analysis contained in the Draft EIR and, for this reason, no response is being provided. Response to Comment 30 Given that the purpose of the Natelson study was to measure residual retail demand which might serve as the basis for future commercial development in Indio, a logical starting point was to evaluate the demand of Indio residents. This was the rationale for utilizing Indio as the Primary Market Area. The other market areas were defined in terms of boundaries for which credible population forecasts could be obtained (i.e., census tracts and cities). The indicated capture rates for each market area reflect their distinct characteristics in terms of proximity to Indio and their relative proximity to competitive retail facilities in other communities. There is a very logical reason to exclude the communities listed in Indio's comment (Palm Desert, etc.). Namely, these communities have significant inventories of quality retail stores (or are in closer proximity to other communities' retail facilities than they are to Indio's). There would, therefore, be little reason for their residents to travel to Indio to make a significant portion of their retail 65 The Centre at IQ Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments expenditures. This is not to say that residents of these communities never make retail purchases in Indio—only that these expenditures are not likely to be significant. To include these communities in the calculation of retail demand capturable by Indio would tend to overstate the reuse potential of the subject Indio sites and would, therefore, tend to understate the proposed projects' impacts on Indio commercial sites. For this reason, the analysis excludes these communities, in order to err on the side of overstating impacts upon the City of Indio. Response to Comment 31 Again, the Natelson study was not intended to be a market analysis for the proposed project as a whole. Thus, the fact that two major types of tenants are to be located in the proposed project is not relevant. Within the scope of defining opportunities for reuse of the Indio sites, the analysis projected demand for nine major categories reflecting the full range of retail activities (apparel, general merchandise, furniture/appliances, specialty, food/drug, eating/ drinking, building/ hardware, automobile dealers, and service stations). The "distinct consumer behaviors" associated with each type of retail purchase are reflected in the unique capture rates for each of these nine categories. Response to Comment 32 Tables 7, 8, and 9 in the Natelson study (Appendix J in the Draft EIR) are intended to reflect relatively conservative capture rates for the Indio trade area. The comment presents no basis for the assertion that the capture rates are "inaccurate." The retail categories in which zero percent capture rates are indicated are categories in which residents of the outlying market areas would not be expected to make a significant amount of retail purchases in Indio. While it is possible that these residents do make some purchases in Indio, to include them in the analysis would tend to overstate the demand available to support reuse of the Indio sites in question and would understate the proposed projects' impacts on the land use in Indio. Response to Comment 33 The Natelson study methodology is not flawed. Please refer to the preceding responses to comments 30-32. 66 The Cenlre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Response to Comment 34 No four-story commercial facility is proposed in the western half of the project site, where the inferred fault trace occurs. This portion of the site is proposed for development of an auto sales and services center, where buildings are expected to be constructed at two -stories or less in height. There are no current regulations prohibiting the placement of structures on or near an inferred fault trace that is considered inactive, such as the feature found on the subject project site. Proposed mitigation measure G5 (page 5.2-5 of the Draft EIR) would, however, require that further geotechnical investigation of this feature be conducted prior to any grading in that part of the site, so that the specific geological characteristics and any development constraints can be more precisely identified and appropriate design and construction specifications developed to mitigate any such constraints. R-esponse to Comment 35 This comment refers to Figure 11, page 5.3-6, which illustrates the main components of the proposed runoff management plan. This plan is based on a preliminary hydrology study (see Appendix K) that estimated the amount of site runoff that would occur with a fully developed site, for a 100 -year storm scenario. The information included in the Draft EIR sufficiently demonstrates that a runoff plan based on landscape retention areas along the interior and exterior edges of the project, supplemented by a common retention area and possibly several drywell facilities, will contain site runoff during a 100 -year rainstorm event. This plan concept provides a framework and performance standards for development of more precise grading, drainage and landscaping plans that will be developed as part of the final design process. Proposed mitigation measure HW2 will require that final grading and drainage plans for each phase of the project will contain site runoff within the site for rainstorms up to and including the 100 -year event, and proposed mitigation measure HW3 would required the establishment of property maintenance associations to ensure that on-site retention and drainage facilities are properly maintained so that they will function as designed during rainstorms. These measures will ensure the success of the proposed runoff management plan. Response tCgm_ment 36 While surveys conducted by James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants (JWCEC) may not have been conducted during the appropriate time of year for some species, the surveys conducted by Impact Sciences in 1997 were within the documented blooming period for all but one of the special -status plant species potentially occurring on the site. One plant that blooms between December and March was not 67 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments detected by JWCEC during late December surveys conducted in 1996. Please refer to the response to comment 4 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), for a discussion on plant surveys with respect to blooming periods and weather conditions. The DEIR (pages 5.4-8 through 5.4-9) contains a thorough discussion on the potential of the site to serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Response to C4?mment 37 Please refer to the response to comment 6 by the USFWS, for a discussion on surveys for special -status wildlife species potentially occurring on the site or in the region. Recommendations for consultations with state and/or federal agencies regarding a habitat conservation plan for the flat -tailed horned lizard and the Coachella Valley milk vetch is not within the scope of an environmental impact report. It was the intent of the DEIR to document the biological resources present on the project site, identify the potential adverse impacts on these resources as a result of the proposed project plan, and to identify mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. A recommendation for consultation with resource agencies would not be considered an adequate mitigation measure, especially since recent case law has shown that deferment of mitigation to future studies, plans, or actions (such as a consultation) has been considered inadequate mitigation. Response to Comment 38 This comment is incorrect. At the April 17 meeting in question, the results of all biology survey efforts conducted for this EIR and the proposed mitigation strategy to be included in the Draft EIR were presented to the working group. Each of the four numbered items listed in this comment were discussed at the April 17 meeting, however, the working group did not make these "findings, " and did not state that additional survey work, analysis and additional mitigation strategies would be needed for the EIR. On June 9, 1997, the EIR consultant contacted the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), who hosted this meeting, to obtain a copy of minutes of that meeting. Mr. Tom Kirk, a CVAG staff member who was present at the April 17 meeting in question, indicated that minutes are not prepared for these informal meetings. He further stated his recollection that the members of the resource agencies who were present did not make the formal findings and recommendations identified in this comment by Indio, wnd that the group had agreed that this project did not appear to have any .ignifi'aa t impact onbiological resources. 68 The Centre at La Quinta Fina! EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments None of the species identified in the comment (Palm Springs little pocket mouse, California ground squirrel and Coachella Valley Jerusalem Cricket) are currently listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by CDFG or USFWS. The Palm Springs little pocket mouse and the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket are both considered species of concern by USFWS; neither are on any CDFG sensitive species list. The California ground squirrel is a common mammal that has no sensitivity status with either agency. As noted in the DEIR, the Palm Springs ground squirrel, a CDFG species of concern, was observed on the site during the 1996 field surveys. None were observed during the 1997 field surveys. Please refer to the preceding responses to comments 36 and 37, and to the responses to comment 4 and 6 by the USFWS, regarding survey protocols and timing of surveys for plants and animals potentially occurring on the site. Please refer to the preceding responses to comment 37 and 38, and to the responses to comments 2-6 by the USFWS, regarding survey protocols, timing of surveys for plants and animals potentially occurring on the site, and additional species that were not addressed in the DEIR analysis. This project will construct a shared bicycle/pedestrian path along the south side of the State Highway 111 right-of-way, outside of the roadway itself. This improvement is consistent with the CVAG Primary System plan for Highway 111. Transit service is provided to the City of La Quinta by the Sunline Transit Agency. There are currently transit routes on Highway 111 (Route 111) and Washington Street (Route 70) in the project study area. Busses are included in the existing traffic counts and in the projected traffic volumes developed for the traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this EIR. The traffic reducing potential of public transit and bicycle trips was not considered in the TIA. This means that the traffic volume projections are conservative, since public transit and possibly bicycle trips might be able to reduce the total volume of project -generated vehicular traffic. This project is not likely to attract significant numbers of bicycle trips, however, as it is not the type of development that is convenient for this mode of transportation. It is automobile traffic dependent, and is very different from other types of land uses that typically attract significant amounts of bicycles, such as a recreational destination or a college campus with on- site dormitories. 69 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Signal timing optimization calculations in the TIA did consider pedestrian safety and signal coordination requirements. Appropriate time for pedestrian crossings have also been considered in the signalized intersection analysis. The following formula was used in the TIA to calculate the pedestrian minimum times for all HCM runs: [(Curb -to -curb distance minus six) divided by 4], plus 7. Response to Continent 41 A precise TDM plan is not feasible at this time. Please refer to the earlier response to comment 12. Response to Comment 42 This first sentence in this comment is incorrect. This project, alone, does not result in the projected levels of service shown in Table 17. Table 17 lists the projected intersection levels of service for the year 2000, based on forecast traffic volumes from a 11 regional sources, including the project traffic. All four of the intersections identified to operate at LOS F in Table 17 are also projected to be operating at a LOS of D or worse without the project, as illustrated in Table 14, page 5.5-13. An alternative to Highway 111 does not need to be established as a mitigation measure. Capacity enhancements at each of intersections projected to be operating at significantly congested levels of service would provide sufficient mitigation for those impacts. Specific capacity -adding improvement are identified in proposed mitigation measure TCS, which is summarized in Table 19, page 5.5-25. These recommended improvements would improve levels of service at each of these locations to "D" or better, consistent with the City's level of service standards. The last sentence in the first paragraph of this comment is also incorrect. The Draft EIR contains no such statement. This comment fails to explain why the Miles Avenue Bridge "...must be considered in the traffic impact analysis." It also fails to explain why this "...is necessary to relieve the overcrowding and congestion on Highway 111." In addition, no relationship between this project's traffic impacts and this suggested bridge improvement is defined. The traffic impact analysis conducted for this EIR made a conservative assumption that the Miles Avenue Bridge reconstruction would not be completed by the estimated project buildout, i.e., the year 70 The Centre at la Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments 2005, and forecast future traffic volumes accordingly. If that improvement is in place prior to the year 2005, the traffic volume forecasts included in the TIA may tum out to be higher than what actually occurs. Mitigation measure TCS, page 5.5-23 of the Draft EIR, includes intersection improvements that would improve the projected levels of service at the outlying intersections that would be significantly impacted along Highway 111 (Washington St./SR-11 and Dune Palms Road/SR-111), to level of service "D" or better. Response to Comment 44 Proposed traffic mitigation measures TCB, TC9 and TC10 include consultation with the Sunline Transit Agency to determine the best location(s) for future bus facilities that could be located an or adjacent to the project site, as well as pedestrian access to bus stops, bicycle racks and designated employee ridesharing areas within the on-site parking lots. These are also useful methods of encouraging alternative modes of transportation by persons working at or shopping at the project site. It is impractical at this time to attempt to define the specific features of a TDM for this project, without knowing the complete tenant mix of each phase of the project. Please refer to the earlier response to comment 12. Reslaonse to Comment 45 Carbon dioxide is not one of the criteria pollutants that is addressed by the SCAQMD in its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and no regulations concerning this gas are in effect. This comment falsely indicates that the SCAQMD indicated that the project is likely to result in the creation of an air pollution "hotspot" for CO2, NOx, CO and PM, The SCAQMD did not submit any comments concerning this Draft EIR. Furthermore, this comment misrepresents two of the standard impact significance criteria as indications from the SCAQMD of the project's significant air quality impacts. Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR analyzes the project's potential air quality impacts with respect to these and other criteria established by the SCAQMD, in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook. No significant "hot spot" impacts would result from this project, as explained in the previous response to comment 13. Once again, the SCAQMD did not submit any comments concerning this Draft EIR. SCAG, however, did submit comments on this project, stating that the project is consistent with or supports all relevant "core" and "ancillary" goals, policies and mandates for the region, including those relating to air quality. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at pages 46 to 49 of this Final EIR.) 71 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Response to Comment 46 No mitigation measures are identified on page 5.6-20, as erroneously referred to in this comment. The City of La Quinta considers all of the proposed air quality mitigation measures identified an pages 5.6-21 to 5.6-25 to be appropriate and feasible for this project. They will be enforced through administration of a mitigation and monitoring program (MMP), as required by Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. A copy of the MMP is provided, for your convenience. No significant impacts have been identified which would require the relocation of La Quinta High School and the Adams Truman School. Xespgnse to Comment 47 As stated in the DEIR, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the level of emissions would exceed the threshold of significance suggested by the SCAQMD. As it is not feasible to reduce this significant impact to a level that is less than significant, the City of La Quinta will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve this project that explains what project benefits outweigh the significant air quality impacts resulting from the project. Response tea Comment 48 The illustrations in Figures 25 and 26 were not intended to represent exact elevations or bulking of buildings to be developed in accordance with the proposed specific plan. As explained on pages 5.11-7 to 5.11-8, "These simulated views are an approximate representation of the developed site image, based on the size and placement of buildings shown on the proposed master site plan (Figure 4 in Section 3.0 of this EIR) and the setback and building height standards included in the proposed specific plan. They are not intended to portray the precise and complete visual character of the developed site, but are intended to give the reader a picture of how the massing of major structures would affect motorists' views as they approach the site along Highway 111." Proposed landscaped setbacks satisfy the City's Circulation Element policies for both Highway 111 and Adams Street and are considered sufficient, as proposed. As explained in the earlier response to comment 14, proposed mitigation measure AES1 would sufficiently mitigate the view -obstructing impact of potential buildings in the northeastern quadrant of the site, in the future mixed-use regional commercial center area. 72 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Restportse to Comment 49 This comment expresses several opinions concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR, without any supporting facts or explanation, nor any specific references to text or illustrations in the Draft EIR. The City of La Quints disagrees with these opinions, based upon the data and evidence before the City. Eespoiise to Comment -50 The City of La Quinta will provide advance notice to the City of Indio concerning proposed public meetings concerning the proposed project, either directly, or via public notices placed in the Desert Sun. CEQA does not require that the other documents referenced be provided to Responsible Agencies other public agencies, or any other public, quasi -public, non-profit or private entities. If desired, copies of other documents prepared as part of the City's consideration of the Final EIR and required findings under CEQA may be obtained by contacting the City of La Quinta, Community Development Department. The City of Indio, along with any other interested persons or agencies, may submit comments concerning any of the environmental documents prepared for this project, or concerning the merits/ disadvantages of the project, at the public hearings to be held concerning the potential certification of the Final EIR. B. Law Offices of R. Zaiden Corrado Response to Comment 1. This comment re -states and paraphrases portions of the CEQA Guidelines and related case law, relative to the purpose of an EIR. It does not specifically address the adequacy of the subject Draft EIR, therefore, no response is needed. RespoMe to Comm nt 2 This comment is incorrect. The City of La Quinta has not taken any actions to approve the proposed project. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) does not constitute an official action by a lead agency, in this case the City of La Quinta, regarding certification of an EIR, or approval of any discretionary land use actions. The MOU is what it says, a conceptual statement. Pursuant to CEQA, the City will not taken any official action concerning the proposed project until it has reviewed the Final EIR and has taken an action to certify or not certify the Final EIR for this project. 73 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Responses Comment 5 An analysis of the project -level and cumulative air quality impacts related to the proposed project is presented in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. This analysis was prepared in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. This handbook is the standard of practice for air quality assessments for proposed land use approvals and development plans throughout the five -county area that is governed by the SCAQMD. No methodology has been developed that would allow for a reliable evaluation of air quality impacts from a single development site on a particular nearby community, isolated from other parts of the local air basin. Potential carbon monoxide (CO) "hotspots" can be analyzed at specific locations, based on traffic volumes and levels of congestion, prevailing wind directions and topographical factors. An assessment of potential CO hotspots at the nearby intersections that would be most affected by project -related traffic was performed and no significant impacts were identified. (See Table 24 and related discussion, page 5.6-18 of the Draft EIR.) Based on the analytical methods and criteria for impact significance established by the SCAQMD, the project would have significant construction -period air quality impacts that would affect the local area surrounding the project site, and would generate total operational emissions (mainly traffic emissions on affected roadways) that would exceed the standards of significance for project -level impacts. However, given the project's consistency with the AQMP land use and population growth policies, this project would not interfere with attainment of the air quality goals contained in the regional AQMP. Therefore, this project would not have a significant air quality impact on the City of Indio. Also, see SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, included in this Final EIR at page 49, where SCAG finds that this project is consistent with—or supportive of—all relevant regional air quality goals, policies and mandates for the region. Response to Continent 4 The California Clean Air Act requires air quality management plans to achieve a reduction in emissions of five percent or more per year (or 15 percent or more in a three year period) or maximum amount _ 4 feasible for pollutants causing severe non -attainment. According to SCAQMD staff, the SCAQMD considers it's AQMPs to comply with this requirement (interview with Steve Smith, SCAQMD, April 8, 1997). This project is consistent with the AQMP. However, the five percent referred to by Indio in its comment does not apply to individual development projects. The 1 percent per year discussion on pages 5.6-20 to 5.6-21 of the Draft EIR is the SCAQMD's 74 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments recommended methodology to assess cumulative impacts and demonstrate whether general development projects are implementing measures to reduce emissions in accordance with AQMP projections for those types of sources. As explained an page 5.6-21, the recommended mitigation measures would achieve more than the one percent reduction goal, and the project's emissions would not be considered cumulatively significant. The mitigation measures listed for air quality are identified as recommendations for the purpose of the Draft EIR, which is to identify potentially significant impacts along with mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce those impacts to less than significant, if possible. All of the recommended mitigation measures, throughout the entire Draft EIR, will be enforced as conditions of approval of this project, and will also be enforced through implementation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP), pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. A copy of the MMP is enclosed, for your convenience. Response to Comment .5 In general, the Draft EIR evaluates cumulative impacts on the basis of the most relevant growth projections for the issue in question. For example, with respect to cumulative traffic impacts, a set of forecast future traffic volumes was developed for the study area roadway network, based on historical traffic patterns and estimated annual growth rates factored up from current traffic volumes. For cumulative impacts related to water distribution and storage, the water demand projections developed by the Coachella Valley Water District for their entire water service area were relied on. For cumulative solid waste impacts, the analysis was based on projections contained in the Riverside County Waste Management District's Riverside Countywide Integrated Management Plan, which addresses solid waste generation and management issues throughout the entire county. For public services (i.e., fire protection and police protection services), the two affected agencies who provide these services to La Quinta and the rest of the Coachella Valley (Riverside County Fire and Sheriff's Departments) were contacted to determine if this project, combined with other anticipated growth in their service areas, would result in significant impacts on their ability to maintain adequate service levels. In all cases, the assessment of cumulative impacts was made by comparing current conditions to projected future conditions based on the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects within the affected areas. This methodology is consistent with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR does, in fact, discuss current air quality conditions (see pages 5.6-7 to 5.6-11). The discussion on pages 5.6-20 to 5.6-21 referred to in this comment concerns cumulative air quality impacts. 75 The Centre at Ia Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments This discussion follows the methodology prescribed by the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and focuses on whether the project would be able to achieve at least a one percent a year reduction in emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM,,. No other methodology for assessing whether an individual development project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact is identified in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. No applications for any specific development project have been submitted for the "alternative project location," identified in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR. The type, intensity and phasing for development of that site is not known and no specific estimates of the type, amount or timing of air quality impacts from that site, therefore, can be assumed at this time. Projected air pollutant emissions due to increased traffic along the study area roadway network were based on the cumulative traffic volume forecasts included in the traffic impact analysis. The traffic volume forecasts account for potential development that may occur at the alternative project location, should such development occur by the year 2005. In this way, the potential exhaust emissions from development that could occur at the alternative project location through the year 2005 have been addressed. In addition, SCAG has reviewed this project and determined that it is consistent with—or supportive of—all relevant regional air quality goals, policies and/or mandates for the region. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at page 49 of this Final EIR.) Response to Comment 6 This comment does not explain how the City has "...failed to set forth their ability comply with the Clean Air Act." The City of La Quinta disagrees with this comment, based upon the data and evidence before the City. Response to Comment 7 Please refer to the previous response to comment 5. Cumulative air quality impacts were evaluated in accordance with standard methodology developed by the SCAQMD in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the analysis presented in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR is considered accurate and adequate. 76 The Centre at Ca Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments All mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR will be enforced as conditions of project approval and through administration of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP), pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. A copy of the MMP is enclosed for your convenience. As discussed on page 5.8-5 of the Draft EIR, the project's impact on water supplies is deemed to be less than significant because of three factors: (1) The project's proposed development intensity is well below the maximum that could be permitted in accordance with the City's General Plan land use policies and would thus consume less total water than has been planned for on the basis of the City's adopted General Plan; (2) The regional water wholesaler, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that the project's land use mix and intensity and estimated water demand are within the growth projections previously developed by CVWD for this part of the Coachella Valley; and (3) CVWD also indicated that this project's water demand would not exceed available water supplies. In addition, CVWD stated in its comment letter on this project that: "The project, as described, would have a minor impact on the overall water supply of the Coachella Valley." (See CVWD letter dated June 3, 1997, at page 41 of this Final EIR.) This EIR did not, therefore, reach a determination that impacts on water supplies would be less than significant solely because the project is consistent with local and regional growth projections. This determination was also based on the findings as stated above. sponse to Com.n mit 10 Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR begins with a discussion of existing conditions related to water supply, distribution and storage, including estimates of current water demand in the City of La Quinta, as well as current groundwater overcharge conditions throughout the CVWD service area. Project water demand is then estimated at approximately 522 acre feet/year (page 5.8-5), which is obviously 77 The Centre at la Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments 522 acre feet/year more than what the current water demand is at this vacant site. Cumulative impacts are later discussed on the basis of projected population growth projections through the year 2015, developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) for the entire Coachella Valley area, since this is the geographic range of the CVWD service area. These projections are of necessity somewhat hypothetical, as are all long range growth forecasts, because of the difficulty in predicting specific timing, location and levels of new development over an extended period of time. The SCAG projections are considered appropriate, however, because they are based on adopted local general plans which reflect each jurisdiction's "best guess" of the amount of growth that could occur within the year 2015 planning horizon. SCAG is also the regional agency officially designated under Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines to assess consistency between local projects and regional growth management plans, and has specifically determined that this project is consistent with—or supportive of—all relevant development goals, policies and/or mandates for the region. (See SCAG letter dated May 9, 1997, at pages 47 to 48 of this Final EIR.) Response to Comment 11 As discussed on pages 5.8-5 and 5.8-6 of the Draft EIR, consultation with CVWD during preparation of the Draft EIR determined that this project would not exceed available water supplies and that no significant extensions of water distribution facilities would be needed to serve this project. Therefore, no additional analysis of the potential unavailability of water from CVWD was conducted. Response to Comment 12 This comment fails to identify or explain which "water replacement measures" should be financed by the City of La Quinta. No project -level or cumulative water supply impacts attributable to the City of La Quinta have been identified which would require that the City of La Quinta finance any particular "water replacement measures." Mitigation measure W2, page 5.8-8 of the Draft EIR, describes CVWD's current plans for addressing long-term water demand throughout their service area, including development of additional recharge ponds in the lower valley, water importation, water replenishment measures and water conservation measures. These measures, and anticipated funding sources, are identified in the CVWD's Annual Review 1994-95.1 1 Coachella Valley Water District. Annual Review 1994-95. Coachella, California: June 1995. 78 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Response to Comment 13 This comment fails to identify a direct or indirect relationship between this project's anticipated water demand and Indio's water supply. Indio is also within the CVWD water service area and as such, is implicitly included in the discussion of cumulative impacts on page 5.8-7 of the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 14 This comment fails to explain how this project would "cause substantial growth ... which would cause further depletion of water resources." The project's potential growth inducing effects are fully discussed in Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR. Cumulative effects from past, present and potential future population growth throughout the Coachella Valley is discussed on page 5.8-8 of the Draft EIR. It is noted in this discussion that the valley population is projected to grow to roughly 588,000 by the year 2015, increasing from a 1990 total of 215,000. Total employment is also projected to increase substantially, from 87,000 in 1990 to roughly 177,000 in the year 2015. It is also noted in this discussion that such levels of growth could have a significant cumulative impact an regional water supplies, which could involve water shortages at various times and in various places within the valley. Expansion of the CVWD water storage and distribution facilities is also identified as a long-term, cumulative impact related to continuing regional growth. The Draft EIR has adequately examined the potential impact of projected regional growth within the CVWD service area. .Response to omment 15 This comment is incorrect. Three principal water pollution prevention strategies and nine specific elements to be included in a SWPPP are identified in mitigation measures HW1, on pages 5.3-7 to 5.3-8 of the Draft EIR. A Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared to identify mitigation timing, and responsibilities for implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, including measure HWL A copy of the MMP is enclosed for your convenience. Response to Comment 16 The "overdraft situation" referred to in this comment is an existing condition that is being addressed by the CVWD as part of its water resource management efforts. No significant relationship between the proposed project's water demand and this existing or future overdraft problem have been identified in this comment or by the CVWD. As noted on page 5.8-5 of the Draft EIR, the CVWD has indicated that 79 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments this project would not exceed available water supplies. The project would not require, nor does i t propose any direct groundwater production to meet its water demand. All project water would be provided by the CVWD from existing distribution facilities along the adjacent roadways. Potential water quality problems that may occur as a result of continued overdrafting of groundwater supplies would be a problem that would result from cumulative effects, not merely from the proposed project. The CVWD is responsible for ensuring that the quality of the water it delivers to its customers meets the standards set by the State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board. This project will have no significant impact on the CVWD's ability to meet those water quality standards, because it will not interfere with any CVWD aquifer management or replenishment efforts, and because this project will provide runoff filtering mechanisms as part of a runoff management plan that will contain all runoff on-site. Respponse to Comment 17 Please refer to the earlier response to comment 5 by the R. Zaiden Corrado Law Corporation. Response to Continent 18 This comment fails to identify any inconsistencies of the project with respect to existing plans, and also fails to recognize that Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, Environmental Setting, examines project consistency with respect to several regional planning programs, as well as the City of La Quinta General Plan. No inconsistencies with applicable regional or local plans were identified in Section 4.0. Response to Comment 19 This comment refers to portions of the CEQA Guidelines and a California court case that define the required scope and content of an alternatives analysis in an EIR. No specific comments concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR are included. Section 7.0 Alternatives was drafted to fulfill the requirements identified in this comment, pursuant to Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines and related court cases. An introduction to this section is provided an pages 7-1 to 7-3, which explains the basis objectives and requirements for an alternatives analysis, along with the rationale for each of the alternatives selected for analysis and an explanation of why other alternatives were not considered for discussion in the EIR. A total of five alternatives is discussed in Section 7.0, a reasonable range that allows for informed decision-making by the City's Planning Commission and City Council. In each case, the probable environmental effects of the alternative is compared to the effects identified for the 80 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments proposed project, and a determination is made as to whether the alternative would result in environmental impacts of a similar type and magnitude, would reduce or increase certain impacts or would have a different level of "net" environmental impact, that is the level of impact significance remaining after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.1 to 5.12 of the Draft EIR. Each alternative is also examined for consistency with the proposed project objectives. A summary comparison of impact significance between the project and each of the alternatives is presented. Finally, the environmentally superior alternative is discussed and identified. The Draft EIR discussion of alternatives, as presented in Section 7.0, is considered adequate as written. Response to Colninmt 20 A No -Project Alternative is discussed on pages 7-17 to 7-19 of the Draft EIR. It is discussed with respect to two scenarios: no change in the existing site conditions, as they are today, prior to implementation of the proposed project, and a development scenario consistent with the La Quinta General Plan land use designation for this site, built at the maximum allowable development intensity for that designation. With respect to the existing conditions scenario, the first paragraph on page 7-17 of the Draft EIR contains the following text: "Under the "no project, existing conditions" alternative, the project proposed by Stamko Development would not be approved by the City of La Quinta. The project site would remain vacant and the on -and off-site impacts associated with the proposed project would not occur." This is considered an adequate representation of a no -project scenario where the present environmental conditions would not change, as well as an adequate comparison of this existing condition with the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Response to Comment 21 This comment fails to explain why selection of the alternative site illustrated on Figure 30, page 7-14 of the Draft EIR makes fulfillment of the goals of an alternatives analysis less likely. A reasonable rationale for selection of the alternative site is presented on page 7-13. The selection of this site and the comparative analysis of environmental impacts at this site and the proposed project site is considered adequate, and consistent with Section 15126(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Response to Comment 22 This comment is incorrect. The Draft EIR does not state that "...such a scenario would result in a reduction of sales tax revenues by 25 percent." On page 7-6, the Draft EIR actually states that 'Because 81 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments the size of the project would be reduced by 25 percent, the amount of sales tax revenue would be less than the amount that would be generated by the proposed project." This statement is considered reasonable, given that less retail floor area or less automobile sales display area is likely to generate a lower amount of sales tax than a larger area. Furthermore, the Draft EIR does not indicate that a lower sales tax generation would make this alternative infeasible, or that it would not meet the City's objectives for development at this site. Response to Comment 23 This comment fails to explain what the "improper underlying assumptions" for this alternative are. The Reduced Density Alternative is considered reasonable and appropriate for discussion in the EIR, because several of the project's potentially significant impacts (i.e., traffic, air quality, noise, aesthetics, public services, water distribution and storage, solid waste generation) are directly related to the project intensity. A reduction in development intensity would, therefore, also result in a reduction of certain corresponding environmental impacts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service A. Letter of June 4, 1997 Response to Comment 1 This comment summarizes information presented in the Draft EIR, but does not specifically comment on the adequacy of that document. No response, therefore, is required. RespQnse_to_Comment 2 A number of studies and documents (e.g., Stebbins 1985; Bolster and Nicol, 1989; Muth, Allen, and Fisher, 1992) have concluded that flat -tailed homed lizards share the same habitat with Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizards. Sightings of flat -tailed lizards within the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard preserve have occurred on a number of occasions, including several this year.' Consequently, while it is understood that the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan is not a multi -species HCP, it can be reasonably concluded that the purchase of habitat for the fringe -toed lizard through collection of development fees will also benefit the flat -tailed horned lizard. 2 Mr. Cameron Barrows, The Nature Conservancy and on-site manager, Thousand Palms/Coachella Valley Preserve. Personal Communication, June 12,1997; J 82 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments However, because no flat -tailed horned lizards were observed on the project site during the focused surveys conducted for this species in June, 1997 (see following response to comment 3), and because the habitat on the site is only marginally suitable to support this species (as a result of historical and ongoing degradation and disturbances), no significant impacts on the flat -tailed horned lizard, or its habitat, will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures for the flat -tailed horned lizard are required. To reflect the results of the flat -tailed horned lizard surveys conducted after the submittal of the DEIR, the following modifications have been made to the text of page 5.4-13 of the DEIR, in the first paragraph of the discussion of impacts to Special -Status Wildlife: "As discussed earlier in this report, the biological survey determined that the project site constituted suitable habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and marginally suitable habitat for the flat -tailed horned lizard. Implementation of the proposed project will eliminate essentially all habitat for theseCoachella Valley fringe -toed lizard speeies on the site and would likely destroy any lizards inhabiting the site prior to grading and construction -related activities. In addition, the project site is within the habitat fee area pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Because of the high sensitivity status of the fringe -toed lizard (state- and federally -listed Threatened), and the loss of this habitat and any lizards would be considered a substantial effect on a rare or endangered species and would reduce the number or restrict the range of these animals. Therefore, this loss is considered a significant impact. Because -m flat -tailed horned lizards oar their sign were observed m the sitein focumd survUs conducted for this species inJun 1997 and because the habitat g_n-site i only considered marginally suitable to support this species implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect this species or its habitat. Thereforesignificant impacts m flat -tailed horned lizard are expected to occur." In addition, similar revisions have been made to the text of the DEIR, on page 5.4-16, in the second paragraph under the discussion of Cumulative Impacts: "Although the project site has been heavily disturbed and is relatively fragmented and isolated, it is considered suitable habitat for one state- and federally -listed animal species (Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard) and marginally suitable for two federally proposed for listing species (flat -tailed horned lizard and the Coachella Valley milk vetch). Because no individuals of the Coachella Valley milk vetch were found on the site during the December, 1996 or the February and April, 1997 field surveys, and because no historical occurrences of this species exist within the immediate region, this $3 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments plant is not expected to occur on the site. In addition, because no individuals of the flat -tailed honied lizard were found on the site duringtbe f 1997 survey5,,this i i expected to ocair the site. However,_Coad ella Valley fringe -toed lizard may potentially occur on the site. the twe lizard speeies are — ---- :- the region and the prejeet site provides seine suitable habitat for these speeies. In ad4ifiaft no foeused surveys have been condueted for ffiese speeies ai a time eaftsiden optimal for their . . The loss of available suitable habitat for this these species on the site would contribute to a cumulative net loss of habitat for this these species in the region. Because of the rarity of thisthese e species, this loss would be considered a significant cumulative impact." Mitigation measure BIO2, at page 5.4-17 of the DEIR, has been revised as follows to note that mitigation for the flat -tailed horned lizard is not required, as this project would not have a significant impact on that species or its habitat: "BIO2. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard and Flat -tailed Homed Lizard. The project applicant shall pay $600 per acre developed to the City of La Quinta as part of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard mitigation plan. This mitigation structure has been established by the USFWS and CDFG. The fee is applied when lands within known or historical fringe -toed lizard habitat are developed. The project lies within the fee area. The mitigation fee is used to purchase fringe -toed lizard habitat in special preserves, such as the Coachella Valley Preserve area, for the purpose of maintaining suitable habitat for the fringe -toed lizard. In addition, even though there is only a low potential for the flat - tailed horned lizard to occur on the site due to the disturbed nature of the habitat, and even though note were found on the site during a focused two-day survey for the flat -tailed horned lizard in June. 1997, the k4nge toed lizard habitett an flie -54e is ftise suitable for the horned lizard. Measures sueh as the payment of the mitigation fee to preserve and enhance fringe -toed lizard habitat will also benefit flat -tailed horned lizard. Therefore, the mitigation fee paid for the loss of fringe -toed lizard habitat on the site will also hh"ln mitigate the nan-significant loss of this same habitat for flat -tailed horned lizard." Finally, the text of the DEIR, at page 5.4-18, Unavoidable Significant Impacts, has been revised as follows: "Implementation of the measures described above will reduce the project's direct impact on common and special -status bird nests, and on Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and flat tai� -rled—l:tem � '- habitat to a less than significant level. Implementation of these measures will also mitigate the cumulative loss of Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and Rat ailedY;n e' I mars habitat to a less 84 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments than significant level. Therefore, no unavoidable significant impacts on biological resources will remain." Response to Comment 3 A focused survey to determine the presence/ absence of flat -tailed horned lizard, pursuant to USFWS survey protocols for this species, was conducted by Impact Sciences biologists after the submittal of the DEIR. Consequently, the following changes and additions will be made to the text in the DEIR: Page 5.4-2, "Field Studies," second paragraph: "Foettsed surveys fer speeial status wAdhie speeies potentially eeettrring on the site were nai eandueted. Hewevet fforts were mtt4e to rkate and doeument speeial status wildlife speeies eeemving en the site during the cowse of the pletnt sutveys, Observations of all common and special -status wildlife species made during the surveys were recorded and documented. A focused survey for flat tailed homed lizard (FTHL) was conducted on Iune 18 and 19 1997 by_Impact Sciences biologists. The U5 W5 October 1996 flat -tailed hom d -lizard interim survey 12rotocol wad followed -during the on-site surveys. Specifically, systematic pedestrian surveys were conducted on site that included separate focused surveys for horned lizard scat and homed lizards - Surveys consisted of parallel belt transects -evenly spaced acro s the project site, that 100 ercent cgygragg was attained. All lizard scat detected du ng the surras was closely examined for diagnostic characteristics (e.g., b tween 5.5 Md 10 am in diameter and cQmprised of predominately ants)of homed lizards. Total survey time for horned lizard scat was 250 minus 4.16 hours total atime f i rds was 240 minutes (4.0 hours) Likewise a total of 145 additional minutes (2.41 hours) were expended m FTHL surveys along the on-site roads The survey mirtutes expended during the study generally exceeded the total survey time (no less than 4 hours for areas less than 247 acres in size) recommended by the USFWS horned lizard field surycy protocols Weather at the tune cif the surveys was very warm_ (varying from 85 degrees F in the morning to 110 degrees F in the afternoon) and wind speeds ranged from to 4,miles 12er hour. Surface t _ sxi era urs ranged from -85 degrees F to 127 degrees F." Page 5.4-7, Reptiles, Flat -tailed horned lizard, end of paragraph: 85 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments No homed lizards vere observed during the June. 1997 homsed_ETsurveys conducted on the ct site. In addition, no scat or other sign diagnostic of horned lizards was detected _during the surveys. In ggneral, the number Qf other lizardge,ion r w lud d nly desert, i Di s attrlt dorsalis and side -blotched lizard (Uta stcansburiana). The lack of horned lizards and the low level pf reptilian life on the site in izeneral may be due to the hiLrh level of human activity and disturbance an the site, including off-road vehicles and roads, abandoned structures (e.g., house, fences), and extensive debris durnping on portions of the site, --..The -_site is also surrounded by urban development, highly disturbed open areas, and roads, making it difficult for horned lizards and other species to access the site. As a result of the surveys and the high_ level of disturbance_ and habitat fragmentation. the f l a t - tailed homed lizard is not expected to occur on the site." Response to Comment 4 The JWCEC report (Appendix E of the Draft EIR) concluded that additional surveys to locate rare plants were not recommended since the severity of existing disturbances on the site would preclude the existence of those rare plants. However, and as stated on page 5.4-2 of the DEIR, focused plant surveys were conducted on the site on April 10 and 11, 1997, for special -status plant species potentially occurring on the site. April falls within the blooming period for four of the five special -status plants that were identified prior to field surveys as potentially occurring on the site. As stated in the DEIR, surveys were conducted by walking 10 -meter wide belt transects that provided_ 100__percent coverage of the project site. The survey was conducted by a botanist with over 10 years of experience surveying for special -status plant species in a variety of habitats in southern California, including desert bush scrub communities. None of the four plant species—Coachella Valley milk vetch, ribbed cryptantha, flat - seeded spurge, and slender woolly -heads— that include April as part of their blooming period, were observed during the April surveys. Glandular ditaxis, which blooms between December and March, was not observed during surveys conducted in December, 1996, by JWCEC. Thus all rare species identified by USFWS and CDFG have been the subject of focused surveys during the time period specified by those agencies and have not, in fact, been found to exist on the project site. These findings are consistent with the original biology study prepared by JWCEC (Appendix E to the Draft EIR), which concluded that the project site was such poor habitat (due to previous disturbances) that such rare plant species were not likely to exist on the project site. Since no data or specific information exists to identify the effect that the weather conditions in early 1997 had on the blooming periods of these and other plants species in the region, it is speculative to conclude that surveys conducted in April of 1997 may have been past the blooming period of plants that typically bloom during this month. In any event, both living and dead vegetation were identified to 86 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments plant species level during the surveys. In addition, and as stated on page 5.4-3 of the DEIR, the site has been disturbed as a result of off-road vehicle use and human intrusion. The site is also surrounded by roads and urban development and is essentially isolated from other similar habitat areas. Finally, two of the plant species, Coachella Valley milk -vetch and flat -seeded spurge, have not been observed within the USGS La Quinta topographic quadrangle, according to a review of the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California Database. Therefore, even prior to the focused plant surveys, the potential for any of these plant species to occur on the site was considered to be low. Response to Comment 5 While the Coachella Valley milk vetch was initially identified as having a low potential of occurring on the site prior to conducting focused plant surveys, that potential presence has now been determined to be non-existent based upon the results of focused. Based upon the focused April 1997 survey, based upon on the low quality of the habitat on the site to support this species, and on the fact that this species has not been reported by the CNPS database as occurring within the La Quinta USGS topographic quad, it was concluded in the DEIR that Coachella Valley milk -vetch did not occur, and is not expected to occur, on the site. Consequently, no adverse or significant impacts are expected to occur to this species and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required to be identified. As stated in the DEIR, the project site is already isolated and fragmented from other similar habitat areas in the vicinity. Please refer to the earlier response to comment 1 regarding mitigation for the flat -tailed horned lizard. Response to Comment b As part of the analysis of impacts on sensitive biological resources, a thorough review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and other reports characterizing biological resources on the site and in the vicinity was conducted to determine the potential of special -status wildlife species to occur on the project site. In addition, JWCEC reviewed records, collections, and consulted with staff a t the University of California Riverside Herbarium, the Living Desert Reserve, and the Palm Springs Desert Museum for information regarding the sensitive biological resources of the project site and vicinity and the potential for these resources to occur on the site. None of these wildlife species were identified in these documents or consultations, or in JWCEC's 1997 report, as historically occurring, or presently occurring, on the site or in the site vicinity. Only the Coachella sand treader cricket and the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket were documented in the CNDDB as occurring in the region; 87 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments however, the last occurrences for these species were recorded in the 1960's and none of the occurrences were on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. While no focused surveys were conducted for these species by Impact Sciences, it would be reasonable to expect that some of these species, especially if they occurred in moderate to large numbers, would have been observed during the 2 days of plant surveys conducted in April of 1997 that methodically covered 100 percent of the project site and/or during the June, 1997 focused survey for the flat -tailed horned lizard that also covered the entire project site. In addition, none of these species were observed during surveys conducted by JWCEC in 1996. A 2 -day small mammal live -trapping program conducted by JWCEC also did not reveal the presence of the Palm Springs little pocket mouse. Based on the results of the literature review, consultations with various biologists and museum records, and on the results of the field surveys, it was concluded that these species have not been recorded as occurring on the site or in the vicinity in recent years and were not expected to occur on the site. Therefore, these species were not addressed in the DEIR. However, in the event that these species did occur on the site, because the site is fragmented and disturbed and therefore of marginal suitability for these species, only very low numbers would be expected. Consequently, because only a low number of animal would be affected, because of the relatively low sensitivity level of these species (none of these species are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered—all are considered species of concern), and because of the overall low quality level of habitat that would be removed, the loss of on-site habitats and/or individuals of these species would not substantially affect the regional population of these species; therefore, no significant impacts on these species would occur. California Department of Fish and Game A. Letter of June 4, 1997 This letter was received by the City of La Quinta on June 9, five days after the close of the 45 -day Draft EIR review and comment period. Nevertheless, in the interest of intergovernmental cooperation and communication, and full disclosure, responses to each of the comments in this letter are provided below. lkE onse to Comment 1 Please refer to response to comment 3, by the USFWS, regarding focused surveys conducted for the flat - tailed horned lizard. 11 88 The Centre at la Quinta Fina! EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments lst�onse to Comment 2 Please refer to the response to comment 6 by the USFWS, at page 87 of this Final EIR, regarding additional species that were not addressed in the DEIR. All potential impacts on special -status species occurring, or potentially occurring, on the project site were evaluated as part of the impact analysis for this EIR. Those impacts that met the significance threshold criteria, as described on page 5.4-10 of the DEIR, were identified and addressed in the DEIR as potentially significant impacts. Although impacts on some biological resources, including plant and wildlife species, may be adverse as a result of the proposed project, CEQA requires the identification of mitigation measures only for impacts that have been determined to be significant, pursuant to established significance threshold criteria. Appropriate and feasible mitigation measures are identified in the DEIR for all significant and potentially significant impacts on biological resources, including special -status species. Response -to Comn�er►t 3 Please refer to the response to comment 2 by the USFWS. Response_ toCiamment 4 A comprehensive evaluation of the biological impacts and mitigation measures associated with this project has been prepared. The DEIR evaluated all potentially adverse impacts on vegetation communities, common wildlife species, special -status plant, wildlife, and vegetation communities known to occur or with a potential to occur on the site, and on wildlife movement corridors. For those impacts considered to be significant pursuant to CEQA, mitigation measures have been identified in the DEIR. California Department of Transportation A. Letter of May 29, 1997 Response to Comment 1 As stated on page 5.5-21 of the Draft EIR, based on a traffic signal warrant analysis that was included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, a traffic signal will be warranted at the project entrance at Adams Street/47th Avenue, in the third major phase of the project. Mitigation measure TC5, page 5.5-23, which is illustrated in Table 19, page 5.5-25 of the Draft EIR, identifies this traffic signal 89 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments improvement as a mitigation measure to be implemented by the project developer, in the third project phase. Response to Comment 22 This comment is noted and will be taken into consideration by the City of La Quinta as final plans and specifications are developed for each phase of the project. Response to Comment 3 This comment is noted and will be taken into consideration by the City of La Quinta as final plans and specifications are developed for each phase of the project. Coachella Valley Water District A. Letter of June 3, 1997 This letter was received by the City of La Quinta on June 9, five days after the close of the 45 -day Draft EIR review and comment period. Nevertheless, in the interest of inter -agency cooperation and communication, and full disclosure, responses to each of the comments in this letter are provided below. Response to Comment 1 The text in question has been corrected. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this final EIR, which contains the text revisions. X(!sponse_to Comment 2 The EIR Consultant and staff members of the City of La Quinta met with Mr. Steve Robbins of the CVWD on June 11 to discuss this comment. Additional citations regarding the source of information in question have been added to address the CVWD's concerns. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this final EIR, which contains the text revisions. Response to Comment 3 This comment is noted. It does not comment m the adequacy of or conflict with any of the information presented in the Draft EIR. 90 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 J 3.0 Responses to Written Comments This comment is noted and is consistent with the discussion and conclusions regarding the project's impact on water supplies, distribution and storage as presented in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. The EIR Consultant and staff members of the City of La Quinta met with Mr. Steve Robbins of the CVWD on June 11 to discuss this comment. Minor text revisions and clarifications have been added to address the CVWD's concerns. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this final EIR, which contains the text revisions. Response to Comment 6 Project impacts related to sanitary sewer service were evaluated as part of the preliminary environmental assessment process, and are discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix B, page 4-22). This assessment determined that the project's wastewater generation would not exceed CVWD's treatment plant capacity and would not require the development or extension of major sewer facilities to serve the project. This determination was made in consultation with Mr. Bruce Clark of the CVWD on January 31, 1997. Given this Initial Study determination, sanitary sewer service was not discussed in the Draft EIR. Imperial Irrigation District A. Letter of June 2, 1997 This letter was received by the City of La Quinta on June 6, two days after the close of the 45 -day Draft EIR review and comment period. Nevertheless, in the interest of inter -agency cooperation and communication, and full disclosure, responses to each of the comments in this letter are provided below. Response to Comment 1 r This comment provides current information regarding how electrical service will be provided to the project. This comment does not contradict any information presented in the Draft EIR and does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For the purpose of full disclosure, however, this information has been added to the discussion of "Proposed Utilities Systems" in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this Final EIR, which contains the revised text. A-4 91 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Responses to Written Comments Response to Comment 2 This comment is accurate. It does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, therefore, no response is required. Response to Comment 3 This comment states that the Imperial Irrigation District has sufficient substation capacity to serve the proposed auto mall portion of the project, and describes potential methods of electrical service to the third phase of the project. This comment does not contradict any information presented in the Draft EIR, and does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For the purpose of full disclosure, however, this information has been added to the discussion of "Proposed Utilities Systems" in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this Final EIR, which contains the revised text. Southern California Association of Governments A. Letter of May 9, 1997 This letter contains numerous references to ways in which the proposed project is consistent with applicable Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies, and acknowledges that the Draft EIR discusses how the project is consistent with these policies. No specific comments concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR are provided in this letter and no response is, therefore, required. 3.2 Responses to Response to Comments From Special Interest Groups Coachella Valley Archaeological Society A. Letter of May 1, 1997 Response to Comment Mitigation measure CR1, defined on page 5.12-7 of the Draft EIR, will require that a professional archaeologist be present to monitor grading operations, as suggested by this comment. 92 The Centre at Ca Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 4.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 4.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This section contains minor corrections as well as minor revisions to the text or illustrations of the DEIR that add useful information or which clarifies analysis, conclusions or other statements presented in the DEIR. None of these corrections or revisions represent significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR, as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, these corrections do not include: 1) Identification of any new significant environmental impact that would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2) Identification of any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact which would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; 3) Identification of any new alternatives or mitigation measures, which are considered feasible, and that are considerably different from others previously presented in the DEIR, which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; or 4) Evidence that the DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature, such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Summary of Minor Corrections and RQvjsions Section 3.0 Project Description • Revisions have been made at page 3-9 regarding the description of the proposed phasing plan, and to the description of proposed street improvements, at page 3-10. These revisions reflect a recent agreement to reduce the right-of-way for Highway 111, and to clarify the scope of proposed street improvements in the first two project phases. • Figure 5, at page 3-11, has been revised to illustrate a different cross section for Highway 111, pursuant to a recent agreement between Caltrans and the City of La Quinta to reduce the right-of- way for this major arterial. 93 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 4.0 Corrections to the Draft EIR • Additional information concerning anticipated methods of providing electrical service to the project has been added at page 3-14 under the topic of "Proposed Utilities Systems," pursuant to comments on the Draft EIR by the Imperial Irrigation District. Section 5.4 Biological Resources • Additional information has been added to page 5.4-2, in the discussion of Field Studies, to describe the focused survey for flat -tailed horned lizards conducted at the project site in June, 1997. • Additional information has been added to page 5.4-7, in the second paragraph under the discussion of Reptiles, to present the findings of the focused survey for flat -tailed homed lizard conducted at the project site in June, 1997. • Revisions to the discussion of project impacts on Special Status Wildlife have been made at page 5.4-13, to reflect the absence of flat -tailed horned lizard during the June, 1997 focused survey and to change the conclusion regarding the impact on this species to not significant. • At page 5.4-16, under the discussion of Cumulative Impacts, the conclusion of significant impact has been narrowed to apply only to the loss of habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, based on the findings of a focused survey for flat -tailed homed lizards conducted in June, 1997, in which no signs of the flat -tailed horned lizard were observed. • Refinements have been made to the language of Mitigation Measure BIOl, at page 5.4-17, to improve the clarity of this measure. • Refinements have been made to the language of Mitigation Measure BIO2, at page 5.4-17, to note that no flat -tailed homed lizards were found on-site during a focused survey conducted in June, 1997, and that no mitigation for that species is required for this project. The discussion of Unavoidable Significant Impacts, at page 5.4-18, has been revised to delete references to loss of flat -tailed horned lizard habitat as an unavoidable, significant cumulative impact. Section 5.5 Transportation and Circulation • Information has been added to page 5.5-14, to describe the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program, pursuant to comments on the Draft EIR by the City of Indio. 94 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 4.0 Corrections to the Draft EIR Section 5.8 Water Distribution and Storage Minor corrections and revisions have been made to identify information sources or clarify statements at pages 5.8-1, 5.8-2, 5.8-7, and 5.8-8, pursuant to comments on the Draft EIR by the Coachella Valley Water District, and to improve the clarity of mitigation measures W1 and W2. Section 5.9 Solid Waste Disposal • Refinements have been made to the language of Mitigation Measure SW5, at page 5.8-9, to strengthen and improve the clarity of this measure. Section 5.11 Aesthetics Refinements have been made to the language of Mitigation Measure AES1, at page 5.11-12, to improve the clarity of this measure. Section 5.12 Cultural Resources • Refinements have been made to the language of Mitigation Measure CRI, at page 5.12-12, to improve the clarity of this measure. These revisions are presented in the following pages. 95 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR June 30, 1997 3.0 Project Description uses. Because this part of the project is not expected to commence until approximately the end of year 2001, the specific range of commercial activities that will be developed has not been determined by the applicant. Grading and Phasing Plan As shown on Figure 4, the project is proposed to be developed in three major phases. Phase 1 would contain five auto sales dealerships in the northwestern part of the site, along with the internal streets, landscaping, lighting, and utilities, as well as perimeter improvements such as walls and signage. This first phase is expected to take six months to complete, with dealerships open for business by mid-1998. Off-site improvements to be provided in Phase 1 include the adjacent half -width portion of Adams Street (curb/gutter, full landscaped median, landscaped parkway and infrastructure extensions), and stew pavement on the west side of the street, plus the adjacent half -width portion of Highway 111 (curb/gutter landscaped parkway and necessary infrastructure extensions). from Adams Street to the ma, nrojeci entrance. Primary site access is proposed to be provided by a signalized, landscaped entry from Highway 111, located in the middle of the highway frontage. A second access would be constructed at Adams Street, opposite Avenue 47. This could be signalized in the future if warrants are met. Utilities would be extended to the eastern boundary of Planning Area 1, and "stubbed out" for future extension into Planning Area 2, when that area is proposed for development. All of Planning Area 1 would be mass graded as part of the first phase. Rough pads will be established for the individual dealership sites at this time. Total Phase 1 grading is currently estimated at 125,000 cubic yards of earth material, as a balanced operation that would involve no import or export of materials. Phase 2 is proposed to include four additional pad sites in the southwestern quadrant, plus an area to be dedicated to the Coachella Valley Water District for a future well site in the southwestern comer of the site Thisbe a will also complete the street improvementczeemplete street emd tH4r along the entir^balanee ei the Highway 111 frontage, to the northeast property comer,. .including the genter median and -north side pavemen# as well as remain a flit e e sio -This phase would else -require approximately six months to complete, with occupancies and business openings estimated to occur by the end of 2000. The commercial center (Phase 3) would be mass graded at a later time, following City approval of specific development plans for that area. It is currently estimated that this area will be developed in a series of sub -phases, from approximately the year 2001 through the year 2005. Actual phasing will depend upon the prevailing economic conditions. Grading for the commercial center part of the site is 3-9 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 3.0 Project Description currently estimated to require the movement of approximately 125,000 cubic yards of earth material, also to occur as a balanced operation, with no import or export. Circulation and Access Both State Highway 111 and Adams Street along the project site frontages are currently partially improved. This project would construct half width street improvements, along both frontages, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element standards. Highway 111 is designated as a major. Arterial, with a half -width of 86 feet. however. a recent agreement between the City and Caltrans has reduced the right-of-way to a total of 140 feel. with a 7 -f st half h Figmre 5. ThIIE reduction in right-of-way will reduce the amount of landscape area within the highway right-of-way, w'il n t Iimina h 1 and will not reduce the traffic yplume c aci f thi a`or arterial. Adams Street is designated as a Primary Arterial, which requires a half -width of 55 feet. Street improvements along both Highway 111 andAdams Street would include pavement, center zxfediatis, curb, gutter, bike paths, landscaping, and sidewalks. Traffic signals would be installed at both the main entrance, from Highway 111 and at the secondary entrance, from Adams Street, at the time signal warrants are met. A main north/south street ("La Quinta Centre Drive" on Figure 4) is proposed to provide the primary site entrance from Highway 111, and to bisect the site between the auto mall area and the future commercial center. An interior loop road will serve the auto dealerships and provide direct access from Avenue 47. The main drive will be a public street, however, no on -street parking will be allowed and no individual site access will be permitted north of the loop road. The interior loop road will be a public street, with parking permitted on both sides and a center left turn lane that will also be used for vehicle unloading. Proposed street sections for all proposed street improvements are illustrated in Figure 5. The future commercial center will develop its own internal circulation system, which will be designed to connect to the main entrance road. Landscape Concept A "desert oasis" landscaping theme is proposed that will emphasize water efficient materials, provide a mixture of color and form, and minimize the use of turf areas. The western part of the site is proposed to be set back from the ultimate right-of-way of Adams Street by a 20 -foot wide landscape area, and from the ultimate right-of-way of Highway 111 with a 50 -foot wide landscape setback area. A decorative, solid wall would extend along the interior edge of the entire Adams Street landscape zone and along the interior edge of the Highway 111 setback, ending at the main entrance drive. Parking areas within the future commercial center will feature the concept of a high canopy tree form to reduce the conflict between landscape elements and project graphics. The auto mall will use tree forms sparingly and concentrate form and color along the street frontage of each dealership. Most of the internal landscape areas will also be used to retain stormwater on-site. 3-10 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Centre at La Quinta Prepared for: City of La Quints 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 June 30, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................ , .............. ............... ...MMP -1 Contents................................ ........ ................................... ....... ........... ...MMP -1 Purpose.......................................................................... . ...................... MMP -1 Environmental Procedures.......................................................... . ...........MMP -1 2.0 MANAGEMENT OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .........................MMP -2 Roles and Responsibilities ......................... ............................................ MMP -2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures .......................MMP -3 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST ........ . ..... . .....................MMP -5 Introduction..........................................................................................MMP-5 Mitigation Monitoring Program.............................................................MMP-6 t Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at La Quinta 1.0 INTRODUCTION CONTENTS This Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP) contains three sections. Section 1.0: Introduction describes the purpose, contents, and requirements of the MMP. Section 2.0: Management describes the roles and responsibilities, mitigation monitoring program procedures, and mitigation monitoring operation. Section 3.0: Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist provides the mitigation measures, implementing action, method of verification, timing of verification, responsible department/ agency, and compliance verification. PURPOSE Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: When making findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081, or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the responsible or lead agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. A Draft EIR (including a detailed Initial Study) and Response to Comments/Final EIR were prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, these environmental documents recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts that would have an adverse effect upon the environment. Consistent with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation monitoring or reporting program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City of La Quinta will adopt this MMP when making findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). The MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of La Quinta for the implementation of CEQA. MMP -1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at La Quinta 2.0 MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through out all phases of the project including final design, pre -grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. The following are specific roles for all parties involved in the implementation of the MMP. City of La Quinta Community Development Department The Community Development Department (Department) is responsible for the day-to-day operation of all phases of the MMP and assuring implementation. They will be in charge of the coordination of a 11 work efforts to assure project construction in accordance with the MMP. The Director of Community Development (Director) is responsible for the overall MMP administration, and shall have final authority with respect to disputes concerning timing, execution and determination of compliance with the mitigation measures. The Director or designated staff person shall select a Mitigation Monitor for the MMP. This Monitor may be a member of the Department staff or a professional consultant hired by the Department. The Department will be responsible for documentation and reporting of the MMP. They will act as a clearinghouse of all information. City Attorney The City Attorney shall be responsible for implementation of corrective actions, stop work orders, and assistance in the arbitration of disputes. Technical Advisors The Technical Advisors will be responsible for monitoring in their respective areas of expertise (e.g., biology, archaeology). The Technical Advisors will directly report to the Mitigation Monitor. MMP -2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at La Quinta MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consist of mitigation and monitoring actions, filing requirements, and compliance verification, as described below. Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Measure Checklist includes: 1. The action required to implement the mitigation measure; 2. The method of verification of compliance with the mitigation action; 3. The timing of verification; 4. The department or agency responsible for monitoring and ensuring proper implementation of the mitigation measures; and 5. Compliance verification. Section 3.0 provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of La Quinta Community Development Department. Compliance Verification During continuing monitoring efforts, the department responsible for each mitigation measure shall provide a regular reporting of verification efforts to the Mitigation Monitor, and shall document satisfactory completion of each measure for which they are responsible. The MMP Checklist shall be signed by the Mitigation Monitor, when compliance of all mitigation measure has been satisfied. Operations The following steps shall be followed for implementing, monitoring, reporting, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of La Quinta, Director of Community Development shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of La Quinta, Director of Community Development shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. MMP -3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at La Quinta 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of La Quinta, Director of Community Development, with advice from responsible City staff and Technical Advisors, is authorized to approve changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Director will document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about the refined requirements. Dispute Arbitration/Resolution The Director of Community Development is designated as the authority for dispute arbitration/ resolution. The decisions of the Director will be made after consultation with the responsible members of City staff, Technical Advisors and/or City Attorney. The decisions of the Director maybe appealed to the Planning Commission. MMP -4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at La Quinta 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City of La Quinta. MMP -5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Centre at [a Quinta MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: The Centre at La Quinta FILE NUMBERS: SP 97-029; Dev. A rmnt. 97-002• CUP 97-034• SDP 97-603• TPM 28525 APPROVAL DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.: EA No_ 97-337 The fotlowing environmental mitigation meastires were incorporated in to the approval /`or this project in order to mitigate potentialttr sign cant environmental impacts. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation tneasitre indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and f i Tills t e City of La QWnta's monitoring requiremenis with respect to Assembly Bilr 3180 (Ptiblic Resources Code Section 21087.6). The mitigation ineasitres are numbered consistently with the projects Environmental Impact Report. Significant I Page Issue I Effect No. view I ResponsibleI Monitoring Verification Agency Milestone Geo- Unstable 5.2-7 (tel. Once the location, size and loading Check soils engi- Public Works Prior to issuance technical ground condi- tions conditions for the proposed buildings have been deternIA design level soil neerire art 19Cosider- submittedby Department and Building and of grading per- mitsfor each ations engineering studies shall be conducted developer. Safety Dept. development on a lot by lot basis, if necessary. Those phase. studies will include drilled test borings, laboratory testing program and a design level report. The report will provide', criteria for design of foundations, slab - on -grade construction, site gradin specifications and utility trench backfill recommendations. Unstable 5.2-7 G2. The project soil engineer wi l review Check grading Public Works Prior to issuance ground condi- the grading plans and project improve- plan for signa- Department of grading per - tions ment plans for the projects prior to con- ture by project mits for each struction. The review is intended to de- soil engineer. development termine compliance with the intent of the phase. recommendations contained in the soils engineering report. MMP -6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at la Quinta Issue Potential Significant I Effect El Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible I Agency Monitoring I I Milestone Verification of Com liance Initial Date I Remarks Geo- Unstable 5.2-8 G3. site grading and construction will be Conduct pre- Public Works Conduct confer - technical ground condi- observed by the project soil engineer and g�rt'ading con- Department ence prior to Cosider- tions tested, as necessary, to determine general Terence with commencement ations compliance with the recommendations owner reps, and of grading op - (cont.) contained in the soils engineering report. grading con- erations, for In addition, the soil en eer will ob- by tractor, civil Building Safety Dept. each grading serve conditions exposed the grading engineer and and phase. and record significant features and/or geotechnical (fine grading) changes that may be exposed. Various aspects of grading will be covered in a engineer. Conduct field ob- servations pre -construction conference with repre- Monitor grading throughout sentatives of the owner, grading contrac- and site prepa- each grading tor, civil engineer and geotechnical engi- ration activi- phase neer. ties and dis- cuss observa- tions with project soils engineer. Foundation, 5.2-8 G4. Structural design will take into ac- Check project Building and Prior to the issu- structural count the anticipated ground shaking plans and Safety Depart- ance of build- andpavement characteristics in the design of thepro- specifications ment ing permits, for damage, po- buildings for earthquake loading. � t to ensure compli- each develop- went phase. tential injury platys and specifications shall proper to persons satisfy the seismic design parameters set ance with design during earth- forth in the latest addition of the Uni- seismic quake- form Building Code, as administered by standards set induced the City of La Quinta. These criteria are forth in U.B.C. ground- considered minimum guidelines for proj- shaking ect structural design. Potentially 5.2-8 G5. The inferred fault trace in the western Check soils engi- Public Works Prior to the issu- unstable ed&e of the project site is not considered neering reports Department ance of grading ground condi- active and is not recognized as a major for specificpa rr its for the tions eologic hazard. Pursuant to La Quinta discussion and Ptrst grading Eeneral Plan Policy 8-1.1.1, however, recommen phase. further investigation of this part of the dations based site shall be conducted prior to any on field grading in that area, to more closely ana- Fyze this feature to determine whether it investigations and contains any significant geological con- laboratory straints that would require special de- testing (if sign or construction measures. If such needed) of this constraints are found, appropriate de- feature. Check sign and construction control measures be Inco intog�raading, pro ect plans specifica- shall orated foundation and /or structural plans, as an tions to ensure recoaunended by the geotechnical engi- that recom- neer. mendations are incorporated into these plans and specs. MMP -7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect E1R Page No. Method of Re- view Mitigation Measure Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Cam fiance Initial I Date I Remarks Geo- Unstable 5.2-8 G6. Prior to any grading operations, areas Conduct field in- Public Works Prior to com- technical ground condi- which are to receive select structural spection to Department mencementOf Cosider- tions fill, foundations, pavement sections, or verify proper each grading ations concrete slabs -on -grade must be cleared clearing and phase. (cont.) of pavements, abandoned utilities and stripping, in old foundations. The materials to be re- consultation moved will be observed by a qualified with project soils engineer when clearing and strip- soils engineer. ping operations are in progress. Unstable 5.2-8 G7. The bottom of egressions created by Conduct field in- Public Works During each grad - ground condi- the removal of existing structures or spection(s) to Department ing phase. tions pavement should be scarified and cross verify proper scarified at least 8 -inches and recom- to least 90 n clearing and backfilling of patted at percent of nvvdmu dry density. The depressions should depressions, in then be backfilled with approved, coo— consultation acted select structural fill, as s edfied Tearing with project y the project soils engineer. be soils engineer and backfill operations will con- ducted under the field observation of the soil engineer, Unstable 5.2-9 G8. Select structural fill material may be Conduct field in- 1 Public Works During each grad - ground condi- placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned spection(s) to Department ing phase. tions to near o "rrsum moisture content, and verify proper compactea to 90 percent of maximum dry compaction, in density until finished grade has been ob- consultation tained. Compaction criteria will be with project based on the laboratory test procedure soils engineer. ASTM D 1557-91. Unstable 5.2-9 G9. The soil engineer will be notified at Contractor to no- Public Works At least 48 hours ground condi- least 48 hours prior to t of tify City Public Department prior to com- tions any grading operations, so he may coon- Works Dept. mencement of dinate the work in the field with the con- on same day any grading tractors. soils engineer operations is notified. Weak or 5.2-9 G10. The support of a proposed structure Check project Building and Prior to the issu- damaged may be provided by conventional, strip foundation Safety Depart- ance of any building foundations and spread footings bearing firm re- plans and rr-fft per - worked native soil or select structural specifications, mits. fill, but not on a combination of both. verify compli- The design criteria for foundations, in- ance with rec- cluding detailed reinforcing require ommendations rnents, will be detelinined by a site spe- of Soils engi- cific soil engineering study, and the de- neer and ap- sign engineer performing the structural plicable provi- the analysis of the proposed building and sions of supporting foundations. U.B.C. MMP -8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Geo- Potential EIR G11. Perimeter and interior footings should Method of Re- Building and Safety Depart- Verification of Significant Page technical view Responsible Monitoring Com liance Issue Effect No. Miti ation Measure Verification Agency Milestone Initial Date Remarks Geo- Weak or 5.2-9 G11. Perimeter and interior footings should Check project Building and Safety Depart- Prior to the issu- technical damaged be founded a minimum 12 to 18 inches foundation ance of any Cosider- founddations into the lowest adjacent, compacted soil plans and meat building Aer- ations and footings pads. Interior footing under concrete specifications, mits. (cont.) slab -on -grade should be founded a mini- verify compli- nun of 12 to 15 inches into the eonr ance with rec- pacted soil building pad. Select strut- ommendations tural fill should be compacted to at least of soils engi- 90 percent of maximum dry densityty. For neer and ap- the above conditions, the foundations plicable provi- for a proposed structure may be designed sions of the U.B.C. for an allowable bearing pressure range of 2000 to 30GO pounds per square foot for dead plus reasonable live loads. These values may be increased by 1/3 to include short term seismic and wind ef- fects. Weak or 5.2-9 G12. The soils engineer will observe founda- Conduct held in- Building and luring construc- damaged tion excavations prior to placing forth spection(s) to Safety Depart- tion of founda- foundations boards or placement of reinforcing steel. vert proper m ast tions. and other The purpose of this is to verify the soil soil ensity structural density within the bearing soils. beneath foun- supports dation areas, in consultation with project soils engineer. Weak or 5.2-9 G13. Concrete slabs -on -grade associated Check project Buildingand Prior to the issu- dama9zed foundations with high point loads, such as those as- sociated with fork lifts, and those that plans and specifications Safety Depart- meat ance of build - ing permits for will be subjected to heavy construction to ensure that concrete slabs - loads, such as those created by a crane concrete slabs- on -grade. liftirif concrete panel, should be suffi- on -grade in- cienty thick and reinforced to accommo- corporate suf- date these toads. f'icient thick- ness and rein- forcement for estimated loads, as de- termined by project struc- truttural turalengineer. MMP -9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at [A Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. I Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com fiance I Initial I Date I Remarks Geo- Weals or 5.2-9 G14. For concrete slab -on -grade floor con- Check project Building and Check plans prior technical darmged struction in warehouse or maintenance plans and Safety Depart- to the issuance Cosider- foundations areas, where no floor covering will be specifications ment to check of building ations used (and not subjected to Pugh point to ensure that plans and con- permits and (cont.) loads), a minimum 4 inch layer of 3 /4" these specifica- duct field in- conduct inspec- baserock should be placed and onn- tions are in- spection(s). tions during patted to a mh*mr n of 95 percent of cluded. construction of maxuruun dry densittyy. If a moisture va- these floor ar- por barrier is used, the barrier should be Conduct field in- eas. overlaid by 2 inches of commercial qual- spection(s) to ity sand. The sand should be lightly verify proper moistened prior to placing concrete. flooring con- struction, in accordance with approved plans. Weak or 5.2-10 G15. Exterior concretes abs -on -grade, such Checkproject Public Works Check plans prior damaged con- as driveways, should be founded on at plans and dept. to check to the issuance crete flat least b" of approved import baserock, or specifications plans and con- of building work as specified by the City of La Quinta, to verify inclu- duct field in- permits for which ever is more stringent. The use of sion of these spection(s). these struc- reinforcing steel in exterior concrete recornmendatio tural elements flatwork is recommended and all con- ns. and conduct struction joints should be held together inspections by steel dowels. It is recommended that Conduct field in- during con - exterior concrete flatwork soil areas be spection(s) to struction of premoistened before concrete is placed. verify proper these floor ar- flatwork con- eas. struction tech- niques, in ac- cordance with approved p ans. MMP -10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at Ia Qninta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Miti ation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com liance Initial hate Remark$ Geo- Weak or 5.2-10 G16. Interior concreteslabs-on- ra should Check project Building and Check plans prior technical damaged con- contain reinforcement wins the slabs plans and Safety Depart- to issuance of Cosider- trete slabs structurally connected to adjacent pe- specifications ment to check building er- for ations rimeter foundations. Reinforcing of inte- to ensure that plans and con- snits these (cont.) rior slabs -on -grade will be provided byroper rein- forcement duct field in- structural ele- the structural engineer, based on the is spections. ments and con - proposed usage. designed into duct field in - slabs -on- spections dur- grade, in ac- ing construc- cordance with tion of these recommendatio areas. ns of project structural en- gineer. Conduct field in- spections to verify compli- ance with ap- proved plans. Weak or 5.2-10 G17. Concrete slabs should be divided into Chec project Building and ChecK plans prior damaged essentially equi-dimensional segments plans and Safety Depart- to issuance of slabs during construction to help control specifications ment to check building per - cracking during the curing period. nein- forcing the -on -grade is to ensure that roper rein- plans and con- duct field in- mics for these structural ele- of concrete slab reconunerided and the slab should be orcement is spections. ments and con - structurally connected to the perimeter designed into duct field in - foundations at all door openings. Con- slabs -on- spections dur- struction joints should be adequately grade, in ac- ing construc- doweled. If interior slabs are designed cordance with tion of these as free floatin adequate expansion felt be between the recommendatio of areas. joint of shou�d placed ns project concrete slab and foundation. structural en- gineer. Conduct field in- spections to verify compli- ance with ap- proved plans. MMP -11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at Ia Quinta Issue Potential Significant I Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible I Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com liance Initial Date I Remarks Geo- Weak or 5.2-10 G18. Exterior slabs -on -grade, which will Check project Public WorksCheck plans prior technical damaged ex- experience vehicular traffic, including plans and Department to to issuance of Cosider- terior slabs fork lift traffic, such as driveway specifications check plans and building Aer- ations aprons and trash bin aprons, should to ensure that conduct field mits for these (cont.) have at least 8 inches of compacted Class proper rein- inspections. structural ele- Il aggregate base rock (R= 78 min.) under forcement is ments and con - the concrete slab; actual thickness is de- designed into duct field in - pendent upon the slab thickness and ac- exterior slags- spections dur- tual traffic loads and volume. The base- on -grade, to mg construc- rock should be compacted to at least 95 withstand es- tion of these percent of maximum dry density. timated loads areas. in accordance with recom- mendations of project struc- tural engineer. Conduct field in- spections to verify compli- ance with ap- proved plans. Unstable and 5.2-10 G19. Backfill of utilities within road nht- Check utility con- Public Works Check plans prior unsafe of --way will be placed in strict con or- struction plans Dept. to check to the issuance ggroround over buried mance with the requirements of thegav- to verify com- plans and con- of encroach - utili- erning agency (City of La Quinta, pliance with duct field in- ment and other ties CVWD, Caltrans, etc.). requirements spections. permits re - of governing quired for in - entity. Stallation of utilities. Conduct field in- spections to Conduct field in - verify that spections dur- construction ing utilities occurs in com- construction. pliance with approved plans. MMP -12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Geo- technical Cosider-ground ations (cont.) Potential EIR G20, Utility trench ba ill within private property will be placed in strict confor- mance with the provisions of this report relating to rninimum compaction stan- dards. In general, service line's extending inside of the subject property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a n**num of 90 percent of maximuan dry density. Method of Re- Public Works Dept. to check plans and con- duct field in- spections. Verification of Significant Page I view Responsible Monitoring Com liance I Issue Effect No. Mitigation Measure Verification -Age c Milestone initial I Date I Remarks Geo- technical Cosider-ground ations (cont.) Unstable and unsafe over buried utili- ties 5.2-10 G20, Utility trench ba ill within private property will be placed in strict confor- mance with the provisions of this report relating to rninimum compaction stan- dards. In general, service line's extending inside of the subject property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a n**num of 90 percent of maximuan dry density. Check utility con- struction plans to verify com- pliance with requirements of goverrdng entity. Conduct field in- spections to verify that construction occurs in com- pliance with approved plans. Public Works Dept. to check plans and con- duct field in- spections. Check plans prior to the issuance of encroach- ment and other permits re - qutred for in - stallation of utilities. Conduct field in - spections dur- ing utilities construction. Unstable or 5.2-11 G21. Backfill operations will be observed Conduct field in- Public Works Conduct field in - unsafe fill and tested -by the project engineer, to spections and Dept. to con- spections dur- over buried monitor compliance with these recom- consult with duct field in- ing utilities utilities. mendations. project engi- spections and construction. neer to verify consultation, Projectengi- that construe- and to receive neer to file tion occurs in and file verifi- verification compliance cation submit- prior to initia- with approved ted by project tion of next plans. Project engineer. phase of utility en neer to construction. su5mit written verification that backfill operations comply with approved util- ity plans. Soil erosion 5.2-11 G22. To control erosion during construction, I Check contractor Public Works Check plans prior keep the soil moist by frequent watering. specifications Department to to the issuance After construction, when frequent wa- to ensure that check plans. d of grading per- for terin is no longer feasible, the devel- they include these Buildinietid. Safety Dto mits each operfs) shall install wind -breaks and plant native and brush on areas provi�- sions. conduct grading phase. grasses reserved for future phases of develop- inspections. Conduct field in- ment, to minimize the contact of the wind Conduct field in- spections dur- against the ground. spections to ing each grad - verify that suf- ing phase and ficient water- at conclusion ing occurs and of each grading that wind- phase, breaks and plantings are completed. MMP -13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Potential Significant Issue Effect EIRMethod Page No. Mitigation Measure of Ke- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com fiance Initial I Date I Remarks Geo- Poor drain- 5.2-11 G23. Where no exterior pavement section Ch d- Public Works Check plans prior technical age, poten- abuts the buildings, soil should be back- ing drainage Dept. to check to issuance of Cosider- tiaUT weak- filled against the exterior footings and plans to ensure pplans and gradin permits . ations erred footings the final grade should result in a poli- that this pro- Buildirn and for ea grad - (cont.) tive gradient away from the buildings, in vision is in- Safety ie.pt. to ing phase. order to provide rapid removal of rain eluded. conduct field Conduct field and irrigation water away from the inspections. inspections foundations. Conduct field in- during each spections to grading phase. ensure grading complies with approved plans. Poor drain- 5.2-11 G24. To help minimize increased moisture Check ggrt'ad- Public Works Check plans prior age and per into fill material under new foundations ingldrainage Dept. and to issuance of tentially and pavements, good site drainage is irrr plans and Buildingand gradin permits weakened portant. Site drainage shall include roof landscaping/ Safety ept. to for eac� grad - foundations butters, catch basins and/or other irrigation check plans and ing phase. and pavement drainage facilities. Down -spouts from the roof the buildings will discharge plans to ensure that this conduct field inspections. Conduct field inspections of pro- collected rainwater onto splashblocks, vision is in- during each adjacent paved areas, or be tied into a eluded. grading phase. water -tight drainage pipe, which will carry the collected water away from the Conduct field in - building areas. Desi landscaping and irrigation be designed to spections to shall prevent ensure grading excess irrigation and ponding. complies with approved plans. MMP -14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at Ia Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Miti ation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible A enc Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com liance I Initial I Date I Remarks Hydrology% Contribution 5.3-7 HWl. Prior to the issuance of any grading Developer to SWPPP Public Works Dept. to Public Works Dept. to verify Waterof polluted permits, a stormwater pollution preven- submit receive Quality site runoff to tion plan (SWPPP) shall be completed, to in conjunction and file copy of issuance of regional the satisfaction of the Colorado Re- with NPDES NPDES Permit NPDES Permit drainage fa- gional Water Quality Control Board construction and SWPPP, as and apppproval cilities, with and the City of La Quinta. The SWPPP ppermit to RWQCB. approved by RWQCB- of SWPPP, to possible ad- shall include measures to minimize the the prior issu- verse down- generation of fugitive dust, prevent ero- ance of grading stream water sion and prevent and contain hazardous RWQCB to check Public Works permits for quality im- materials spills. Specific elements of the SWPPP to en- Dept. to con- each grading pacts SWPPP may include, but are not limited sure it con- duct field in- phase involy- to: tains sufficient spections. mg five acres • Dust controls as specified inro ect measures to or more. PM,Q plan (see Section 5.6 Air Quality avoid signifi- for further description). cant water Field inspections • Installation of sand bags at existing and quality im- to occur at be - proposed storm drain inlets pacts. of and runngggiadfgter • Soil stabilizing of future phase areas af- ies, for rough grading Conduct field in- Covering construction access roads with spections to each grading ggravel ensure con- phase. • Waterin& site throughout grading Minimizing the of separate con- struction op - erations com- number struction and vehicle storage and staging ply properly areas, to simplify the collection and dis- with approved posal of contaminants. SWPPP. • Identifying the location of fuel storage areas. • Erect barriers around vehicle storage and staging areas and around fuel stor- age areas, to prevent intrusion by unau- thorized persons after construction hours • An ongoing monitoring plan, to ensure that water quality controls are repeated and properly implemented in subsequent construction phases. The monitoring plan should include objectives, parame- ters for monitoring, schedules, evalua- tion and actions required. Regular moni- toring reports shall beprovided, throughout each construction phase. MMP -15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Hydrology/- Potential EIR FIWI Final grading and drainage plans for Method of Re -Verification Public Works of Significant Page Water view Responsible Monitoring Corn Bance Issue Effect No. Mitigation Measure Verification A encu Milestone Initial Date 1 Remarks Hydrology/- 5tormwater 5.3-8 FIWI Final grading and drainage plans for Check final hy- Public Works Check plans prior Water runoff from each phase of development shall incor- facilities, drologgyy ' ggrraad- Dept. to check to issuance of Quality project site to porate retention and shall ing andn- drai plans and con- gradin permits (cont.) surrounding pprove to the satisfaction of the City of La be age plans, to duct field in- for each grad - streets and Quinta that there will no site run- ensure that spections. ing phase. properties, off for rainstorms up to and including flood protec- ppossible the 100 -yeas storm. tion standards Conduct field in - flooding or are satisfied spections dur- nuisance wa- and complete ing each grad - ter impacts on-site reten- ing phase and tion of storm- dunnt con - water (up to struction of and including storm drainage flows from and retention 100 -year facilities storm) is pro- vided. Conduct field in- spections to verify installa- tion of ap- proved storm drainage fa- cilities. Failure of 5.3-8 HW3. To ensure the continued effectiveness check Covenants, Public Works Check and ap storm drain of the storm drainage and retention fa- Conditions De t. to check prove CC&Rs system, with cilities, prop" owner maintenance as- and Restric- C�&Rs to en- prior to sale of possible lo- sociations shall be established to regu- tions (CC&Rs) sure they con- any properties calized or ]arty clean and maintain landscaping, prepared for Iain adequate from current off-site flood- storm drainage facilities and retention property own- maintenance owner to sub- ing or nui- areas, including drywells, which sup- ers to ensure provisions. se vent own- sance water port those properties. that mainte- ersship inter - impacts. nance provi- eats. sions are in- cluded. MMP -16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com liance Initial Date Remarks Biological Killing or 5.4-17 13101. Conunon and Special -Status Bird Check contractor Corninunity De- Check grading Resources injuring nest- Nests. If project site grading and/or specifications velopment Dept. plans prior to ing, native construction would occur during the to ensure that to check grad- issuance of birds nesting/breeding season (typically Feb- this measure is ing specifica- grading permits ruary through July) of native bird spe- included. tions to ensure for any grading cies potentially nesting on the site, then this measure is proposed to the following measure shall be imple- Biologist to file included. occur during mented: report of sur- the nesti gl vey findingsCommunity Dev. breeding sea - Prior to construction or site preparation and recomrnen- Dept. to hire son. activities, a field survey shall be con- dations with biologist (if ducted by a qualified bioiogist to deter- Public Works needed) to con- Biologist to moati- mine if active nests of sectal-status Dept. duct site sur- for grading if it birds (i.e., loggerhead shrike5j or comrrm vey. occurs during bird species protected by the Miggratory Biologist to moni- nesting/ breed - Bird Tres Act and/or the Cafifornia for grading to Public Works ing season. Fish and Code, are present in the ensure that Dept. Inspector construction zone or within 50 feet of construction to take en - the construction zone. If active nests are does not en- forcement ac - found, a minimum 50 -foot (this distance croach into tions against may be greater depending on the bird protected Contractor, to species and construction activity, as de- zones during avoid injuring termined by the biologist) fenced buffer nesting season, or killing nest - shall be established around the nest site. and to notify ing birds. No construction activities will be per- Public Works shitted within this nest zone until the Inspector if young birds have fledged, as detennined construction by the project biologist. threatens nest- ing birds. MMP -17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Miti ation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Monitoring Agency Milestone Verification of Com Bance Initial I Date Remarks Biological Loss of habi- 5.4-17 B102. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Collect fee. Community De- Collect and trans - Resources tat for sensi- and Flat -tailed Homed Lizard. The velopment De fer fee prior to (cont.) five and en- project applicant shall pay $bt}© per ppartment to col- the issuance of dangered liz- acre developed to the City of La Quinta lett fee, transfer grading per- ard species. as part of the Coachella Valley fringe- fee to the Na- scuts for first toed lizard mitigation plan. This rnrtiga- tion structure has been established %y ture Conner- vancy. phase of grad - ing. the USFWS and CDFG. The fee is ap- plied when lands within known or his- torical fringe -toed lizard habitat are de- veloped. The project lies within the fee area. The mitigation fee is used to pur- chase fringe -toed lizard habitat in spe- cial preserves, such as the Coachella Valley Preserve area, for the purrppose of maintaining suitable habitat Tor the fringe -toed lizard. In addition, even though there is only a low potential for the Flat -tailed horned lizard to occur on the site due to the disturbed nature of the habitat, the fringe -toed lizard habitat on the site is also suitable for the homed lizard. Measures such as the payment of the mitigation fee that are enacted as of the Coachella Valley Fringe toed F Lizard Habitat Conservation flan to preserve and enhance fringge toed lizard habitat will also bene#it flat -tailed homed Iizard. Therefore, the mitigation fee paid for the loss of fringe -toed Iizard habitat on the site will also mitigate the loss of this same habitat for flat -tailed horned lizard. Transport- 'Traffic con- 5.5-23 T'C1. The proppoosed pra]ect shall have full Check project Public Works Prior to the issu- ation and flicts access to SR -111 and Adams Street. The street im- Dept. ante of permits Circulation project developer(s) shall construct the provement to construct site-specific circulation recommenda- plans to ensure street im- tions as depicted in Figure 20 of the they reflect full provements. Draft EIR. access to SR -111 and Adams St. Unsafe in- 5.5-23 TC2. Sight distance at each project entrance Check final grad- Public Works Prior to the issu- gress/ shall be reviewed with respect to Stan- in landscape Dept. ante of ermits egress and dard Caltrans/City of La Quinta sight and street im- for grading,, traffic con- distance standards at the time of prepa- provement landscape and flicts ration of final grading, landscape and plans. street im- street improvement plans. provements. MMP -18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at Ln Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Method of Re- view Mitigation Measure Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone Verification of Cosa fiance I Initiall Datel Remarks Transport- ation and Circulation (cont.) Unsafe in- grass/ egress and traffic con- flicts 5.5-23 TC3. The project developer(s) shall provide a westbound 400 foot left turn pocket on SR -111 for vehicles desiring to turn left into the project site. Check final street improvement plans for SR- 111 improve- meats, Public Works Dept. Prior to the issu- ance of permits to construct street im- provements. Unsafe in- 5.5-23 TC4. The project developers) shall provide Check final street Public Works Prior to the issu- gress/ a sou bound 300 foot left turn pocket improvement Dept. ance of permits egress and on Adams Street for vehicles desiring to plans for to construct traffic con- turn left into the project site. Adams Street street im- flicts, improvements. provements. Traffic con- 5.5-23 TC5. Construct intersection improvements, Collect Infra- Yublic Works Collect fee prior gestion and as defined in Table 19, on pa �;e 5.5-25 of structure De- Dept. to the issuance traffic con- the Draft EIR. The project developer(s) velopment Fees of building flicts shall participate in the construction of from project permits for traffic improvements at affected coca- developer. each develop - tions in the regional arterial network, ment phase• through payment of required Infrastruc- Coordinate with ture velopment Fees. CVAG to en- Coordinate with sure that rec- CVAG during ommended fu- regular meet- ture improve- ings and corre- ments to inter- spondence sections of Jef- with CVAG ferson concerning the St./Mile Ave- Regional Arte - nue and Wash- rial Capital ington Improvement St./Fred War- Plan. ing Drive are funded in the CVAG Re- sanal Arterial pital Im- provement Plan. MMP -19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect I PR Page I No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible I Agency Monitoring I Milestone Verification of Com liance I Initial I Date I Remarks Transport- Traffic con- 5.5-23 TC6. The project developer(s) shall consult Verify results of Public Works Contact Sunline ation and gestion with the Sunline Transit Agency to con- this consulta- Dept. Transit and Circulation sider expanding service within the area. tion with Sun- check plans, (cont.) line Transit prior to issu- Agency. If ante of build - transit facili- Ing permits for ties needs are first develop - identified, ment phase of check final site project. plan and/or street im- provement plans to verify inclusion of transit facili- ties, pursuant to Sunline Transit stan- dards. Traffic cora- 5.5-23 TC7. Prior to the issuance of building per- Check TDM Community De- Check and ap_ gestion and mits for any individual or combined site Plans velopment Dept. prove TDM air pollution development involving at least 100 errr plans prior to from traffic ployees, prepare TDM plans for City the release of exhaust approval, to accordance with Section 9.180 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. occupancy for of site portions The TDM plans shall also satisfy the development re%drements; of SCAQMD Rule 2202, involving at and shall be reasonably calculated to least 100 em - achieve an average vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) of 1.3. The TDM plan shall ployees. also indicate specific strategies and guidelines to reduce the number of single - occupant vehicle trips and increase the amount of non -vehicular transportation. Traffic con- 5.5-25 T C8. To accommodate future bus service on Check final site Public Works Check plan prior gestion and key roadways, the project developer(s) plans for first Dept. to issuance of traffic con- shall pian transit stops at the far side of and third de- any building flicts, lack of major intersections and at locations velopment permits for access to which would not conflict with peak phases, to en- first and third transit facili- hour traffic flows (see Figure 20 in Draft sure that tran- development ties EIR, p. 5-5.24, for suggested locations). Pedestrian to tFte bus sit stops pro- phase. access stops shall vided, as speci- be provided. Actual transit stop loca- Pied by Sunline tions shall be coordinated with the Sun- Transit, and line Transit Agency. that pedestrian access to each stop is also provided. MMP -20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect ORMethod Page No. Miti ation Measure of Re- view Verification Responsible Monitoring Agency Milestone Verification of Com liance initial Date Remarks Transport- Traffic con- 5.5-25 TC9. The project developer(s) shall provide Check final site Community De- Prior to issuance ation and gestion, Iack on-site bike racks on the commercial por- plan for future velopment Dept. of any building Circulation of facilities to tion of the project to encourage the use of mixed-use, re- pesnuts for the (cont.) support al- bicycles as an alternative means of gional commer- nuxed-use, ternative transportation. cial center to commercial modes of ensure that center portion transpor- bike racks are of project. tation provided in a suitable loca- tion. Traffic con- 5.5-25 TC10. The project developer(s) shall desig- Check final site Community De- Prior to issuance gestion, lack nate a portion of the commercial retail plan for future velopment Dept, of any building of facilities to parking area to encourage employee ride muted -use, re- permits for the support ride- sharing, gional rammer- nixed -use, re - sharing tial center to gional commer- ensure that tial center por- parking area tion of project. contains des- i�ted loca- tion for em- ployees who participate in rale sharing. MMP -21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Potential I Significant Issue I Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible A encu Monitoring Milestone Verification o Com liance Initial Date I Remarks Air Quality Air pollution 5.6-22 AQt. The project developer shall prepare Check construe- Community De- Check plan prior during con- and implement a construction mansg�ee- by La tion manage- velopment Dept. Public to issuance of struction ment plan, as approved the Cittyy of meet plan to and grading per- Quinta, which includes the followin ensure these, Works Dept. to mits, for each measures recommended by the Sou or equiva- check plan. grading and Coast Air Quality Management District lently effective construction (SCAQMD), or a uivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD. emissions con- trols are in- Public Works Dept. to con- phase. cluded. duct field in- Conduct field in - a. Configure construction parking to mini- spections to spections and mize traffic interference. Conduct field in- verify compli- respond to b. Provide temporary traffic controls dur- spections to ance with ap- complaints ing all phases of construction activities ensure proper proved plan. throughout to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag per- compliance grading and son). with approved Code Enforcement construction C. Schedule construction activities that af- construction Division to phases. feet traffic flow on the arterial system to management conduct field off-peak hours. plan. inspections in d. Reroute construction trucks away from response to congested streets. complaints. e. Consolidate truck deliveries when pos- sible. f. Provide dedicated tum lanes for move- ment of construction trucks and equip- ment on- and off-site. g Prohibit truck idling in excess of two minutes. h. Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize exhaust emissions. i. Suspend use of all construction equip- ment operations during second stage ss�M alerts. Contact the SCAQMD at 8007242-4022 for daily forecasts. j. Use electricity from power poles rather gasoline- than temporary diesel- or gasoline - powered generators. towered k. methanol- or natural gas -powered mobile equipment and pile drivers in- stead of diesel if readily available at competitive prices. 1. Use propane- or butane -powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline if readily available at competitive prices. MMP -22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Qninta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page I No. I Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring I I Milestone Verification of Com liance I Initial I Date I Remarks Air Quality Air pollution 5.6-22 AQ2. The developer shall prepare and im, Check PM,, plan Community Deo. Check plan prior (cont.) from fugitive plement a PM, Plan based on the meas- to ensure it Dept. and Pub- Dept. to issuance of dust &ever- during ures of SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, in the time contains ode- dust con- lic Works to gradinpernuts ffor each - ated which are effect at of quate check plan. grad construction development. The following measures trols, pursuant ingphase. are currently recommended to implement to SCAQMD Public Works Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. These measures Rule 403. Dept. to con- Conduct field in - have been quantified by the SCAQMD duct field in- spections and as being able to reduce dust generation Conduct field in- spections. respond to between 30 and 85 percent dependin on spections to complaints the source of the dust generation. These ensure proper Code Enforcement throughout measures shall be included in the devel- compliance Division to re- each grading oper's PM, plan. with approved s and to com- phase. PM,aplan, and Xaints. a. Apple approved non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's to respond to complaints. specification to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for four days or more). b. Replacegground cover in disturbed areas as c{uickly as possible. C. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed ptles (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt) according to manufacturers' s ecifications. d Water active grading sites at least twice daily. e. Suspend all excavating and grading op- erations when wind Spee s (as instan- taneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. f. Provide temporary wind fencing consist- ing of three- to five-foot barriers with 50 percent or less porosity along the pe- rimeter of sites that have been cleared or are being ggraded. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or g other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between tap of the load and the tap of the trailer), in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code. h Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (recommend water sweepers using reclaimed water if read- ily available). i. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. MMP -23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at la Quinta Potential EIR Significant Page Effect No. view Responsible Monitoring I Com liance Verification A encu I Milestone I Initial I Date I Re: Air Quality AQ2. (cont.) (cont.) j. Apply water three times daily or chemi- cal soil stabilizers accordingto manu- facturers' specifications to al unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces. k. Enforce traffic speed limits of 15 mph or less on all unpaved roads. Objectionable 5.6-23 A 3. The developer shall im lement all rules Contractors to Community De- Submit verifica- odors and and regulations adapted byy the Govern- provide writ- velopment Dept_ tion prior to he fumes ing Board of the SCAQMD which are ten verifica- to receive and issuance of applicable to the development of the tion of compli- file verification building per - protect (such as Rule 402, Nuisance, and ante with ap- report. mits for each R.ulle 1113, Architectural Coatings) and plicable rules. construction which are in effect at the time of devei- phase. opment. Long-term, 5.6-24 AQ4. Where applicable, business owners " Tenants to ppro- ommunity De- Submit verifica- stationary and operators shall lenient all rules byy vide eviclence velopment Dept. tion prior to emissions and regulations ado to the Govern- of compliance to receive and each tenant oc- would con- ing Board of the SCAQ D which are with or exemp- file verifica- cupancy. tribute to cu- mulative air applicable to their individual commer- tial use (such as Rule 402, Nuisance, tion from SCAQMD re - tion. quality im- Rule 1102, Petroleum Solvent Dry quirements. pacts. Cleaners, Rule 1111., NO, Emissions from Natural Gas -Fired, Fan -Type Cen- tral Furnaces, Rule 1146, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, In- stitutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters) and which are in effect at the time of oc- cupancy. 5.6-24 AQ5. Where feasible, use solar or low emis- No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring sion water heaters to reduce natural gas required. required. required. consumption and emissions. 5.6-24 AQ6. Use energy-efficient and automated No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring controls for air conditioners to reduce required. required. required. energy consumption and emissions. 5.6-24 AQ7. Use automatic g ting on con TO s No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring and energy efficient lighting to reduce electricity consumption and associated required. required. required. emissions. MMP -24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency LMonitoring Milestone Verification of Cam fiance Initial hate Remarks Air Quality 5.6-24 A 8. Use light-colored roofing materials as No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring (cont.) opposed to dark roofing materials. required. required:. required. These materials would reflect, rather than absorb, sunlight and minimize heat gains in buildings. This measure would lessen the overall demand for mechanical air conditioning systems. 5.6-24 A 9. Comply with Title 24 of the California Check construe- Building and Prior to the issu- Code ofRegidations which are current at tion plans and Safety Dept. ance of build - ing for the time of development. verify com li- permits ance with Title structures 24. subject to Title 24 compliance. Long-term, mobile emir- 5.6-24 AQIO, If any drive-through windows are proposed at a later date on the oanuner- Check building and site plans Community De- velopment Dept. Prior to the issu- ance of build- sions would cial portion of the site, traffic flow at 'unproved for proposed ing permits. exceed these drive-throughs shall be by designing windows for dif- drive-through eating estab- SCAQMD separate thresholds of ferent functions and by providing tempo- lishments. significance. rary parking for orders not immediately ready for pickup. 5.6-24 AQ11. Provide bicycle facility improvements Check final site Community De- Prior to approval an the project site with access to off-site plans. velopment Dept. of final site roadways. plans for each phase of the project. 5.6-24 AQ12. Implement all mitigation measures As specified for As specified for As specified for listed earlier for Transportation and measures TO measures TCl measures TO that would reduce traffic congestion. to TC11. to TO I. to TCH. 5.6-25 AQ13. Implement an on-site vehicle circula- Check final site Public Works Prior to approval do plan to reduce vehicle queuing. plans. Dept. of final site plans for each phase of the project. 5.6-25 AQ14. Provide on-site pedestrian facility irnr Check final site Public Works Prior to approval final provements. plans. Dept. of site plans for each phase of the project. MMP -25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at to Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page I No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible I Agency I Monitoring Milestone Verification of Com liance I Initial I Date I Remarks Noise Excessive 5.7-17 NI. Between May I and September 30, all Check contractor Building and Check specifica- noise during construction activity on the project site specifications Safety Dept. tions prior to construction shall only occur between the hours of to ensure that the issuance of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday they include gradin permits throe,gh Friday, and from 8:00 A.M. to these restric- and building 5:00 P.M. on Saturday, and shall bero- tions. permits, for hibited on Sundays and public holidays. each grad ing Between October 1 and April 30, all Conduct field in- and construc- construction activity on the project site spections to tion phase. shall only occur between the hours of ensure proper 7:00 A ') and 5:30 P.M. Monday compliance Conduct field in- throwgh F iiday, and from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturday, and shall be pro- with these re- strictions, and spections and respond to hibited on Sundays and public holidays. respond to complaints, complaints throughout from neigh- grading and bors. construction phases. Excessive 5.7-1$ N2. a eveloper will be required to irrr Check contractor Building and Check specifica- noise during plement additional noise reduction specifications Safety 1 sort. to tions prior to construction measures to reduce the amount of noise to ensure that check pians the issuance of that could affect the Lake La Quinta they include and specs. gradin permits neighborhood, such as changing the lova- these restric- and building tion of stationary construction equip- tions. Code Enforcement permits, for meat, shutting off Idling equipment, Division to each grading equippuig heavy aqui merit with noise muffling devices, notigying nearby resi- Conduct field in- spections to conduct field inspections to and constrtic- tion phase. dents in advance of construction work, ensure proper ensure proper and installing temporary acoustic ba rri- compliance compliance Conduct field in- ers around stationary construction with these re- with these re- spections and noise sources such as portable genera- strictions, and strictions, and respond to tors. respond to respond to complaints, complaints complaints throughout from neigh- from neigh- grading and bors. bors. construction phases. MMP -26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Significant Effect Page No. Mitigation Measure view Verification Responsible A enc Monitoring Milestone Initial caa--val Compliance Date VA Remarks Water Dis- tribution Potential wa- ter 5.8-8 W2. The City of La Quinta will continue to Review CVWD Public Works Review VWD and Storage shortages in Coachella cooperate with CVWD strategies to manage regional water supplies and dis- annual reports and other spe- Dept. reports as they are provided. (cont.) Valley tribution facilities. Examples of such tial reports is- strategies currently being implemented or sued regarding Prepare reports/ under consideration as part of the regional water mums CVWD's water management planning supply and periodically, prim include: conservation following re- • To meet the projected regional water de- issues. view of CVWD reports. mand for the year 2015, CVWD has es- Provide brief re- timated that another 220 acres of ponds ports or memo- for recharge would be needed in the randoms to lower valley. This would allow for Planning Com- percolation of approximately 82,000 mission and acre feet of water per year. If such City Council to Fareas cannot be found in the lower valley, the needed replenishment keep them in- formed regard- could be made up by converting current ing regional well users (farmers, fish farmers, golf water supply courses and duck clubs) to canal water management is- or other surface sources in the lower sues and how valley. City can coop- erate with Additional re lenishment could be CVWD man- achieved throw; importation of another agement strate- 41,000 acre feet to supplement ground- gees. water recharge efforts in the upper val- ley, conserving an additional 25,000 acre feet of seater after initial use for fish farms, increasing reclaimed water use on golf courses by 11,000 acre feet, imlementing conservation measures on golf courses to save an additional 9,000 acre feet of water and improvin agricul- tural conservation to save another 5,000 acre feet of water. It is anticipated that most of the nxxvey reqquired to implernent and operate CVWD`s water conservation plan would come through assessments coi- lected from pump owners for the cost of replacing the amount of water they ex- tract froin the basin. Mayor groundwa- ter users in the upper valley, including the CVWD, have been paying such fees for nearly 20 years. MMP -28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Water Dis- Potential EIR Wl. To ensure that future land uses do not Method of Re- Verification of Building and Significant Page I I view Responsible Monitoring Com?liance I I Issue Effect No. Mitigation Measure Verification j Milestone Initial I Date I Remarks Water Dis- Unnecessary 5.8-7 Wl. To ensure that future land uses do not Contractors to Building and Verification of tribution or wasteful include activities which unnecessarily submit verifi- Safety Dept. CVWD com- and Storage water con- waste water or which consume excep- cation of con- pliance to be sumption tional amounts of water, the City will sultation with submitted in direct contractors to consult with the and approval con]unction CVWD to develop appropriate water by CVWD for with irrigation conservation measures for both land- irrigation sys- system and soaping/irrigation requirements and terns and plumbing con - to plumbing controls. Consistent with plumbing con- Build- trols, prior issuance VWD's existing and future water con- trots to of servation plans, policies and standards, ing and Safety permits for in - the City will require that the devel- Dept. stallation of oper(s) implement the water conserva- irrigation sys- tion measures that are devised from the terns and prior consultations with CVWD and will re- to issuance of quire compliance with the City's existing future buildingppBr- mics for - and water conservation programs plumb and ordinances, to the extent applicable. ing controls. MMP -27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at to Quinta Solid Waste Excessive 5.9-9 SW4. Prior to the issuance of building per- Clieck solid Community De- Check pians prior Disposal (cont.) landfill dis- wits for each phase of the project, a solid waste man- velopment Dept. to the issuance posal of solid waste management proggrraam will be re- agement pro- of building wastes en- during quired from the developer(s) for that gram to ensure permits far erated active life portion of the site or for larger areas if it contains each develop - a more efficient, by the City of La Quinta. these and/ or ment phase. the project These programs shall maximize the recy- other, equiva- cling potential of packaging materials lently effective Conduct field in - (cardboard), mixed papers, and scrap ferrous materials, and include des- solid waste spections prior shall reduction, re- to the release ignated areas for trash separation bins which to haulers, cycling or re- of occupancy are accessible waste and identification of materials that are use measures. of each devel- opment phase. to be recycled. The following require- Conduct field in- ments shall be included n the waste man- spections to agement programs= ensure that • Locate recycling/se aration areas in waste reduc- close proximityto clumpsters for non- loading tion/recycling recyciables, elevators, docks, and internal and external facilities are in primary ac- provided cess points. (From CTWMB Model Ordi- accordance nance) with approved • Locations of recycling/separation areas waste man - shall not conflict with any a plicable federal, state or local laws re�atin& to agement plan. fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, or safety. • Locate recyclin;&/separation areas so they are convenient for those persons who deposit, collect, and load the recy- clable materials. (Frohn CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Place recycling containers/bins so that they do not block access to each other. • Solid waste collection/ recycling areas are shall be compatible with nearby structures, secure, protected against ad- verse environmental conditions, clearly marked, adequate in capacity, number and distribution, and contain a suffi- cient number of bins, to serve the recy- cling needs of the development. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Design and construct collec- tion/recycling areas to accommodate front -loader packing trucks, includingg maneuvering room (From C1WMB Model Ordinance) • Design and construct driveways and/or travel aisles with adequate width and maneuverability space for unobstructed garbage collection, vehicle access and clearance. (From CIWMB Model Ordi- nance MMP -30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Issue Potential EIR Significant Page Effect No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone I Verification of Com liance Initial I bate I Remarks Solid Waste Disposal Excessive disposal of construction wastes at landfills. 5.9-9 SW1. Contractors shall separate recyclable construction waste materials in separate bins, and shall arrange for transport of recyclable materials to facilities which accept the materials. A list of recyclable construction materials and recycling fa- cilities is available, and shall be ob- tained, from the City of La Quinta. All recyclable materials shall be recycled. Check contractor specifications to ensure that they incorpo- rate provi- sions to store and transport recyckables, throughout construction period. Cornmunity De- velopment Dept. Prior to the issu- ance of grading permits for each grading phase and prior to the is� nuance of building per - mits for each construction phase. Excessive 5.9-9 SW2. Builders competing for construction Check contractor Community De- Prior to the issu- disposal of contracts shall be required to include bid specifica- velopment Dept. ance of build - construction proposals for the use of building prod- tions to ensure ing permits for wastes at ucts made of recycled materials. that they in- each construc- landfills. corporate min. tion phase. performance criteria for use of recycled building mate- rials. Excessive 5.9-9 SW3. Green waste generated on the project Checksproperty Community De- Dept. Check CC&Rs disposal of site shall be treated in such a way as to CC&Rs to en- velopment prior to release green wastes avoid disposal in landfills. This may be sure that to check CC&Rs of occupancy at landfills. accomplished, for example, by compost- &reenwaste re- and to file re- for each de^vel- either on-site or at approved facili- auction meas- ports annually opment phase. ti ties and mulching for use on- and off-site. ures are with City's clearly speci- Solid Waste File repports an- fied. Management nuaily. Coordinator Provide annual re orfs to City which identify total green - waste gener- ated and por- tion diverted from landfill disposal. MMP -29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Qitinta Issue I Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Responsible Verification I Monitoring Milestone Verification of Compliance I Initial I Date I Remarks Solid Waste Disposal (cont.) ��W.I (cont.) Post signs at all access points of the re - cycling areas that clearly identify all re- cycling and solid waste collection and loading areas and the materials accepted therein. (From CIWMB Model Ordi- nance) Unsafe or il- 5.9-10 SW5. Prior to occupancy of each phase of the Check programs Community De- Prior to the re - legal star- project, the managers of the auto dealer- submitted by velopment Dept. lease of occu- a eldisposal ships, any other businesses within the property own- panccyy for each development ohazardous roposed auto mall area that generate ers and manag- materials and hazardous wastes, and the mixed-use, ers to verify phase. wastes regional commercial center shall prepare for the storage, collec- their review and approval programs proper tion, identification, and disposal of in- by Riverside dustrial cheinicai and hazardous mate- County Fire rial wastes. Such programs may, for ex- Dept. ample, include current waste disposal practices such as contracting with State Check verifica- Community De- Prior to issuance license, private firms For the collection of tion statements velopment Dept. of any individ- waste materials, for use by the same or submitted by ual occu ancy other firms who produce nein+ pproducts each pending permit, for those busi- from the recycled wastes andlor who occupant. transport such wastes to properly Ii- nesses that re- censed and permitted disposal facilities.gwire off-site m These hazardous waste anagement disposal of programs shall be prepared and impte- hazardous rented to the satisfaction Riverside wastes. County Fire Department, and the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit by the City, the occupant shall verify, in writing, that the occupant has complied with all applicable Federal, State, County and City requirements For the handling and disposal of hazardous waste material, and shall file an annual report with the City Community Devel- opmient Department reporting the types hazardous waste and meth- of generated ods of waste disposal. The annual re- port shall include evidence of proper disposal with a California -certified hazardous waste disposal company. MMP -31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta Significant Page Effect No. Method of Re- IVerification o view Responsible Monitoring ComBance Measure Verification AQPnry M;loc+..,,o r,,;t;,i n�re a.,. Public Serv- Inadequate 1 5.10-6 PSI. All on-site water distribution facilii ices - Fire water system shall be constructed in accordance w Protection for fire sup- ance of permits Coachella 'Halley Water District ; pression nd Riverside County Fire Department st to construct dards. Improper 5.10-6 PS2. Fire hydrants shall be provided at water system number and site to the satisfaction of the Rivers. placement of County Fire Department. fire hydrants Riv. Co. Fire Inadequate 5.10-6 PS3. Adequate access and turning ra ii access and fire trucks and other fire Fighting apj maneuvering rates shall be incorporated into pro) or fire ricEgand dards for fire design plans to the satisfaction of Riverside County Fire Department. re- lated appara- tus the Check water sys- Inadequate 5.10-6 PS4. All on-site structures shall be built design -level ide conform with criteria contained witt Fire Dept. fire preven- the Uniform Fire Code and in accordar tion measures verify compli- with riverside County Fire Departmi to construct and City of La Quinta standards. :ies Check water sys- Coachella Valley Prior to the issu- ith tem plans to Water District ance of permits nd verify compli- to construct an- ance with water system CVWD and improvements. Riv. Co. Fire Dept, stan- dards for fire flow. the Check water sys- Riverside County Prior to the issu- ide tem plans to Fire Dept. ance of permits verify compli- to construct ance with Riv. water system Co. Fire D t. improvements. standards for fire hydrants. for Check site p ans Riverside County Prior to issuance )a- for each level- Fire Dept. of building ect opment phase, permits for each he to verify com- development pliance with phase. standards of Riv. Co. Fire Dept. to Check construe Riverside County Checkplansprior iin tion tans to Fire Dept. to the issuance ice verify compli- of any building int ance withpermits, for U.F.C. and Riv. each develop - Co. Fire Dept. meat phase, standards. Conduct inspec- Conduct field in- tions prior to spections to release of oc- ensure that construction cupancy for any building. properly con- forms to ap- proved plans. MMP -32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta 1 C SignUlificantalLLda naaa Page -------- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring compliance Milestone Initial Date Remarks Issue Effect No Mitigation Measure Public Serv- Impediment to bygeacy 5.10-7 PSI I -To reduce the response times of envier- vehicles, addresses shall be, at Check contractor specifications Community Dev. Dept. Check speci ica- tions prior to ices - Police Protection response Fire Dept. least e3 ht inches tail and contrast with to ensure this the issuance of (cont.) trucks and the background. provision is building per Sheriff Dept. included. mits and con - patrol units, duct field in - Conduct field in- spections prior spections to to the release ensure ad- of occupancy for build - dresses are properly iden- each ing with an tified. address. Inadeeqquate 5.10-% PSI 2. closed circuit, remote video sur- to the No monitoring required. o monitoring required. No monitoring required. surveillance veillance systems monitor security of auto deal- of auto dealership sites. erships to de- ter criminal activity. Inadequate 5.10-7 PS13.Any future proposal to develop a per- business Check construe- tion Community Dev. Dept. Prior to issuance of building surveillance of potential stinal goads or vehicle storage shall include a closed circuit, remote plans. permits for a private stor- video surveillance system to monitor site Conduct field in- to future personal or vehi- age facilities to deter security. spection verify proper ,goods de storage criminal ac- installation of business. tivity. surveillance Conduct nduct field in- spection prior to release of occupancy For future personal goods or vehi- cle storage business. Inadequate 5.10-7 PS14, Any future proposal toevelop a usi- be for 24 hours Check building to verify Community Det'. Dept. to check Prior to a issu- ance+of a build- on-site secu- rity for o- ness that would o shall include the following security plans provisions for building plans. ing permit for tential 24- hour busi- measures: I a. Installation of a closed circuit video a closed cir- cuit, video any future 24- hour business. nesses monitoring system. Security cameras monitoring shall be Located above cash register ar- system, that eas, entrances and exits and walk-in has been de - coolers. Signs shall be posted to advise signed by a se - patrons that the premises are being moni- curity specia l- tored by 24-hour surveillance cameras. ist. b. erations during nighttime hours shall be staffed with more than one employee. No monitoring c. Employees shall conduct frequent money required for drops into the building's safe. items b and c. MMP -34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta ntialEIR I Method of Re- v enricasion v ficant Page view Responsible Monitoring Com liance ect No. Mitigation Measure Verification Agency Milestone I Initial I Date I Re Public Serv- Unsafe stor- 5.10-6 PS5. During the construction and operations Check construe- Riverside Co. Fire Building and ices - Fire age and use of phases, activities involving the use and tion plans to Dept. to review Safety Dept. to Protection (cont.) flammables during con- storage of highly flammable substances (i.e., fuels and solvents) shall be con- ensure comppli- ance with Riv. and enforce plans for use check plans prior to the is- struction and ducked in accordance With Riverside Co. Fire Dept. and storage at suance of active life of County Fire Department standards. standards. active busi- building per - project. nesses. mits. Review plans for use and stor- Riv. Co. Fire age of flaw Dept. to review mables at on- plans and con - site businesses duct enforce - subject to Riv. ment, in accor- Co. Fire Dept. dance with regulations. standard plan check and monitoring procedures. Public Serv- Inadequate 5.10-6 PS6. Areas such as streets, security walls No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring ices - Police design -level and Barkin area shall be well lit to dis- required. required. required. Protection security suede would-be criminals from targeting measures these area for illegal activities. Inadequate 5.10-6 PST All doors shall have an industrial Check construe- Building and Prior to issuance design -level quality key and latch system. All exte- tion plans. Safety Dept. of building security nor doors shall have deadbolt locks. permits. measures Ina equate 5.10-7 PSB. All de ivery doors shall be equip No monitoring o monitoring No monitoring surve5lance with a peep ole for delivery idents ica- required. required. required, opportunities tion purposes. by on-site employees Creation of 5.10-7 P59. To avoid creatingg convenient "ding No monitoring No monitoring talo monitoring convenient places for would -6e criminals, shrub- be required. required. required. hiding places Eery found in the site interior shall for would-be t t -rimed. to a he'ght of three feet or less. criminals, in- In addition, prgduct displays and vel adequate op- tation shall be kept clear of exterior blocking portunity for windows to avoid the visibil- surveillance sty into store interiors by passing patrol by on-site cars. employees. lmpedirnentto 5.10-7 PS10. Design parking and unloading areas to Check site plans. Community Dev. Prior to the issu- response by avoid creating traffic problems. Dept. ance of build - Fire Dept. ing permits for trucks and each develop - Sheriff Dept. meat phase. patrol units. MMP -33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Qninta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR I Page No. Mitigation Measure rviemou ui ne- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone -- - Com -�- -- Bance Initial Gate I Remarks Aesthetics Obstruction 5.11-12 AE51. Building heights in the northeastern Check site and Commwnity 17e- Prior to t he issu- of scenic quadrant of the project site, i.e., the building plans velopment Dept. ance of build - mountain northern half of the mixed-use, regional for northern ingpermits for views from commercial center, shall be limited to one half of mixed- structures in westbound story or 25 feet. Spacing between build- use, regional the northern lanes of ings shall be a minitmun of 150 feet. Al- commercial half of the Highway tematively, future site development ap- line- center to en- that commercial center 111. plications in that area may submit a sure portion of -sight or equivalent visual impact height limits of the project. analyysis that proves that the placement, heiglZt build- are satisfied. and massing of proposed ings does not result in a significant ob- Alternatively, re- structlon of views of the Santa Rosa view visual Mountains. impact studies subn-dtted by project de- signer that proves pro- posed place- ment and bulk of buildings in northern half of commercial center would not result in a significant ob- struction of mountain views. Monotonous 5.11-12 AE52. Final r landscape improve- Check land- Community De- Prior to the issu- visual effect meats along the Highway 111 and scape/ velopment Dept. ance of a per - along Hwy. Adams Street frontages shall incorpo- screen wall plans mit to construct 111 and rate a screen wall design that avoids a for Hwy. 111 screen walls Adams St. monotonous visual effect, through a me- and Adams St. along either frontages andering alignment, use of offsets, peri- frontages frontage. odic variations in materials, texture, or colors or other measures which achieve the desired effect. MMP -35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at Ca Quinta Issue Potential Significant Effect EIR Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Re- view Verification Responsible Agency Monitoring Milestone v c r, izcacaun CompBance V. Initial Date Remarks Cultural Re- Damage to or 5.12-7 CRI. A qua i ie I professional archaeologist Check grading 0mmunityl7e Check plans prior sources destruction of will conduct intensive archaeological plans and con- vela went Dept. to the issuance significant monitoring of the entire first' ng tractor specifi- to check plans, of grading per - archaeologic phase. Based on the results of this moni- cations to en- approve selec- mits for first al resources toning program, recommendations for the sure that this tion of monitor- grading phase. during project extent of subsequent grading/site prepa- monitoring re- ing archaeolo- grading. ration phases will be reassessed. Less quirement is gist. Review field intensive monitoring will be conducted included. monitor re - throughout the project area, during sub- Public Works ports as re- sequent grading activities. The arc�aeo- Monitoring ar- Dept. inspec- ceived, take logical monitor will hi -we the authority chaeolog°ist to tors to receive, additional ac - to halt any activities causing adverseprovide regi- act upon field tions when imppacts to potentially significant buried lar communica- reports, as ap- needed. arcteological resources. Once identi- tions to Public propriate. fied, the archaeological consultant will Works Dept. evaluate the find(s) in accordance with inspectors re- criteriapresented in Appendix K of garding field CEQA. It is also recommended, but not observations_ required, that the archaeological moni- toring program involve Native American Monitoring ar- input, either as observers or consultants. chaeologist to The presence of a Native American moni- provide rec- tor will be coordinated with the muni- ommendations toring schedule. for possible subsequent monitoring ef- forts, immedi- ately follow- ing completion of first phase grading pro- gram. MMP -36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Centre at La Quinta RM R/w — 10'P.U.E. — 60, -f 10'P.U.E. 10, 40' — C/L 20' a,- SIOEW LK Ill lil onamono� ill: 11 wl -Fit STANDARD AGGREGATE BASE CURB & GUTTER LA QUINTA CENTRE DRIVE (public) Painted Median (no parking) NOT TO SCALE 10'P.U.E.- RNV -W R/ , w 10'RU.E. Ir—Ir CIL 'SIDEWAIDEWAK 1]'T0 N, INt A ur Iil III In I -.jjj Tffl "L IF[ STANDARD AGGREGATE BASE CURB & GUTTER LA QUINTA CENTRE DRIVE (public) Raised or Painted Median (no parking) NOT TO SCALE 10'P.U.E. R/W 74' RNV 10'P.U.E. R/W 1101- RfW 54' 1W I I - 12l17 C/L CIL 27, 27' 8. 20' IDEWAK SIVEWAI K 34, 34' SIDEWA K p lill 61 LI III Ilk.. IIS i11-:.IJrf--1 (11. i r 11i III .Iii IIIIIplliat U, I 0� J1 mommmm=o� =UNMAN" OL M STANDARD AGGREGATE BASE STANDARD AGGREGATE BASE CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER AUTO CENTRE WAY (public) (with parking) ADAMS STREET AUTO CENTRE DRIVE (public) (with parking) NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE R/W C/L RNV 70' 70' 12, sw sw 12' a, sic LW� IDEW�AK II IIt Ill ]I - it IPIII.tlil Ilf1] Ili Ll I Ww� CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER STATE HIGHWAY 111 NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Mainiero, Smith & Associates FIGURES Proposed Street Sections 223-01.4/97 THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA DRAFT EIR 3.0 Project Description Other Utilities Electrical facilities throughout La Quinta are provided by the Imperial Irrigation District. The nearest substation is at Adams Street and the Whitewater River Channel. Preliminary consultations with the District have determined that the design of the project's electrical service will depend on final load calculations for the overall project. Extensions of facilities along Adams Street and Highway 111 to serve this project will be required to be underground. If necessary, the District has indicated that it can temporarily serve the project with an overhead connection to existing facilities on Adams Street. In their comments onthe Draft EIR see letter me 2,1997, contained -in Section 2.2 of this Final EIR tle District- ")Qvided they win lddit"onal informalian conceEniltr the_rovi nelectric a service tQ the propo, ed p_mj ct It is presented verbatim. "The Imperial Irrigation District District will initially serve Phase 1 Parc 1- and Phase 2 (Parcels, 6-2 the Ceiitre Aute Mall from the overlicad distribution lines that are presently we5t side of Adams Street. An ua&Wound circuit will have to be to str4tcte devejol2erl owner ontractor under Adams Street it7 the vi ini , of Avenue 47 to onn-Qct the Centre Auto Mall to these overhead distribution. lines This underground circuit will be part of a future ci=it tie that will go through Z the entire Centre Auto mall and join with future ejects either to the easi or to the-- Q1of the C'tre Auto Mall property. The District will also install an underground crossing of Adams Street in dw Vid"ity of the Entrance to Lake La Quiiita Via srazianna to the soutb=g portion of the Centre Auto Mall. This g-cond crossing of Adams Street will serve as the alternative source for the underground system tuitit such time that the majgr circuit tie can be completed to the :;truth or to the east of the Centre Auto Mall. The ultimate electrical service for this n�oject is planned to come frons the soutbeast comer of th e pro' ec t is -not foresmi that an kuiderground systm will be required along Hiway Ill to the east of this pro However, this can only be determined when the plans and electrical demand for the area to the east of_the Centre Auto Mall are known. le-Dis-tria,ha ffi i s i �n acit M to serve the Cetlt Ai all. However. when he P11 sg IIi portion of the proj, tis corn lr=ted it may be nese sary for the developerlowne Icon ractor to 12ay for the installationf an under owed circuit from the La Qujijtj Substation 1 ated at Avenue and e fe son tQ ti rye the project. _Whether this circuit will be required will beie men yn ie clggtric;aI load of the Auto Mall and tht: pnoiectgd load of the retail Stores in Phase III The clectrical load of the Centre Auto Mall and the retail stores by themselves may -necessitate the construction of a deckatedn er . a tr►d cir tit m th . l a t' 1 Su st n. This call only e a renin a r the ele ri,al demand loads are lmown for_this p_r_*ct." Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Their nearest facility is a six-inch line located along the Highway 111 site frontage. This line would be extended into the project site to serve both the auto mall and commercial center areas. 3-14 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources occurrences of special -status plants in the region. Searches were conducted for the La Quinta and surrounding United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps. Field Studies Biological field surveys were conducted December 27 through 29, 1996, by JWCEC to inventory plant and wildlife species present on site. Plant specimens were identified with reference to Hickman (1993), Smith (1994), Munz (1974), and Jaeger (1969). Wildlife specimens were identified with reference to Stebbins (1985), Jameson and Peeter (1988), and Peterson (1990). Plant and wildlife surveys were conducted by walking north -south transects at ten -meter intervals through the project site and 25 meters beyond all site boundaries. Large and small mammal trapping was conducted for two 24-hour periods. Animal surveys were also performed at night by driving slowly down paved and unpaved roads within and adjacent to the project site. A reconnaissance -level field survey was conducted on February 18, 1997, by Gwendolyn Kenney of Impact Sciences, Inc., to confirm previous floral and faunal characterizations of the site by JWEC and to document any changes to these resources since the time of the 1996 JWEC surveys. In addition, because the 1996 site surveys were conducted during a time period not generally considered conducive to observing flowering plants, Ms. Kenney conducted focused surveys on April 10 and 11, 1997, for special - status plant species potentially occurring cn the site. The dates of the surveys coincided with the blooming period of each of these plant species or at a time period during which these species are readily identified. The surveys were conducted by walking 10 -meter wide belt transects covering 100 percent of the project site. All vascular plants encountered in the field were recorded. -Fcaeused stf!�Yeyff for speeial staktt5 wi4dlife speeies potentially oeeurring m �he site were not tNwAueied. However, eff-arts were to mete-e1-ti1teEatent . '�eecr�e�jjte�g eetirse of the plant tin a. Observations of all common vind_ special -status wildlife species made during the surveys were recorded and documented. focused survey for flat -tailed om d lizard 1wTHL) was conducted onung 18 and 19 1997 b Im act Sciences biologists The USFWS October 1996 flat tailed horned lizard interim surveyprotocol waS followed during the on-site surveys. Specifically systematic pedestrian surveys were conducted an -bite that included separate focused surveys for horned lizard scat and homed lizards. Surveys consisted of a allel belt transects evenly spaced acr ss the r " ct si a that 100 percent -coverage was attained. All lizard scat detected dtrrinng, the surveys was closely examined for diagnostic characteristics (ems between 5.5 -and 10 mm in diameter and comprised of ;predominately ants) of horned lizards. Total survey time for horn -ed -lizard scat was 250 minutes (4.16 hours) total survey time For horned lizard5. was 240 minutes4.0 hour wiadditional ute&(2.41 hours) were expended ai F"T'1 H., surveys alang, the on-site roads The survey minutes expended during the study_ generally exceeded the total survey time (nQ less than four urs for areas les thart 247 acres in size re -comm -d, eUSF—WSom lizard field r r s h r at the time.f Jh2 s was very waren (varying from 85 degrees F in the morning to 110 degrees F in the afternoon) and wind speeds ranged from 0 to 4 miles tier hour. Surface temperatures ranged from 85 dear es F to 127 degrees F. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT General Site Conditions The site is characterized by desert scrub vegetation and scattered sand hummocks which rise approximately seven to twenty feet above their base. The hummocks have been formed by mesquite shrubs which interrupt the flow of sand -carrying wind coming from the west. The shrubs sufficiently reduce wind velocity to result in sand deposits or "hummocks." There are no naturally occurring springs, 5.4-2 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources JWEC with Robert Stebbins, Raymond Cowles, Lloyd Tevis, and Charles Bogert (vertebrate biologists who conducted field research in the Coachella Valley prior to 1970) indicate that the desert tortoise did not historically occur within the Coachella Valley. Stebbins (1986) specifically states that the desert tortoise is "absent from the Coachella Valley." Nonetheless, special attention was focused during the field surveys to locate burrows, remains, or other sign of this species on the site. No evidence of this species' presence was found and no direct observations of the species were made. Based on the results of the literature review, contact with desert tortoise experts, and the field surveys, it is concluded that this species does not currently occur within the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Reptiles Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata); Federally Threatened, State Threatened. This lizard species is limited to the windblown sand hummocks and deposits of the Coachella Valley. Although no individuals of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard were observed during the surveys, portions of the habitat on the site, particularly the mesquite hummock areas, are considered suitable for this species. In addition, this lizard has been found in relatively disturbed areas of suitable habitat elsewhere in the Coachella Valley. The site is within an area considered as suitable habitat by the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and is also within a fee area as described in this plan. Flat -tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcalli); Federally Proposed Threatened. This lizard occurs in similar habitat as the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard; however, this species has a much larger range and is also found in sandy desert washes and desert flats. Although no individuals of the flat - tailed horned lizard were observed during the site surveys, and no washes occur an the site, the loose, windblown alluvium associated with the mesquite hummocks and other areas of the project site is suitable habitat for this species. However, this lizard generally prefers undisturbed habitat areas and is not usually found in disturbed habitat areas (Cornett, pers. comm.).Beeause t*rese-l-49 ae�©Tc rettdily observed thm the iringe toed htard etnd other lizard speeie% it is exreeted ihat this watild have been ebserved m the site during ihe 1997 field gerveys if theyovere pregent. No Rat �_Rflledl r e lizards were obsery duringthe a 1997 # u FTHL sury conducted on the roe t site. In addition no scat or other sign diagnostic of horned lizards was detected ding the surveys. In general, the f gther 6izard o e r were 1 dincluded d er sa r dorsalis) side -blotched lizard Uta star urians . The lack of horned lizards and the low level f reptilian life cn the site in general may be due to the high level of human activity and disturbance cn the -ite including off-road vehicles and rgads. abandoned s (e.g. housp,. f iv debris dump:ing dumpingonortiorts of the site. The -site is also surround by urban development, highly disturbed omen areas and roads making it difficult for horned lizards and other species to access the site. result f the su e the high-level of di ce and habitat fragmentation, th fl - t iled homed lizard is not expected tg gmK on the Birds Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); California Species of Special Concern. One observation of the loggerhead shrike was recorded during the 1996 site surveys. Although no nests were found, this species can be expected to nest on or near the project site since it nests in similar habitat elsewhere in 5.4-7 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources Special -Status Resources Special -Status Habitat Communities The loss of mesquite hummock habitat has already is discussed above. The loss of this habitat is not considered a significant impact. Special -Status Plant Species As previously stated, habitat on the site is marginally suitable to support five special -status plant species (glandular ditaxis, ribbed cryptantha, flat -seed spurge, slender wooly -heads and Coachella Valley milk vetch). However, none of these plant species were observed on the site during the focused surveys conducted in 1996 or 1997. Because of the highly disturbed and isolated nature of the site, and because no individuals of these plants were observed on the site during focused surveys for these species, none of these species are expected to occur on the site in the near future. Therefore, no impacts on special -status plant species are expected to occur as a result of project implementation. Special -Status Wildlife As discussed earlier in this report, the biological survey determined that the project site constituted suitable habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and marginally suitable habitat for the flat -tailed horned lizard. Implementation of the proposed project will eliminate essentially all habitat for theseCoachella Valley fringe -toed. lizarcl pee on the site and would likely destroy any lizards inhabiting the site prior to grading and construction -related activities. In addition, the project site is within the habitat fee area pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Because of the high sensitivity status of the fringe -toed lizard (state- and federally -listed Threatened) the loss of this habitat and any of these lizards would reduce the number or restrict the range of these animals and would be considered a substantial impact on a rare or endangered species. This would be a significant impact of the project. Because no flat -tailed homed lizards or their sign were observed an surveysthe site duripg focused cte f -site is only considered marginally suitable to sup -port this species, implementatkn of the proposed proJect is not expected to substantially affect this species oris habitat. Therefore no significant impacts flat -tailed horned lizard are expected tgoccur. Both the loggerhead shrike and Palm Springs ground squirrel were observed on or adjacent to the site. Both of these species are known to occur in similar habitats throughout the region and are only expected to occur on the site in very low numbers. Because of the relatively low sensitivity status of these species, and because only low numbers of these animals would be potentially affected by the project, the loss of suitable habitat for these species will not substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of these animals. Therefore, no significant impacts on these species will occur. 5.4-13 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources species in adjacent areas as a result of increased traffic noise and increased noise at the project site, though adverse, would not substantially affect wildlife species. Therefore, these impacts are not considered significant. Cumulative Impacts Development projects are currently underway or are planned in various locations near and adjacent to the project site. Development in the region has been cumulatively reducing the amount of open area and sensitive habitats, and has been constricting wildlife movement. Such conversions of open space have been and will continue to permanently lead to the shrinkage of the amount of land available for natural habitats and the flora and fauna that inhabit them. In some cases, certain natural habitats and plant and wildlife species occur in relative abundance despite the amount of development that is on the horizon; however, others do not. In these latter cases, incremental development has been contributing to habitat loss. When viewed individually, it may be possible for each of the projects to mitigate potential project -specific significant impacts through the implementation of habitat replacement programs and the requirements of the regulatory processes to which each of the projects may be subject. However, on a cumulative basis, an overall net loss of natural habitat areas may still occur. The significance of this loss typically depends on the biological quality and value of a particular site to common and special -status resources. With respect to this project, the habitats on the site have been heavily disturbed and degraded by human -associated activities. In addition, the site is essentially surrounded by proposed and current development and roadways. Because of the relatively low biological value of the site for common and special -status plant and wildlife species, the loss of the on- site habitats as a result of project implementation is not considered a substantial loss of wildlife habitat on a cumulative basis. Therefore, this loss is not considered a significant cumulative impact. Although the project site has been heavily disturbed and is relatively fragmented and isolated, it is considered suitable habitat for one state- and federally -listed animal species (Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard) and marginally suitable for two federally proposed for listing species (flat -tailed horned lizard and the Coachella Valley milk vetch). Because no individuals of the Coachella Valley milk vetch were found on the site during the December, 1996 or (lie FeLruar." ear Aril. 1997 field surveys and because no historical occurrences of this species exist within the immediate region, this plant is not expected to occur on the site. In addition because no individual of the flat -tailed horned lizard were o=d m- thg site during the focused June, 1997 suEygy,%,ffijs apecies is not gNRpeted tQ occur on the s te. However, QQgchglJa VallPy_ffinge__-toed lizard a tentiall he site. their observation. Therefore, the - l-_ard i -i-- " r `e_ _` _ ll - The loss of �e`ru-.-7.i—ri�i�ritrc�- available suitable habitat for thisthese species on this site would contribute to a cumulative net loss of habitat for thi stkese species in the region. Because of the rarity of t h,i 411 -es+ - two pecies, this loss would be considered a significant cumulative impact. 5.4-16 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources MITIGATION MEASURES The following describes measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or reduce potentially significant impacts on biological resources. These measures, if successfully implemented, would reduce the degree of impacts attributable to the proposed project to a level that is less than significant. In addition, these measures will minimize the potential to violate state and federal laws and regulations protecting certain plant and animal species. BIO 1. Common and Special -Status Bird Nests. If project site grading and/or construction w 111, wind occur during the nesting/breeding season (typically February through July) of native bird species potentially nesting on the site, then the following measure shall be implemented: Prior to construction or site preparation activities, a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of special -status birds (!L� loggerhead shrike) or common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code, are present in the construction zone or within 50 feet of the construction zone. If active nests are found, a minimum 50 -foot (this distance may be greater depending on the bird species and construction activity, as determined by the biologist) fenced I)WI ir- barrierhallbe cstak Ls edereetet around the nest site. No construction activities willsbe permitted within this nest zone until the young birds have fledged, as determined by the project biologist. BI02. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard and Flat -tailed Horned Lizard. The project applicant shall pay $600 per acre developed to the City of La Quinta as part of the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard mitigation plan. This mitigation structure has been established by the USFWS and CDFG. The fee is applied when lands within known or historical fringe -toed lizard habitat are developed. The project lies within the fee area. The mitigation fee is used to purchase fringe -toed lizard habitat in special preserves, such as the Coachella Valley Preserve area, for the purpose of maintaining suitable habitat for the fringe -toed lizard. In addition, even though there is only a low potential for the flat -tailed horned lizard to occur on the site due to the disturbed nature of the habitat, and even though none were found on the site during two-day, fmcmsed survey for the flat -tailed horned lizard in 1997 he paymentt+-re4tir"ed- hza-rd-4tab4t an the i sttitEtbl�- fear-tk�e- }zo���ed- li�t� of the mitigation fee that are _--aete-' as pof the r,....�.�. e� Valley Fringe toed Lizard Habitat to preserve and enhance fringe -toed lizard habitat will also benefit flat -tailed horned lizard. Therefore, the mitigation fee paid for the loss of fringe -toed lizard habitat on the site will also help mitigate the non-significant loss of this same habitat for flat -tailed horned lizard. 5.4-17 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.4 Biological Resources UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Implementation of the measures described above will reduce the project's direct impact on common and special -status bird nests, and an Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and l-Ifled nit habitat to a less than significant level. Implementation of these measures will also mitigate the cumulative loss of Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and fla" tail . d ho flied -l= inhabitat to a less than significant level. Therefore, no unavoidable significant impacts on biological resources will remain. 5.4-18 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.5 Transportation and Circulation Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program ReLrional Arterial Procram (RAP) administered b`F the Coachella. V1,11ev Association of Governments (CVAG) is tatetatfi-approved Cnncestioil Manageitoent flan (CMP) forthi Coachella Valley. e re response to the voter -approved 1'r sition 111. The CUE and RAP are the adapted planning framc4vark and iiziplcinentatinn method, respec ively, for mitigating kraffic impacts to the regional arterial network at roma e locations ,s it "n g front land deve om rnt ' ret oral. A I l Jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, including all of the cities and the Cvtm!y of Riverside, rely uMll the RAP as the agreed Lt= mitigation plan for development -related traffic impacts that lie bund the inimediatg vicinity f - en deyelopment. Lach year the Riverside Cow-jy—lransportation Commission reviews CMP„ activities in the Coachella, Valley for compliance and issues a confirm i t finding to the State f it finds the activities to be in compliance with the plan. The RAP has tw[t funding sources. The first source, is 40 percent of the revenue generated by the to a 1 f percent sales tax increase authorized bar Measure A in 1988. The second soured is the Transportat`snn Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) collected from land developments These two funding snurces are intended to provide e ci<Yl 12ortions 'tffuni3 t ti r a It hould be not d tow eve- that the RAP is not intended to be the complete funding mechanism for all arterial system improvements. Developers are still. reeluired to make improvements adjacent tq their cite. It= a macro perspective, the RAP is i.nteaded to pay for 5(, percent of the improvements that aie needed to cornplete_tht regional arterial street network. The nrcigram is _intended to fund improvements at "hot Spots" in the arterial system where the adjacent land has not yet devgloped or is alma, dy developed and the existing street network is undgrsized with no opportunityto secure dgvelopinent-sponsored improvements at that hot spot location, The proUam is a [so intended to fund cq-stly co-s]iin rovements like bridges and freeway Interchanges that clearly benefit a broad spectrrrm of d.evglopnients_. _ The Citv of La Quintet is a direct participant and enual partner in the RAP, however, the vrocedures which it participates is different than inost cities that uarticipate in Lbe program. La Quinta does not collect the TUMF ro u .at c r ( -but in tend provides an alt rnative "in -lie " contribution to the prog am for its TUMF share by forfeiting its local share portion of the Measure A sales tax revenue. The local share is another 35 to 40 percent slice of the Measir reyenue stream i" . is nott dedicated to the RAP' instead. it i5 distributed directly to the cities that are qualified to r(Teivo it tan a lnnou= Iation prorated basis. In ad.d.ition to forfeiting its local share of the Measure A revenue to the RAP a iintl is also obligated to make the program 'whole' if ) local sha re does wt equal the TUMF amount that would have been collected from devel z m nts in La i ° ii er the__ ore cmimon TUMF collection grogram. La Quinta did not adopt the TUMF in 1989 like most other cities that participate in the RAP because it had previously implemented its ownInfx�i,4lzLuetrY fie pttgr�tili in 19867 which in mocit cases,colilects a larger fee than the TUMF. The local share forfeiture and the Infrastructure Fee program provide La Quinta with a strong economic base to fulfill its obligation v -i the RAI' and in trim to eigy the mitigation benefits that accrue to its spQnsgja IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines state that a project will normally have a significant effect on the transportation and circulation environment if it will cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 5.5-14 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.8 WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE INTRODUCTION SB 901 and Water Supply Planning Senate Bill 901 (SB 901) was enacted during the 1995-1996 Regular Session of the California Legislature to require a discussion in EIRs for large-scale projects, of issues involving water supply and demand. Information for this discussion is to be provided by the water agency to the Lead Agency who is preparing the EIR. In many cases, this information is contained in an Urban Water Management Plan pursuant to California Water Code Section 10610 (also referred to as Assembly Bill 797). A number of mandatory elements are identified for inclusion in the plan, including: an estimate of past, current and projected water use; identification of conservation measures currently adopted and being practiced; a description of alternative conservation measures which would improve the efficiency of water use with an evaluation of their cost and environmental or any other significant impacts; a schedule for the implementation of proposed actions indicated by the plan, as well as other elements. In 1995, t h e Legislature added further requirements that the urban water management plan must also include a water supply and demand assessment of the reliability of water service to customers during normal, dry, and critically dry runoff years. The water supply and demand assessment must compare the total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20 -year period, which must be analyzed in five-year periods for each type of runoff scenarios. The management plans must also be updated every five years, to occur in years ending in 0 and 5. CVWD conducts regular water supply planning efforts to address all of these requirements, and is crarresltlr{ n the process of preparing a basin -wide water management plan . SB 901 directs water agencies to provide such information in response to a Notice of Preparation of an EIR (NOP) for applicable projects. If water officials don't reply after the 30 -day NOP response period, the Lead Agency may assume that water officials have no information to submit. Although the local water agency, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), did not respond to the NOP for this project, several CVWD staff members did provide information concerning their water supply planning efforts and water conservation and rep nishment programs for discussion in this EIR. This section is i based, for the most part, on consultations with CVWD staff, with additional information obtained from the La Quinta General Plan, and the project architect. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water Supply and Distribution Water for potable as well as irrigation purposes is provided throughout La Quinta and the entire Coachella Valley by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD serves an area of 5.8-1 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.8 Water Distribution and Storage approximately 1,000 square miles within the Counties of Riverside, Imperial and San Diego. The main source of potable water provided to La Quinta is from an underground aquifer beneath the valley. Irrigation water is supplied from this same aquifer and from the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal, and is consumed generally in the area from Indio and La Quinta south to the Salton Sea. In mid-1995, CVWD provided domestic water service to a total population of 160,725, with 64,290 active meter services and total water sales of 79,920 acre feet.l The water storage and distribution system consisted of 79 active wells and 52 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of 74.4 million gallons.? Water was delivered through 1,479 miles of pipelines, with 9,866 fire hydrant connections.2 Average water use, per person (residential use), was 226 gallons per day. In their 1994-95 Atyn1tal Review rel�ort,l� CVWD estimatedhavt-iotn�td that 63 percent more water is being drawn from the valley's underground supplies than is being replaced annually -5 In the upper valley area the overdraft -1 --=e---atethe iar=; of weter that reaehes Hie aquifer is t:tat keeping peee with the basin "--`oradue primarily to heavy consumption by the expanding resort -recreation economy of the valley and growing permanent resident population. 6 In the lower valley. the overdraft is primarily due to agricultural well 12roduction.7-- If this trend continues without change, the "overdraft" condition is anticipated to increase to 80 percent by the year 2015.$ An overdraft rate of about 17 percent occurs in the upper basin of the valley, ineluding the project site, while the rate in the southern basin which encompasses most of La Quinta, including the project site, has been running at 190 percent of the annual recharge.2 If nothing is done to change these conditions, these rates are predicted to increase to 32 percent annually in the upper basin, and to 215 percent in the lower basin, by the year 2015.10 Given current rates of overdraft, the total, basin -wide overdraft would reach 1981},000 acre feet/year by 2015 Ll Water shortages could occur well before the year 2015. CVWD is ing to i-tstall ad itional Axa; 2299"aefes of -ponds that would be needed for etddit4o al oundwater recharge in the lower valley by 2015. 1 Coachella Valley Water District. Annual Review 1994-1995, page 1. Coachella, California: June 1995. ? Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. Sv Ibid. 6� Coachella Valley Water District. Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 1996/19977: page 15. -Coachella, California: April 1996. 7 Coachella Vallev Water District. Annual Review 1994-1995, page 10. Coachella, California: Jum, 8 Coachella Valle Water District. Annual Review 1994-1995 a e 9, Coachella, California: june 1995. 9_ Ibid., page 10. 1 10 Coachella Valley Water District. Annual Review 1994-1995, page 10. Coachella, California: Tune 1995. >> _ Ibid., page 12. 5.8-2 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.8 Water Distribution and Storage auto dealer developments, to reduce total water consumption. Therefore, with respect to criterion c., defined above, the project would not have a significant impact, provided that high volume water uses include efficient recycling mechanisms in their water systems. Cumulative Impacts Total population throughout the Coachella Valley is projected by SCAG to reach approximately 588,000 by the year 2015, from a 1990 total of 215,000. Total employment is also projected to increase to 177,000 by the year 2015, up from 87,000 in 1990. If these levels of growth occur, together with additional resort -recreation oriented development, water demand will also continue to grow accordingly. Such growth will place continuing pressure on the CVWD to develop new water supplies and to develop sources of replenishment for the underground water source that has historically been the primary source of domestic water for the valley. If water conservation, water supply and water replenishment efforts do not keep pace with growth in water demand, water shortages could occur at various times and in various places within the Coachella Valley. Such events would be considered significant cumulative impacts with respect to water use. CVWD's system of water storage and distribution facilities will also need to be expanded to serve new growth. Cumulative environmental and financial costs of expanding the water system are expected to be substantial, given the large scale of the CVWD service area (1,000 square miles) and the extensive network of facilities required to meet the demands of the District's water customers. Analysis of environmental impacts and development of mitigation measures for any significant impacts would be conducted by the CVWD at the time future water supply, storage or distribution facilities are being planned. No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore, relative to expansion of the CVWD water system. MITIGATION MEASURES Project -Level W1. To ensure that future land uses do not include activities which unnecessarily waste water or which consume exceptional amounts of water, the City will direct contractors to consult with the CVWD to develop appropriate water conservation measures for both landscaping/irrigation requirements and plumbing controls. -Consistent with _CVWD's cexisting and future water conservationIn ans policies and standards the City will require that the developer implement the water conservation measures that are devised from the consultations with CVWD, and will require compliance with the City's water conservation programs and ordinance, to the extent applicable. 5.8-7 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.8 Water Distribution and Storage Cumulative W2. The City of La Quinta will continue to cooperate with CVWD strategies to manage regional water supplies and distribution facilities. Examples of such strategies currently being implemented or under consideration as part of the CVWD's water management planning program include: • To meet the projected regional water demand for the year 2015, CVWD has estimated that another 220 acres of ponds for recharge would be needed in the lower valley. This would allow for percolation of approximately 82,000 acre feet of water per year. If such ponding areas cannot be found in the lower valley, the needed replenishment could be made up by converting current well users (farmers, fish farmers, golf courses and duck clubs) to canal water or other surface sources in the lower valley. • Additional replenishment could be achieved through importation of another 41,000 acre feet to supplement groundwater recharge efforts in the upper valley, conserving an additional 25,000 acre feet of water after initial use for fish farms, increasing reclaimed water use on golf courses by 11,000 acre feet, implementing conservation measures on golf courses to save an additional 9,000 acre feet of water and improving agricultural conservation to save another 5,000 acre feet of water. It is anticipated that most of the money required to implement and operate CVWD's water plan would come through assessments collected from pump owners for the cost of replacing the amount of water they extract from the basin. Major groundwater users in the upper valley, including the CVWD, have been paying such fees for nearly 20 years. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS No significant project -level water use impacts have been identified. If CVWD's efforts to expand water supplies and increase replenishment of overdrafted aquifers, together with various water conservation programs administered by CVWD and local governments throughout the valley are not as successful as intended, significant cumulative water supply impacts, i.e., water shortages, could be unavoidable. 5.8-8 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.9 Solid Waste Disposal • Locate recycling/ separation areas in close proximity to dumpsters for non-recyclables, elevators, loading docks, and primary internal and external access points. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Locations of recycling/ separation areas shall not conflict with any applicable federal, state or local laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, or safety. Locate recycling/ separation areas so they are convenient for those persons who deposit, collect, and load the recyclable materials. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Place recycling containers/bins so that they do not block access to each other, Solid waste collection/recycling areas are to be compatible with nearby structures, secure, protected against adverse environmental conditions, clearly marked, adequate in capacity, number and distribution, and contain a sufficient number of bins, to serve the recycling needs of the development. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Design and construct collection/recycling areas to accommodate front -loader packing trucks, including maneuvering room. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) • Design and construct driveways and/or travel aisles with adequate width and maneuverability space for unobstructed garbage collection vehicle access and clearance. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) Post signs at all access points of the recycling areas that clearly identify all recycling and solid waste collection and loading areas and the materials accepted therein. (From CIWMB Model Ordinance) SWS. Prior to occupancy of each phase of the project, the managers of the auto dealerships any other bLu;inesses within the rrronosed auto mall area that szeiterate_hazardous wastes, and the mixed- use., regional commercial centers shall prepare programs for the proper storage, collection, identification, and disposal of industrial chemical and hazardous material wastes. Such nrogranls may, for example include current waste disposal practices such as contracting with State licensed private firms for the collection of waste materials for use by the stuns or other firms who produce new products from the ecvcled wastes andlor who transport such stes to properly licensed wd-permitted disposal facilities These hazardous waste management programs shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of theRivergide—Cat'' , the Riverside County Fire Department, and the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of any occ pancype emit by ttir City, the occunylt shall verify, in writing, that the occul2ant has complied with all applicable Federal Stater County anti City re uiremcnts for the handling and disl2psal.of Hazardous waste material, and shall file an annual report with the City Community Development Department repQrting tNe Eype.S L�.f hazardous waste generated and methods of waste dipsosal The annual report shall include evidence of proper di sal with a California -certified hazardous waste dis 1 c0m M . 5.9-10 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.9 Solid Waste Disposal UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS If the project's construction and long-term solid wastes are recycled, reused and otherwise diverted from landfills as much as practical through implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, significant solid waste impacts would be avoided. The projeet'-eumulative impacts would be considered unavoidably significant until additional landfill space is identified for the County beyond the year 2008. 5.9-11 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR 5.11 Aesthetics equates to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.18, well below the maximum FAR of 0.35 permitted by the La Quinta General Plan for properties within the Mixed/Regional commercial designation. Given this intensity limitation, the proposed project would not have a significant aesthetic impact in terms of the building intensity standards established by the La Quinta General Plan and zoning regulations. Cumulative Impacts This project would represent a further expansion of modem commercial development along the Highway 111 corridor, with a corresponding reduction of sand dune covered open space. The entire highway corridor through La Quinta has been planned for intensive commercial development in the La Quinta General Plan. Provided that this project and future projects are developed in conformance with the City's goals, policies and standards for preservation of scenic mountain vistas and well designed image corridors, no significant cumulative impacts on the community's image along the Highway 111 corridor are expected. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure is intended to reduce the significance of the view obstructing impact of building massing that could occur in the northeastern quadrant of the project site. AES1: L-- 'tt-B6uilding heights in the northeastern quadrant of the project site, i.e., the northern half of the mixed-use. regional commercial centerNi , shall be limited to one story or 25 feet. Spacing between buildings shall be a minimum of 150 feet. Alternatively, future site development applications in that area may submit a line -of -sight or equivalent visual impact analysis that proves that the placement, height and massing of proposed buildings does not result in a significant obstruction of views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. AES2: Final plans for landscape improvements along the Highway 111 and Adams Street frontages shall incorporate a screen wall design that avoids a monotonous visual effect, through a meandering alignment, use of offsets, periodic variations in materials, texture, or colors or other measures which achieve the desired effect. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS With proper implementation of the mitigation measure listed above, no unavoidable significant aesthetic impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project. 5.11-12 The Centre at la Quinta Final EIR 5.12 Cultural Resources CRI: A qualified, professional archaeologist will conduct intensive archaeological monitoring of the entire first grading phase. Based on the results of this monitoring program, recommendations for the extent of subsequent grading/site preparation phases willtall be reassessed. Less intensive. it is reeenm~nffided that -Ayffie lev monitoring wi11-be conducted throughout the project area, during subsequent grading actiyit�W _"r._.t finds .dsmall eampsites,erematiorts, eer menial _iter) it ig re mmF----'F--' `hat --Rhe archaeological monitor have the authority to halt any activities causing adverse impacts to potentially significant buried archaeological resources. Once identified, the archaeological consultant will evaluate the find(s) in accordance with criteria presented in Appendix K of CEQA. It is also recommended, but not required, that the archaeological monitoring program involve Native American input, either as observers or consultants. The presence of a Native American monitor will be ottl6 bye disefetion of e -a3 Native Arne e ie o f t «p= < <e . «ek;, o e (&; e�= �� , oordinate with the monitoring schedule. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No important cultural resources have been identified within the proposed project area. However, the sensitivity for buried important resources has resulted in a recommendation for mitigation of potential impacts through archaeological monitoring. Completion of the recommended archaeological monitoring program will lessen any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance and no otherwise unavoidable significant impacts are expected. 5.12-7 The Centre at La Quinta Final EIR