CC Resolution 1999-038d_Y RESOLUTION NO.99-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-033
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-373
APPLICANT: MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 2nd day of March, 1 999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-373 for Specific Plan 98-033, and,
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 23rd day of February, 1 999 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 98-373 for Specific Plan 98-033, generally located at the
northeast corner of Adams Street and Highway 111, more particularly described as
follows:
APN 649-020-029
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1 970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study EA 98-373)
and has determined that although the proposed tentative tract could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
included in the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 98-033, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify Certifying said Environmental
Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
98-373.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No. 99-38
Environmental Assessment 98-373
March 2, 1999
Page 2
2. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 does not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by
the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 98-033 will not have environm1ental e?ects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan as
proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time
of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby Certify Environmental Assessment 98-373 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment
Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 2nd day of March, 1 999, by the following vote, to wit:
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No, 99-38
Environmental Assessment 98-373
March 2, 1999
Page 3
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Perkins, Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
ENAyor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City of La Quinta, California
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Hotel 11 Specific Plan, Case No. SP 98-033
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine Di lono
760-777-7 25
4. Project Location: Northeast comer of Highway 111 and Adams Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Del Monte Property
Mr. Ray Troll
2323 N. Tustin Ave., Suite F
Santa Ana, CA
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed?Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial with non-residential overlay
8. Description ofProject: Review of a Specific Plan of Land Use for a 140-160 room hotel and
two restaurants on 6+ acres of land. The hotel is proposed to be a mid-range business or
convenience facility, with limited resort amenities and on-site services. The maximum
square footage of the restaurants is proposed to be 12,000 square feet, including both interior
and exterior dining areas.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: The project site is currently vacant. Development to
the west and across Adams Street is existing community-scale shopping center. A self-
storage facility abuts the northern property line. Lands to the east and south are vacant.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Coachella Valley Water District.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No. 99-3B
Adopted: 312/99
Page 2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning TransportationlCirculation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
x eologicaI Problems Bnergy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
X Water Hazards Cultural Resources
X Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Finds of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
F I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
F I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
F I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact
or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
F I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards
and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3/2199
Page 3
Signature Date
Printed Name For
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on prc?ect-specific factors as well as general standards e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact" to a Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level mitigation
measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No.99-38
Adopted.. 312199
Page 4
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
potentially
Potentially signifitant Le5? Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): significant UnIe?s Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? 1,6) x
Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USG?
topo map This answer would probably not need flirther explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? General Plan x
Land Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable environmen? plans or policies adopted by x
agencies with jurisdiction over the project? General Plan EIR, p.4-1
ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? General Plan x
Land Use Map, Gener? Plan Goal 2-3, page 2-14)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations e.g., impacts to soils or x
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? General Plan
EIR, Exhibit 4.1-4, page 4-15)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established x
community including a low-income or minority community)? Aerial
Photograph, Figure 1 of Specific Plan document)
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3/2/99
Page 5
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? x
General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major x
infrastructure)? General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies 2-
3.1.1,2-3.1.3, page 2-14)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Aerial x
Photograph, Figure 1 of Specific Plan document)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) x
Potentially
Potentially Significant Les? Than
Significant UnIe?s Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Seismic ground shaking? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) x
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan EIR, x
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 x
ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) x
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from x
excavation, grading, or fill? General Plan EIR, page 4-41)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? General Plan EIR, page 4-43) x
h) Expansive soils? General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) x
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No. 99-3S
Adopted: 312199
Page 6
i) Unique geologic or physical features'? General Plan, page 8-7) x
IV. WATER. Wo?d the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and arnount
of surface runoff? Figure 2 in Specific Plan document) x
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as x
flooding? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-I, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water x
quality e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Specific Plan
document p.12, letter from CVWD dated 12/30198)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Specific x
Plan document p. 12, letter from CVWD dated 12/30/98)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? x
General an EIR, page 4-51 if.)
Potentially
Potentially sigrnficant Less Than
Significalit Unless significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts x
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? General Plan EIR, page 4-55 if.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? General Plan EIR, x
page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise x
available for public water supplies? General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No. 99-3S
Adopted: 312199
Page 7
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or x
projected air quality violation? General Plan EJR, page 4-171 if.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Aerial Photograph, Figure x
1 of Specific Plan document)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in x
climate? General Plan MEA, page 5-33 if.)
d) Create objectionable odors? Specific Plan Project Description) x
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATI()N.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Endo Engineering, x
Project Traffic Analysis)
b) Hazards to safety from design features e.g., sharp curves or x
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e.g., farrn equipment)?
Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Specific x
Plan Site Plan, Figure 2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Specific Plan Site x
Plan, Figure 2)
POt?nti?IIy
Potenti?IIy Si?nifi??nt Les? TIian
Signifi??nt LJnless Significant N?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Specific Plan Site x
Plan, Figure 2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation x
e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Specific Plan Site Plan, Figure 2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? General Plan MEA) x
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3I2?99
Page 8
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats including x
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? General Plan
EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species e.g., heritage trees)? General Plan EIR, x
Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
c) Locally designated natural communities e.g., oak forest, coastal x
habitat, etc.)? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
d) Wetland habitat e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? General x
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? General Plan EIR, page 4- x
71 if.)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? General Plan x
MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteflil and inefficient manner? x
General Plan MEA, page 5-26 if.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that x
would be of tuture value to the region and the residents of the State?
Potentially
Potentially significant Less Than
significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-33
Adopted: 3/2/99
Page 9
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances x
including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency x
evacuation plan? General Plan MEA, page 6-27 if.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? x
Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? x
Specific Plan Project Description)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? x
Specific Plan Project Description)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? Specific Plan Project x
Description, General Plan MEA, page 6-15 if., Bxhibit 6-4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? General Plan MBA, x
page 6-15 if., Exhibit 6-4)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? General Plan MBA, page 4-3 if.) x
b) Police protection? General Plan MBA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? General Plan MBA, page 4-9) x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? General Plan x
MBA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y
Resolution No. 99-3S
Adopted: 312199
Page 10
e) Other governmental services? General Plan MEA, page 4-14 if.) x
PotelitiSIly
Pot?ntiaIIy signific?nt Lcs? Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? General Plan MEA, page 4-26) x
b) Communications systems? General Plan MEA, page 4-29) x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? General x
an MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? General Plan MEA, page 4-24) x
e) Storm water drainage? General Plan MEA, page 4-27) x
f) Solid waste disposal? General Plan MEA, page 4-28) x
g) Local or regional water supplies? General an MEA, page 4-20) x
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? General Plan Exhibit CIR- x
5)
b) Rave a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? General Plan EIR, x
page 5-12 if.)
c) Create light or glare? Specific Plan Project Description) x
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 312199
Psge 11
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? Paleontological Lakebed x
Determination Study, Community Development Deparrment)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? CRM Tech, Interim Cultural x
Resources Report for proposed project)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant tinless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Inipact Impact
c) Affect historical resources? CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources x
Report for proposed project)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect x
unique ethnic cultural values? CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources
Report for proposed project)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact x
area? CRM Tech, Interim Cultural Resources Report for proposed
project)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other x
recreational facilities? Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? General Plan, Exhibit x
PR-I)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3/2199
Page 1 2
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qu?ity of the x
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important exampks of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the x
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but x
cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause x
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or
indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion sho?d identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an e?ier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No. 99-3S
Adopted: 3/2/99
Page 13
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 98-373
III.b) & c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located
in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, adjacent to an inferred and inactive fault. The City
has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active
areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation
measure will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
III.f) The project falls within an area of soils at risk for erosion. The proposed Specific
Plan, in and of itself, will not cause a hazard. However, construction of the project
will have the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth moving
activities. At such time as any phase of the project is proposed for development, the
project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for
review and approval. The recommendations contained in this study will reduce the
potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance.
IV.a) The construction of the land uses proposed in the Specific Plan will reduce the
amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the
potential to increase surface runoff. The project, however, proposes to control storm
flows by directing them to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, located
immediately north of the project site. The project has been conditioned to meet the
requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District CVWD), which has jurisdiction
over the Channel. This will reduce the potential hazard associated with increased
runoff to a level of insignificance.
IV.c) & d) As discussed in item IV.a), above, the proposed project will discharge storm flows
into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Such discharge could increase the
potential for pollutants entering the Channel. The project will be required to
implement NPDFS standards for any flows to be discharged, however, which will
lower the risk of pollutants entering the Channel. CVWD has implemented standards
for such facilities, which will be applied to this project. The Channel is an
intermittent stream, which generally carries water only during storm events. The
implementation of the proposed project will not represent a significant increase in
water traveling in the Channel, and is not expected to cause a hazard in this regard.
The Channel has been designed to accommodate such flows, plus a risk factor, to
ensure conservative handling of storm flows. CVWD's requirements to implement
the Specific Plan will reduce the potential impacts to surface water to a less than
significant level.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3/2/99
Page 14
TV.f) The construction of the proposed project will result in an increased demand for
domestic water. The Valley's water supplies are recharged through contractual
agreement with the Metropolitan Water District, utilizing California Water Project
resources. Although the regional groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, the
efforts of the Coachella Valley Water District, the City's water conservation
requirements, and other outside agency efforts are mitigating the regional draw-down
of groundwater.
V.a) An air quality analysis was prepared for buildout of the proposed project1. The air
quality analysis was performed for both construction short term) and operational
long term) emissions from the project site. The analysis utilized the threshold
criteria established for the Valley by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, as required by the Air Quality Management Plan. The project will not
exceed these criteria, either during construction or operation of the hotel and
restaurants. The impact to air quality is not expected to be significant.
VI.a) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan2. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and fliture traffic
volumes. The signal warrant analysis reviewed project traffic at the Adams Street
entrance to the site. The traffic analysis represents a conservative estimate, insofar
as the assumptions used included full occupancy of the hotel. The total estimated
traffic generation for the project is estimated to be 2,?50 daily trips, of which 52 are
expected during the morning peak hour, and 72 during the evening peak hour.
Highway ill is expected, at year 2005, to be at half its capacity 29,500 trips). The
project will represent less than % of the 2005 traffic volume. The type of
development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the
City's General Plan, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that
analysis. The impact of the proposed project is not expected to represent a significant
impact to traffic congestion.
Air Quality Impacts Associated with the Adams Street Hotel and Restaurants," Endo Engineering.
November 30, 998.
2
Traffic Impacts Associated with the Adams Street Hotel and Restaurants" and Adams Street Hotel Access
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis," Endo Engineering, November30, 1998 and January 8, 1999,
respectively.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 312/99
Page 15
VT.b) The project proposes its primary access from Adams Street, approximately 350 feet
north of the Highway 1 1 right-of-way. Two concerns have been identified with this
access and its associated drive. First, that the access point might generate sufficient
trips to meet traffic warrants for a signalized intersection, and second that the access
drive easterly of this access point could be hazardous if used as a through route
within the project.
As mentioned in item VI.a) above, a warrant analysis was completed for the
proposed access point. The warrant analysis concludes that insufficient traffic will
occur at this access to warrant installation of a signal. The installation of a signal
would not have met distance requirements established by the City for signals, and
could have posed a hazard. The warrant analysis provides sufficient information to
determine that the impact of the access on Adams Street as a potential traffic hazard
will be less than significant.
The use of the drive through the project from the Adams Street access point to the
eastern project boundary could pose a hazard if used as a through road by project and
adjacent traffic. The City Engineer, however, has conditioned the construction of the
drive to include a raised crosswalk area, to slow traffic and define the pedestrian
access point. This condition of approval should reduce the risk of a potential traffic
hazard to a level of insignificance.
VI.d) The proposed Specific Plan has reduced the parking requirements from 399 to 318.
The Zoning Ordinance does allow for parking reductions under certain
circumstances, and using certain methodologies. The Specific Plan uses one of the
approved methodologies to determine its parking reduction. The compatible uses for
the site are expected to result in reductions in parking needed. In addition, the project
has been conditioned to perform additional parking analysis should the uses proposed
change. This is expected to reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance.
VII.a),b) & c) The proposed Specific Plan occurs within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley
fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Fee Area. With the adoption of a Habitat
Conservation Plan for this species, payment of a $600.00 fee was established as
mitigation for any taking of this endangered species. No further mitigation is
necessary. The site also occurs within the boundaries of habitat known to be suitable
for the Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket, a Species of Special Concern. Given
the sand dunes located on the site, the Cricket is likely to occur. The Specific Plan
will not, in and of itself, have an impact on this habitat. However, eventual
development of the site will impact these resources. In order to mitigate the potential
impacts, the project proponent will, as part of the Site Development Permit process,
prepare or cause to be prepared a biological resource assessment, including a field
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_YResolution No. 99-3B
Adopted: 3/2/99
Page 16
survey prepared by a qualified biologist. The result report is to include appropriate
mitigation measures to be implemented through the development of the site. If mass
grading of the site is eventually proposed, the biological resource survey must be
completed at the first Site Development Permit application. If the site is subdivided
and/or developed in discreet phases, individual biological resource surveys may be
performed for each phase.
VTI.e) The proposed Specific Plan will not, in and of itself, impact migratory patterns.
Development of the site at a later date, however, could impact such patterns. As
discussed above, the project site is likely to harbor sensitive species. Development
has occurred to the west and north of the proposed project, somewhat blocking
migratory potential for the site. The biological resource analysis required above
should, however, include analysis of the potential degradation of wildlife dispersal
or migratory routes, and provide appropriate mitigation for impacts, if any.
X.a) The Highway 111 corridor is an impacted noise area. Noise levels along this roadway
exceed the 60 dBA CNEL level currently. All new development of sensitive
receptors is required to mitigate to the City's standards for noise, as required in the
General Plan Table EH-?). The hotel portion of the Specific Plan is considered a
sensitive receptor. The City requires that interior noise levels in individual rooms be
45 dBA CNEL or less for this use. The hotel's distance from the Highway 11
corridor, as well as construction requirements to meet the City's codes, will allow the
interior noise levels to be sufficiently reduced to meet City standards. Building plans
for the hotel will include documentation which demonstrates that construction
methods will reduce the interior noise level to 45 dBA CNEL or less within the hotel
rooms. This mitigation requirement reduces the impact of noise to a level of
insignificance.
X.b) The Specific Plan in and of itself will not expose people to significant noise levels,
but the eventual construction of the restaurant sites could. The restaurants, however,
are not considered sensitive receptors, and impacts to persons using outside dining
facilities will be short term, and are not expected to be significant. The design of the
restaurants should, however, use landscaped berms, building position and perimeter
walls as tools to shield diners from noise sources on Highway I I 1. These
construction methods should be sufficient to reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02
d_Y Resolution No.99-38
Adopted: 3/2/99
Pege 17
XIII.a) The proposed Specific Plan lies adjacent to a City- designated Primary Image
Corridor. This designation requires added setbacks and enhanced landscaping
treatments to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts. The proposed project will confo?
to the standards and requirements of the Highway Design Theme, which the City
adopted to implement its requirements in this regard. This is expected to reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XITT.c) The proposed project will include two restaurants which will operate during the
evening hours. The hotel use will require lighting at all times during the night, for
public health and safety. No residential land uses occur or are likely to occur adjacent
to the project site. The City has implemented, through its Site Development Permit
and building permit processes, standards which require lighting to be contained, and
at a low level, to preserve the dark night sky. These standards will be implemented
for this project, thereby reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
xIv.b) & d) An archaeological resource analysis, as well as site investigation, was prepared for
the project site3. The results of the survey found that significant resources occurred,
and that site testing should be undertaken. Through the testing and data recovery
performed for this survey, the conclusion was reached that although the
archaeological site extends beyond the boundaries of the proposed project site, data
recovery for this portion has been completed. The interim report ending laboratory
testing results) was submitted to the City's Historic Preservation Commission for
review and approval.
As development occurs on the site monitoring has been recommended, and included
in the conditions of approval, for any earth moving activities, to ensure that further
artifacts are identified and properly handled. This monitoring will reduce the
potential for negative impacts to a less than significant level.
Intenm Cultural Resources Repori, Hotel 11 Project Site," CRM Tech, December, 998.
BIB]
03-17-1999-U01
02:55:51PM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
38-U02