Loading...
CC Resolution 2002-039RESOLUTION NO. 2002-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN #97-029 (1997) AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (1998), STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97011055 PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-067, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420 CASE: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of February, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Stamko Development Co. on the Addendum, the Site Development Permit, the Conditional Use Permit, and did approve the applications by adopting Planning Commission Resolutions 2002-024 through 2002-027; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 19th day of March, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Stamko Development Co. on station in conjunction with retail Building "B", and a Tentative Parcel Map to create an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Addendum") for approval of a Site Development Permit for a retail shopping center having 334,117 ± square feet, a Conditional Use Permit for a plant nursery/garden center, an auto repair/specialty shop, and an auto service 18 numbered and two letter lots ranging in size from .47 to 19.44 acres for the 87-acre Specific Plan area located. immediately south of State Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams Street, approximately 300 feet west of Dune Palms Road and approximately 1,850 feet north of Avenue 48 and more particularly described as follows: APNS 649-030-057 thru 063; WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council); and, Resolution No. 2002-39 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 2 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering the EIR, the Supplemental EIR, the Addendum, and 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 Addendum: 1. The current applications for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map Permit (the "Application" or "Proposed Project"), with respect to a portion of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, constitute further discretionary approvals needed to implement the previously approved Project ( "Prior Project") . The application reflects necessary entitlements to proceed with development of approximately 334,117 square feet of retail commercial space, on approximately 29 acres within Planning Area III of The Centre at La Quinta. 2. On July 15, 1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta (the "City") certified the adequacy and completeness of a Final Environmental Impact Report [SCN 9701 10551 (the "Final EIR") and adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in connection with its approval of the Prior Project. In December 1998, the City certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with its consideration and approval of an Amendment to the Specific Plan to reflect modifications in the internal layout of the Prior Project and further refinements of the development concepts. The Proposed Project is consistent with the amended Specific Plan analyzed in the 1998 Supplemental EIR. 3. The Proposed Project does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved Prior Project, which will require major revisions to the Final EIR as augmented by the 1998 Supplemental EIR (collectively "Prior EIR"), due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects. In fact, the Proposed Project reflects a reduction in intensity of development within Planning Area III, in that the Proposed Project develops only 334,117 square feet of retail commercial space, substantially less than the maximum square footage previously approved for the Prior Project (i.e., 400,000 square feet or .25 FAR). 4. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major modifications or revisions to the Prior EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Resolution No. 2002-39 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 3 5. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the Final EIR and Supplemental EIR were adopted, has become available which shows any of the bases described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) (3), for requiring a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. 6. Based upon these findings and the Addendum/Initial Study, the City has determined that no Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is required or appropriate under Public Resources Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is sufficient to make the Prior EIR apply to the Proposed Project. 7. The Addendum/Initial Study, which was prepared to evaluate whether the Proposed Project could cause any new or potentially more severe significant adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed potential secondary land use impacts based upon an updated Market Impact Analysis prepared by the Natelson Company. Based upon the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe adverse secondary land use impacts, in the defined Study Area, including no significant adverse blight -related impacts due to Walmart relocating from its existing site in La Quinta to the Retail "B" Building in Planning Area III of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan. This finding is based upon the Natelson Company's updated analysis and the conditions imposed by the City, with respect to the continued maintenance of and future occupancy of the existing Walmart store in the City of La Quinta. 8. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's potential effects on traffic and circulation, both with respect to the public roads in the vicinity of the Project and the internal circulation of the Project site, based upon an updated traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads. Based upon the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant traffic or circulation impacts, either on public roads or the internal circulation system at the Project site. 9. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's potentially new or more severe significant noise related impacts. Based upon the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant adverse noise -related effects. In addition, noise monitoring conducted after the Retail "B" Building is fully operational must demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance at the property line. Resolution No. 2002-39 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 4 10. The prior EIR estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522 feet of water per year. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this demand would not exceed their current or projected water supplies. No substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Prior Project and no wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. The Proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses, in Planning Area III, which is less than the previously approved square footage of 400,000 square feet, or 429,000 square feet, under the .25 FAR specified in the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan. Since there is a direct relationship between the size and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total building area under the Proposed Project would result in an overall decrease in the amount of water required for the project site. Therefore, as the total amount of water required for the Proposed Project is less than that necessary for the Prior Project, no new or more severe impacts with respect to water demand would occur. 1 1 . The Proposed Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 12. The Proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no new or more severe significant adverse effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Addendum/Initial Study. 13. The Proposed Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. 14. The Proposed Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health or public services. Resolution No. 2002-39 --- Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 5 15. These factual findings are based upon the previously certified Final EIR and Supplemental EIR, the Addendum/Initial Study, the submissions of the applicant, the updated Market Impact Analysis report prepared by the Natelson Company, the updated traffic report prepared by Urban Crossroads, the noise impact analysis conducted by Impact Sciences, and the records and files of the City's Community Development Department related to the Project. 16. The City Council has considered the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. 17. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 18. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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 Addendum. 2. That it does hereby certify the Addendum for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. 3. That the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 19th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2002-39 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report Stamko Development Co. Adopted: March 19, 2002 Page 6 ATTEST: JUkWe S. CREEK, CMC, C lerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHE INE JENSi City of La Quinta, Cal (V City Attorney ornia JOHN A PENA, City oA 4a Quint Tr ifornia DRAFT Addendum to The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Final EIR (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998) State Clearinghouse No. 97011055 ARREOVBd bw- DAIS Planning ContmissloA � Rem `i amity Council - 9 O Community Ow. OoPL Initials Case No. e-A y 7 - 33 7 CXhlIt 5 0e U�.- 7.2 1. wrh 30. O With Conditions Prepared for. City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, California 91301 February 2002 u 1 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an Addendum with an incorporated Initial Study (Addendum/Initial Study) to the Final EIR and Supplemental EIR ("Previous EIRs") for The Centre at La Quinta (Specific Plan) (State Clearinghouse no. 97011055). The Final EIR assessed the potential impacts associated with development of the Specific Plan, while the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) evaluated an amendment to the Specific Plan. Specifically, the SEIR analyzed four potential development scenarios, including the development of two large big box commercial centers for the undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan site ("the Previous Projects"). The SEIR was certified in September 1998. Purpose of an Addendum When a Final EIR has been certified for a project, CEQA provides for the update of the information in the certified EIR to address changes to a project or changes to the circumstances under which a project will occur. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that where the Lead Agency determines that neither project changes, changed circumstances, nor new information requires the preparation and circulation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, the Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum to an EIR. An Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the purpose of an Addendum is to provide a way of making minor changes or additions to an EIR. Circulation of an Addendum for public review is not required. This Addendum to the Previous EIRs has been prepared because: (1) no substantial changes are proposed in the Previous Project which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs clue to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Previous Project is undertaken will occur which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and (3) no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Previous EIRs were certified as complete, shows any of the following: (A) the Previous Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Previous EIRs; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Previous EIRs; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in 1 Daft Addendum to the Centre at Li Quin February • fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Previous Project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative(s); or, (D) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Previous EIRs would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. These determinations are supported by the Initial Study incorporated into this Addendum, in Section 2.0, and additional updated studies/reports appended to this Addendum in the appendices. Regional and Local Setting The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of land area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in eastern Riverside County. The Coachella Valley is located between the San Bernardino Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains (see Figure 1). La Quinta is located approximately 18 miles southeast of the resort community of Palm Springs. It is surrounded by the Cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert to the northwest, Indio, Coachella, the Augustine Indian Reservation and Thermal to the east, and the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west. The Interstate 10 Freeway (I-10) provides regional east -west access to the Coachella Valley communities. Washington Street provides vehicular access from I-10 south to State Highway 111, which leads to the Project site. The 87-acre Specific Plan area is located immediately south of State Highway 111 and immediately east of Adams Street, in the northern part of La Quinta (see Figure 2). Dune Palms Road lies approximately 300 feet east of the eastern site boundary and Avenue 48 lies approximately 1,850 feet south of the southern site boundary. Description of Previous Environmental Review On July 15,1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta unanimously adopted a Specific Plan to permit and control development of an auto/sales services mall and a large mixed -use retail commercial 'power center' on the Project site. A specific plan is a planning tool authorized by state law that allows a local government to recognize the unique characteristics of a particular planning area and to establish customized land use regulations that will achieve the objectives of the General Plan for that area. The City Council approved the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, which addresses the requirements of state law, including a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. The Specific Plan established specific performance, design and development standards to guide the 2 Draft Addendum to & Centre of U Quints February 2LU J �• V 5 mi. 2.5 mi. 0 mi. 5 mi. FIGUR Regional Location Country Club Dr. City Of m Dese. indien Wells Country Club Berowde Dews A,rpw Bermuda Dunes Country Club O Fred Wam;rning:DL�.-' Indian Spnngs 3of Country Club * . - slil —j J t O'�4-V 0.-- L t, 0^ '04" 50th Ave. 52nd Ave. 0 0 0 6000' 3000' of 6=1 01 mnimmol Project Site Vicin development of the subject property in a manner that is intended to implement the City's General Plan, and also provided flexibility to respond to phased development and changing conditions. The Specific Plan also augmented the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing design guidelines, a tailored list of allowable, conditionally allowable and prohibited uses for the site, and, in some cases, unique development standards. - The originally approved Specific Plan allowed the development of up to 275,000 square feet of auto sales/service facilities, and approximately 400,000 square feet or .25 Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of retail/commercial space. The potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Previous Project were assessed in an EIR (State Clearinghouse no. 97011055) which was also certified by the City Council. The specific actions approved by the City Council on July 15,1997 were as follows: • Resolution 97-62: Certification of Environmental Impact Report • Resolution 97-63: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28525 • Resolution 97-64: Adoption of Specific Plan 97-029 • Resolution 97-65: Approval of Site Development Permit 97-603 • Resolution 97-66: Approval of Conditional Use Permit • Ordinance No. 306: Approval of Development Agreement The certified Final EIR, assessed the Previous Project's potential impacts on the following environmental areas: Potential Secondary Land Use Effects; • Geotechnical Considerations; • Hydrology/ Water Quality; • Biological Resources; • Transportation/Circulation • Air Quality; • Noise; • Water Distribution and Storage; • Solid Waste Disposal; • Public Services; • Aesthetics; and • Cultural Resources. 018 5 Draft Addendum to the Centre at LA Quints February 2002 This Final EIR also assessed the Previous Project's potential growth inducing impacts and evaluated five alternatives to the Previous Project. In 1998, the project applicant proposed an amendment to the approved Specific Plan to reflect modifications in the internal layout of the Previous Project and the further refinement of the development concepts. As approved, this amendment allowed development of four different mixes of auto sales/service and retail commercial land uses, including the development of large retail stores, commonly know as "big box" stores or commercial power centers. A SEIR was prepared that analyzed each of the proposed four development scenarios in equal detail and was certified in December 1998. This SEIR analyzed the same impact topics addressed in the original EIR completed in 1997. The development scenario now proposed for implementation by the applicant's current, more specific entitlement package, was previously subject to CEQA compliance review in the Previous EIRs. Description of Proposed Project The current proposed Project requests three discretionary actions. Specifically, a Site Development Permit, a Conditional Use permit for the auto serving uses and garden center as well as approval of a Tentative Tract Map (the Project). The Project site is located within Planning Area III, as defined in the Specific Plan, and maintains the general layout and configuration analyzed in the Previous EIRs. The Specific Plan allows the development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III, under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000 square feet or a FAR of .25. A .25 FAR applied to the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet ("the Previously Approved Square Footage"). Prospective tenants for the proposed commercial center include Wal-Mart and Kohl's. For purposes of this analysis, the operational characteristics of these tenants (Wal-Mart and Kohl's) have been assumed. The Project proposes development of 334,117 square feet on approximately 29 acres within the 39t acre Planning Area M. This proposed development is substantially below the Previously Approved Square Footage analyzed in the Previous EIRs. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land uses, while Figure 3 presents the proposed Site Plan. The Project site is located on the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, south of Highway 111 and to the east of La Quinta Drive. Development is currently proposed on parcels 1, 5, 6 and 11. As shown,19,200 square feet of specialty stores and associated parking stalls would be located on the northeast portion of the site on parcel 6. The retail uses would be setback from Highway 111 by a 50 foot landscaped buffer to the north and located approximately 60 013 6 Draft Addendum to the Centre at !O Quinta February 2002 0- 05 0 Q- 0 ,W� T5 feet from the eastern property boundary, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer setback. Immediately south on parcel 5, a 86,584 square foot Retail A Building is proposed, with parking provided to the west. The Retail A Building is also positioned 60 feet away from the eastern Project boundary, 10 feet of which also includes a landscaped setback. To the southwest of this parking area is parcel 11, which includes the 115 square foot gas station, associated with the potential occupation of Retail B Building by a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The gas station is on the southeast corner of the Auto Centre Drive and La Quinta Drive intersection. However, access is only provided to the station from within the Project site. The gas station is approximately 50 feet from La Quinta Drive, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer. To the south of the gas station is parcel 1, which includes parking and the proposed 228,218 square foot Retail B Building. This building would include a garden center and a tire installation and express lube facility on the western side of the building. Retail B Building is located 60 feet from the southern boundary and 30 feet from the eastern boundary. The southern boundary also includes a 10 foot landscaped setback. Access to the Project site is provided from Highway 111, La Quinta Drive and Auto Centre Drive. As proposed, two access points would be provided off of Highway ill, just west of parcel 6. This access extends south, through the Project site down to the Retail B Building. This is the only major internal north and south drive aisle. Three access points would be provided along La Quinta Drive. One would be north of Auto Centre Drive, the second would be the entrance at the intersection of La Quinta Drive and Auto Center Drive, while the third is located to the south of this intersection. The northern access extends east, into the site, up to the 19,200 square feet of shops. at the eastern extent of the site, while the southern access extends east into the site, along the frontage of the Retail B Building. As proposed, 1,743 parking stalls would be provided, of which only 1,336 is required by applicable City Ordinances. Table 1 Land Use Summary Parcel Proposed Use Acreage Square Feet Parking Provided_ 1 Retail B/Parking 19.44 228,218 10,124 5 Retail A/Parking 7.35 86,584 484 6 13 Specialty Stores/ Parking 1.82 19,200 135 11 Gas Station 0.47 115 and 8 pumps 0 TOTALS: 29.081 334,117 1,743 129.08 acres represents total land area of the proposed Project within the 38.35 acre Planning Area III 13 r) 1. 8 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta February 2W2 • Findings of this AddendunVInitial Study This Addendum relies on an Initial Study Checklist Form, as suggested in State CEQA Guideline 15963, assessing a wide variesty of potental environmental impacts. Section Section contains the Initial Study and explains the basis for each responsep on 2.0 of this document to the questions on the environmental form, and that analysis is expressly incorporated into this Addendum. The City also requested additional updated information be collected for this addendum with respected that Secondary Land Use Impacts, such as blight, Transportation and Circulation, to three potential issues: lation, and Noise. Impact Sciences, Inc. retained the Natelson Company to review and update its prior Mark Analysis that was prepared for the Previous EIRs, in light of this s p et Impact potential relocation of the existing Wal-Mart store in La pacific Project and, in particular, the Quin to to the proposed Retail B Building at the Centre at La Quinta. A copy of this study is included as Appendix A. In summary, five associated with the economic impact of the Project were addressed includingry key topics sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart (1) whether there is (2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the K Supercenter in La Quinta; pp Kohl's store; (3) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a lar larger Wal- Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 g Mart commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to square feet of of the existing Wal-Mart store located in the Cityof La supp°rt the reuse Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the Natelson Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 s new retail stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants, such as Wal-Mart. As a result square feet of severe secondary land use impacts were determined to occur. . no new or more An updated traffic analysis, which was prepared by Urban Crossroads, and is resented in was based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square footages, land use in Appendix B, Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in the (including the Proposed Wal- Mart would not generate a volume of traffic that would supdated traffic analysis, the proposed i segments or intersections. Furthermore, the u significantly impact any of the studied roadway updated traffic analysis examined the internal circulation network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause Project site.inte conflicts. It was concluded, based on this analysis, that the Project would not re internal circulation severe traffic conditions either on public roads or internal to the Prol'suit in any new or more 0 2 ?_ 9 D^vi Addendum to the Centre at La Qurnta February 2002 Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed, based on full buildout as originally envisioned in the 1998 Specific Plan amendment. An updated noise analysis was prepared as specific land uses and operational characteristics of the Project are more defined at this time. Vacant land, zoned as regional commercial, exists to the east and south of the Project site. The regional commercial zone allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre on this property. Therefore, there is a potential for future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses. In order to make reasonable assumptions regarding a future exterior noise environment, operational characteristics from Wal-Mart Supercenters, including truck delivery rates were utilized. Noise monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by Impact Sciences. Based on these noise levels and environmental factors, and comparing them to La Quinta's noise standards, the resulting noise level attributable to Project operations is less than the accepted threshold for determining the significance of impacts. Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts are expected as a result of noise generated from the project. U23 10 DraJt Addendum to the Centre at LA Quints FArmary 2W2 • • 2.0 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL STUDY 1. INTRODUCTION The Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the lead agency, in this case the City of La Quinta, with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of a EIR, if one is required, by: a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, c. Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant, and d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of a project's environmental effects. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. According to Section 15063(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the lead agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do one of the following: 1. Prepare an EIR, 2. Use a previously prepared EIR which the lead agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand or 3. Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration. 11 Draft A&*Muor to the Centre at La Quints Febrwry 20M 2. PROJECT INFORMATION Case No(s), Project Title: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: RL and RM County Assessor's Information: The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Regional Commercial Map Book No. Page Parcel List of other agencies whose approval is required: None (e.g., permits, financial approval, participating agreement) Site Description: (Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, historical or scenic aspects.) La Quinta is located within the Coachella Valley portion of central Riverside County, in southern California. This area forms the northwest extension of the Colorado Desert in southeastern California. It is characterized by arid, sparsely vegetated desert land. The valley floor is composed generally of sandy soils that were deposited through the effects of water and wind erosion. Westerly winds are persistent, and contribute to extensive erosion and the formation of blowsand activity and sand dunes. Vehicular access to the Coachella Valley is provided by the Interstate 10 Freeway, providing an east -west linkage to the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the west, and the desert areas to the east. The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of both mountainous and desert terrain land area in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is a community of which nearly 13 square miles consist of protected mountain open space, parkland or golf course open space designations. Roughly 70 percent of the land within the city is undeveloped, and much of this consists of steep, rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Project site consists of approximately 29 acres of vacant land within the 38t acre Planning Area III of the Centre Specific Plan. The elevation of the site is approximately 285 feet above sea level (asl). Surrounding Properties: (Describe the surrounding properties and the effect the proposed Project will have on the area.) The irregular -shaped Project site is generally bordered by State Highway 111 to the north, Dune Palms Road on the east, and Adams Street to the west. Uses immediately surrounding the site include open space to the north, east, south and west with the auto center component of the specific plan to the northwest. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Stamko Development Co. 78-060 Calle Estado, Suite 5 La Quinta, CA 92253 Project Description (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or ofsite features necessary for its implementation.) The applicant is requesting approval for a 29t acre regional commercial development within the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Specifically, the Specific Plan allows the development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000 square feet or a Floor -Area -Ratio ' (FAR) of .25. A FAR of .25 applied to 13 Draft Addendum to the Centre at U Q'� "' Febnrary 2J20 • • the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet (" the Previously Approved Square Footage'). As proposed, the applicant would develop only 334,117 square feet of regional commercial uses, which is substantially below the development intensity originally evaluated in the Previous EIRs. Planned uses include 19,200 square feet of specialty stores, two stand alone retail buildings totaling 314,802 square feet, and a 115 square foot gas station with 8 gas pumps. 02( 14 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quints February 2002 0 • 3. DETERMINATION Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the analysis on the following pages. F-1 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services F-1 Population and HousingBiological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geophysical Energyand Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Water Hazards F� Cultural Resources Air Quality E] Noise MRecreation Mandato ry Findings of Significance Environmental Determination. The basis of this initial evaluation: The proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.E] Although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. M 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 the following pages, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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. COMMENTS: 028 15 Draft Addendum to the Crntn of Ln Qainm February 2002 To be considered by the La Quinta Planning Commission on February 26, 2002 023 16 Draft Addendum w the centre u L Qnime F6rns7 2002 C� 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanation of Evaluations: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites following each question. A No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole of the action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Impact ❑ Mitigated ❑ Impact ❑ No Impact b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over ❑ ❑ El the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from ❑ ❑ ❑ incompatible land uses)? d. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or ❑ ❑ ❑ minority community)? Documentation: As stated in the Previous EIRs, retail demand analysis indicated that there was sufficient retail demand to support the redevelopment of commercial retail buildings for other retail commercial uses should any retailers relocate to the new commercial development in the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Land Use impacts on the surrounding areas were not determined to be significant for any of the four development scenarios, including full buildout of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III up to 400,000 square feet of .25 FAR. The Project was also expected to add to the growth of commercial development along the Highway 1I I corridor, and further increase competition among auto dealers and other retail uses within the Coachella Valley. The proposed 334,117 square feet of development is less than the intensity of development previously approved by the Specific Plan and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. As a result, the total amount of retail that could be drawn from other locations would be reduced from the level assumed in the 1998 SEIR. In order to assess the potential impact associated with secondary land use issues, for this proposed project, an updated market impact analysis was prepared for the Project by the Natelson Company, Inc. which A. five key topics associated with the economic impact of the Project were address eis included in Appendix d including (1) whether 17 Draft Addendum to the Centre at L Quints "t 3 0 FAruay = there is sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in La Quinta; (2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the Kohl's store; (3) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a larger Wal-Mart Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 square feet of commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the re -use of the existing Wal-Mart store located in the City of La Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the Natelson Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 square feet of new retail stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants. As a result, there are no new or more severe secondary land use impacts as a result of the proposed Project. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official or local population projections? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact 1:1 M a No Impact As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Population and Housing impacts were determined not to be significant. The proposed Project would develop approximately 334,100 square feet of commercial uses in Planning Area III. No homes would be built or demolished as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to population and housing. Further Study Ree uired: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in Potentially Potentially Significant Less than or expose people to potential impacts involving: Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact a. Fault rupture? D El a 'u" b. Seismic ground shaking? ❑ El INJ c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 1:1 1:1 d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? F-1 El F-1 e. Landslides or mudflows? L Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil from excavation, grading or fill? a Elconditions 031. 18 Dreft Addendum to the Centre at LA Quint• February 2002 • • g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? i. Unique geologic or physical features? Documentation: Project development was expected to expose persons and structures to severe ground shaking during an earthquake along the San Andreas fault, and possibly during earthquakes along other regional faults. No threat of ground rupture was expected in the plan area; although, a trace of an inferred fault was identified on the western property boundary. Additional study was suggested to determine whether it presents any special constraints or design considerations for development of the western portion of the Specific Plan Area. Preliminary studies indicated that the potential for liquefaction .was very low as expansive soils are not present and ground lurching was not expected. Settlement potential was significant and required special consideration for grading and foundation design. Wind erosion potential was also very high and construction and post -construction control measures were implemented. As previously concluded in the prior EIRs, the site is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. Additionally, the Previous EIRs determined that the Specific Plan development would not contribute to cumulative impacts involving geological hazards or features on any other site. 0312' 19 Draft Addendum to the Centre at Le Quints February 2W2 The proposed Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses that was analyzed in the -- 1998 SEIR. Additionally, the total square footage of the Project would be substantially less than the Previousiv Approved Square Footage approved by the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment, resulting in an overall decrease in land use intensity. All grading, site preparation and construction plans would be developed according to current building standards and subject to approval by the City. Furthermore, as the Project location is situated on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area, issues associated with the inferred fault are not relevant as the Project site is on the opposite or eastern side of the plan area. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe geotechnical impacts. Further Study RReguired: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Sit t Bess mpact MU a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ❑ El the rate and amount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water -related F-1 El hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of El F-1 surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any F� El water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Documentation: Less than Significant Impact No Impact F� F� F� LIS/3 The prior EIRs determined that uncontrolled grading and site preparation activities could result in erosion and runoff of loose soils and other contaminants that could adversely affect downstream water quality. The developed site was expected to substantially increase impervious surface coverage that would, in turn, increase the amount and rate of runoff and which would change the composition of existing runoff to include more urban pollutants. The Project drainage system is planned to retain all runoff on site (up to lOQyear storm) and would filter runoff in retention areas. As a result, the analysis in the prior EIRs did not identify any significant flood hazards or any significant Project or cumulative water quality impacts. 20 Draft Addendum to the Centre at [a Quints February 2W2 LY All storm drainage improvements would be developed to City, of La Quints standards. It should be noted that, as with any urban Project, runoff entering the storm drainage system would contain minor amounts of pollutants (including pesticides, fertilizers and motor oil). This would incrementally contribute to the degradation of surface and sub -surface water quality. Additionally, expose soils to water erosion that would contribute to downstream sedimentation. However, activities would temporarily h the incorporation of standard conditions of approval, construction activities would minimize the extent of egos on and runoff from the exposed soils. As the site is currently unpaved and exposed, development of the proposed Project would lessen the existing site contribution to sediment runoff at Project completion. Finally, the Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses as was analyzed in the Previous EIRs. As the Project only proposes 334,117 square feet within Planning Area III, overall land use intensity would be substantially less than that which was originally approved and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. With the approval of the storm drainage facilities by the City Engineer, incorporating standard conditions of approval into the Project's design, as well as complying with all applicable storm water discharge permits, no new or more severe impacts would occur. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. AIR QUALM. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant • a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Impact El Mitigated 1:1 Impact El No Impact 0 b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? F] El El c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Create objectionable odors? ❑ El M Documentation: Construction period emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds as would long-term traffic emissions. These impacts were previously identified as significant in the Previous EIRs. However, no significant localized pollutant concentrations were identified in the former environmental analysis. It shoulalso noted that the Project was not in violation of the AQMP and therefore, be interfere with attainment of the air quality standards within the AQMP. Project development im le would not SCAQMD-recommended mitigation measures, construction -related and operation -related emissions would of considered unavoidably significant, while .cumulative impacts would be avoided. d be The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in Planning Area III, which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage as analyzed in the 1998 SEIRts should be noted that air quality emissions resulting from a development Project is directlyrelated It intensity and scale, assuming similar uses. As the proposed Project would develop less than what as originally approved, air quality emissions, both construction and operational, would be less than originallys calculated. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with regards to air quality emissions. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 0v 21 Draft Addendum to the Centre at Ia Quints February 2002 • VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact ❑ EJ F-1 0 El M El LIZ] The traffic analysis for the Specific Plan projected, at buildout, that between 19,900 and 20,250 average net daily vehicle trips would be generated. Significant congestion impacts were projected at two intersections in the year 2000, and at four intersections in the year 2005. Traffic signals were warranted at the main Project entrances at Highway 111 and Adams Street. The proposed Project would construct street, sidewalk and landscaping improvements along Highway 111 and Adams Street frontages in accordance with City's Circulation Element standards. Significant cumulative congestion impacts were projected at the same two intersections in year 2000, and the same four intersections in the year 2005. However, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce Project and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of retail stores, substantially less than previously analyzed and approved in the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment and SEIR. This less intensive development would result in a direct reduction in vehicular trips when compared to higher square foonages. An updated traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed Project based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square foonages, land use (including a proposed Wal-Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in the updated traffic analysis, the proposed Project would not generate a volume of traffic that would significantly impact any of the studied roadway segments or intersections. Furthermore, the updated traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads and presented in Appendix B, examined the internal circulation network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause internal circulation conflicts. The Project, as proposed, would not result in any new or more severe traffic conditions either on public roads or internal to the Project site and consequently, would not result in any new or more severe impacts. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact , y vr V5 22 Draft Addendum to the Centre Mt to Quints Febnory 2W2 • insects, animals, and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? El El c. Locally -designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ❑ j'—j LJ d. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ e. WildIife dispersal or migration corridors? Documentation: Grading would remove all existing vegetation and would displace much of the on -site wildlife. This would result in loss of potential habitat for one threatened species (Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard), which was identified as a significant impact. Buildout of the site would attract urban -adapted wildlife that would compete with native species in nearby open areas which was identified as an adverse but not significant impact. The loss of potential habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard would contribute to a net cumulative loss of habitat for this threatened species. However, with the previously approved mitigation, impacts were reduced to a level that is less than significant. The Specific Plan was approved in 1997 and amended in 1998 and as a result, the plan area has been graded, streets and infrastructure supporting the plan area has been installed and some of the auto dealers have occupied other portions of the plan area. This is supported by the existing regional commercial zoning designation for the entire Specific Plan Area. The loss of potential habitat to rare, threatened or endangered species has already been evaluated in the former environmental review process in 1997 and 1998. As the proposed Project would not develop outside of the Specific Plan Area, no new or more severe impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of Project implementation. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Significant Unless Less than Significant Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ El M b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? a ED El F71 LL-Ni Documentation: As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Energy and Mineral Resource impacts were determined to- be less than significant. The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within planning area III of the Specific Plan Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage Consequently, the proposed Project is less intense that what was originally approved. It should be noted that there is a direct relationship between the size and,scale of a Project and the total amount of energy and mineral resources required for the development, assuming similar uses. Consequently, the total energy and mineral resources required for the Project has also been reduced. The proposed Project would not develop an uses that would be inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts would occur. 23 U�o Daft Addendum to the Cents► at Lr Quints February 2002 Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of El El Q hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response D (� plan or emergency evacuation plan? lJ F-1 c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health a hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable El brush, grass, or trees? 0 Documentation: Hazard impacts, as concluded in the 1998 SEIR, were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Consequently, the proposed Project is less intense that what was originally approved. As such, hazard issues associated with originally analyzed construction, and operational characteristics of the Project would also be reduced as there is a direct relationship between size and scale of a Project and the potential for hazardous occurrences. As the potential for hazardous impacts has already been analyzed in the Previous EIRs. This Project does not alter. that analysis. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. Vs� 24 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quints February 20M • X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact o a a a a a LnJ The Previous EIRs determined that construction noise would temporarily increase local noise levels, which could lead to complaints at some nearby residential areas. This impact was determined to be adverse but not significant The developed site would increase noise levels on and immediately surrounding the Project site, but was not predicted to exceed City standards contained in the City's Municipal Code. Deliveries for some commercial uses, such as grocery stores, could occur during nighttime hours when people are most sensitive to noise, causing a potential significant impact. Project traffic would add to cumulative traffic volumes on the surrounding street system, near several sensitive receptor locations. With the implementation of the previously approved mitigation measures, noise impacts would be less than significant. Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed based on full buildout of the Previously Approved Square Footage. However, as the current Project would develop less than the total allowable building space in a land use configuration similar to that which was originally analyzed, noise impacts resulting from construction, operation and mobile sources would be less that previously approved and analyzed in the SEIR. As all uses within the Specific Plan Area are commercial in nature, noise associated with the Project would not generate any significant impacts to on site uses. However, existing residential uses are located to the southwest of the proposed Retail B Building. Additionally, although vacant land zoned as regional commercial exists to the east and south of the Project site, the regional commercial zone may be developed with up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, there is a potential for future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses. Noise generated from the proposed commercial uses could affect the existing and potential residential uses near the Project site. As shown on the proposed site plan, both retail buildings A and B have been located 60 feet from the eastern Project boundary. Given the land use configuration of the proposed Project, the buildings themselves would serve to attenuate noise generated from within the entire Specific Plan Area to potential residential uses that could be located to the east of the Project site. This is because all activities from within the site, including mobile source noise, parking lot cleaning and outdoor activities, would be blocked by the retail structures themselves from traveling further east. Assuming a worst -case scenario, noise impacts to potential future residents would most likely result from to make delivers to the loading docks on the eastern and western side of the Retail B Building. In order a reasonable assumption regarding future delivery schedules, truck delivery rates from Wal-Mart Superce ken were utilized. Typically, Wal-Mart Supercenters average 60 deliveries per week. These deliveries would arrive at the store and either utilize the western or eastern loading docks. Each of these docks are recessed and have a 3 foot support wall around them. The trucks would back into these docks at ' which time they would be unloaded. Given that the unloading would occur within the loading dock that is recessed and behind the truck, noise associated with the unloading process would not be significant. Consequently, the only potential significant activities would be the trucks maneuvering into position to deliver goods and leave the site. Noises associated with truck deliveries usually include engines starting and doors opening and closing. Of these types of noises, back up signals while the delivery truck is maneuvering into position could be the most audible. Noise monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by 25 Draft Addendum to the Centre •t Ld Quinto 008 February 2W2 Impact Sciences. Monitoring was conducted about 25 feet away from a lightweight van, a medium-sized truck and a tractor -trailer truck making deliveries. Over a 10 minute monitoring period, these trucks generated a 56.7 dB(A) L�q noise level. This is a relatively low noise level. Instantaneous noise levels monitored while a tractor -trailer took two minutes to enter the area, turn, and back up averaged 62.0 dB(A) Ltq. A small truck using a backup horn averaged 70.0 dB(A) Leq over the 30 seconds that it backed up. This monitoring demonstrates that over an average 10 minute period, the existing noise level would be increased by only about 0.5 dB (A) by the 56.7 dB(A) I q noise level generated by 3 trucks. It should be noted that changes in a community noise level of less than 3.0 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human earl Changes from 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A greater than 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10.0 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound. The City of La Quinta's zoning ordinance has specific standards with regards to screening commercial and loading dock areas from residential uses to minimize the effects of noise and aesthetics on sensitive receptors. For example, § 9.100.300, 9.100.050 and 9.100.210 all include regulations that would screen the loading docks from the potential future residential uses that could be located to the south or east of the Project site with a wall. With a 6-foot perimeter wall along the eastern and southern property boundary acting as a noise barrier, noise from the Retail B Building loading area would be attenuated by approximately 5 dB(A). Therefore, utilizing the tractor -trailer noise level of 62 dB(A) at 25 feet, including the attenuation provided by the solid perimeter wall and accounting for the distance to the property boundary, instantaneous noise levels resulting from truck deliveries to the Wal-Mart Supercenter are expected to be approximately 51 d(A), at the property boundary. It should be noted that actual noise levels would be less at the residential property as they are located further than 100 feet away. It should also be noted that this noise level is not a CNEL noise value. The city's noise ordinance allows for the land use noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for any 5 minute period. Given that the residential uses are considered sensitive receptors; the most restrictive noise standard for this use is 50 dB(A) between 10 PM and 7 AM. For any five minute period, such as a truck maneuvering into position, the La Quinta Noise Ordinance allows for community noise levels plus 5 dB(A). As the resulting noise level is less than 55dB(A), no new or more severe impacts are expected as a result of noise generated from tractor -trailer deliveries. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect Potentially upon, or result in a need for new or altered government Potentially Significant Less than services in any of the following areas: Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No impact a. Fire protection? D j—1 ❑ IvI VS1 b. Police protection? D El F-1 c. Schools? El D D'Lven] d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? D D fV1 knJ e. Other governmental services? D M F-1 [Zll Documentation• Project development was anticipated to increase demand for services by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments. Both departments indicated that the Project would not have a significant impact on service l Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 81. 26 Draft Addendum to the Centre at !a Quinta February 20M • • levels in the City of La Quinta or other surrounding environs. Project development was also anticipated to contribute to increasing demand for services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments along the Highway 111 corridor and throughout the Coachella Valley. Plans to add a Sheriff's substation at Kohl Ranch, and another fire station along the Highway 111 corridor in La Quinta were sufficient to mitigate cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed Project would be developed within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan Area. As currently proposed, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. As a result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and intensity than originally analyzed. 'Therefore, impacts to both fire and sheriff services would be less than originally forecasted. No new or more severe impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 27 DMft Addendum to the Centre St L,& QuiieM Febmary 2002 • • XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for neup systems, or substantial Potentially Potentially Significant Less than alterations to the follouring utilities:: Significant impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact a. Power or natural gas? F1 El El N b. Communications systems? 0 N c. Local or regional water treatment? 1:1 EJ N d. Sewer or septic tanks? F F N e. Stormwater drainage? F EJ -1 FN f. Solid waste disposal? N Documentation: The prior EIRs estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522-acre feet of water per year. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this demand would not exceed their current or projected water supplies. No substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Project and no wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. CVWD studies projected a continued overdraft of regional groundwater supplies as the Coachella Valley continues to grow. Water storage and distribution facilities will need to be expanded substantially to accommodate growth. No significant Project or cumulative impacts were identified in the prior EIRs. The Project was calculated to generate roughly 7,900 tons of construction wastes and between 2,040 and Z400 tons of solid wastes per year at full occupancy. It was determined that if construction and operational controls are implemented to divert wastes from landfills, in accordance with local and state regulations, impacts would be less than significant. The Edom Hill Landfill was the only landfill available to dispose of solid wastes from the Coachella Valley. Solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts were needed to minimize cumulative solid waste impacts and meet the requirements of AB 939 to reduce total landfill disposal. Given the shortage of local landfill capacity at the time the EIR was prepared, cumulative impacts were considered significant. The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in Planning Area III which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Since there is a direct relationship between the size and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total building area would result in an overall decrease in the amount of water required for the Project. Therefore, as the total amount of water required for the proposed Project is less than that previously required for the Proposed Project, no new or more severe impacts would occur. There is also a direct relationship between the size and scale of the development and its overall solid waste generation, the reduction in total building area would result in an overall decrease in the amount of solid waste generated by the Project. Additionally, it should be noted that since the prior EIRs were prepared, additional landfill sites have been developed. Specifically, Azusa Land Reclamation Co, Lamb Canyon Disposal Site and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are all available for waste disposal from the Project site.1 Therefore, as the total amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project is less and the availability of additional disposal site is greater, no new or more severe impacts would occur. It should be noted that, as new landfill space has been afforded to the City of La Quinta, cumulative solid waste impacts originally identified in the environmental impact reports have in fact been reduced. 1 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 h www.ciwmb.ca. ov g 8 rY- trP�/ / g / �� 1. 28 Draft Addendum to the Centre at Le Quints February 2W2 Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 29 Draft Addendum to the Centre at IA Quints February 2002 • • XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? Documentation: Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ F The developed Specific Plan Area would replace a formerly vacant area. The proposed arrangement and size of buildings in the mixed -regional commercial areas along Highway ill would substantially obstruct views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from westbound lanes of Highway ill, which was identified as a significant impact. Proposed landscape setbacks along Highway 111 and Adams Street were consistent with City's policies for primary and secondary image corridors, while the proposed development intensity waa below the maximum allowed under the City's General Plan for Mixed/Regional Development. Proposed berming provided along Highway 111 would not fully screen views of vehicles in regular new vehicle display areas located between the special vehicle display pads along Highway 111 or vehicles displayed on the rest of the dealership pads. This was not consistent with the standards in Section 9.1501.1 of the La Quinta Municipal Code for the screening of parking areas and the Highway 111 Design Theme guidelines for screening "outdoor storage/display areas." This inconsistency represented a significant aesthetic impact. Unscreened views of entrances in and out of dealership/repair buildings on Pads 1, 2, and 3 was also a significant aesthetic impact. Project development would continue expansion of commercial development along Highway 111 corridor as envisioned in La Quinta General Plan. However, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant Project or cumulative impacts were anticipated. As discussed above, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage as originally analyzed in the Previous EIRs. As a result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and intensity. Additionally, as the Project is within a specific plan, all building, landscape and other design features would be subject to consistency with the guidelines established within the plan area. As a result of the Project being less intense than what was formerly approved and since it would be constructed in a manner consistent with other uses in the plan area, no new or more severe impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Further Study Required: The Project's potential aesthetic impacts should be studied further. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant Impact Mitigated Impact No impact a. Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ M 14N b. Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ M "7/1 teLN c. Affect historical resources? ❑ El M 17/1 LfN d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which El ❑ ❑ would affect unique ethnic cultural values?kc�j e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ El Elpotential impact area? 043 30 Draft Addendum to dw Centre at In Quints February 2W2 • • Documentation: Previous site surveys did not identify any significant cultural resources within the plan area. Site grading and development was not expected to have a significant impact on cultural resources, however, there is always some potential for buried undiscovered artifacts to be damaged during grading activities. Project and cumulative impacts were deemed less than significant with mitigation. The proposed Project would develop all land uses within the boundary of the specific plan. As originally reviewed in the former environmental impact reports, the proposed land uses manner consistent with the original land use configuration. Itld be noted wthat dthe total amount be tof building space would be less than what was originally analyzed. As no part of the proposed Project would be developed outside of the area that has previously undergone cultural resource surveys, the proposed Project would not disturb any un-surveyed land. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from that of the approved Project. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional of other facilities? Impact ❑ Mitigated 1:1 Impact El No Impact parks b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? E] El Documentation: As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Recreational impacts were determined to be less than significant. There are no residential uses planned for the site. The proposed Project would not develop any uses that would be inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts would occur. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant Does the project have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the Impact ❑ Mitigated F-1 Impact ❑ No Impacta. environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? c. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, ❑ ❑ F-1 U44 31 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quinn Febrwry 2W2 envirorunental goals? b. Does the project have impacts which are a Elindividually limited but cumulatively considerable? CLU1111J, ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which a will cause significant adverse effects on human El beings, either directly or indirectly? Documentation: Nothing in the proposed Project would result in any new or more sever impacts, than those previously disclosed in the Previous EIRs. Therefore, the Project would not, apart from any impacts previously addressed in the 1997 and 1998 EIRs, significantly degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term goals at the disadvantage of long-term goals, have individually limited but cumulatively significant impacts, nor would it result in impacts that would cause a significant adverse impact to humans. Further Study Required: No further analysis is required regarding this topic. 045 32 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta February 2W2 A PPFNnTY e Natelson Report o4'01 " • • MARKET IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA Revised February 11, 2002 Prepared for: Impact Sciences Prepared by: THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I Yorba Linda, California 92887 Telephone: (714) 692-9596 Fax: (714) 692-9597 047 • • Email: info@tnci.com 043 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. I NTRO D U MI ON............................................................................................................I 11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................3 111. RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS......................................................................................7 APPENDIX A: RETAIL DEMAND MODEL - LA QUINTA RETAIL TRADE AREA 043 I. INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the potential economic impacts of the proposed Centre at La Quinta retail development. The project site is located on Highway 111 just east of Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. For purposes of this analysis the project is assumed to include the following land uses: • A Wal-Mart "Supercenter" store totaling 228,218 square feet; • A Kohl's store totaling 86,584 square feet; • 13 specialty stores totaling 19,200 square feet; and An eight -pump gas station. The Wal-Mart "Supercenter" would include 60,000 square feet devoted to supermarket -type sales, with the balance of the store devoted to general merchandise space. The general merchandise component would replace the existing Wal-Mart store located across Highway 111 from the subject site, and add about 40,000 square feet of new general merchandise space over and above what currently exists across the street. Per the applicant's current plans, the analysis assumes that the project would open in October 2003. Given the size, location and proposed anchor tenants of the proposed project, the analysis considers potential demand levels in an overall trade area defined by a five -mile radius centered at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The analysis further assumes that the project would derive its core market support from a primary market area defined by a three- mile radius around this intersection. The balance of the overall five -mile trade area is treated as a secondary market area (where the project would achieve lower shares of overall market demand). The economic impact analysis addresses four key issues: 1. The extent to which there will be sufficient consumer demand to support the Wal-Mart grocery component without negatively impacting the long -tern market shares of existing supermarkets in the trade area; 2. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support the Kohl's store and the 40,000 square feet of new Wal-Mart general merchandise space without negatively impacting the long-term market shares of existing general merchandise (department) stores in the trade area; 3. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support the 19,200 square feet of specialty store space without negatively impacting the long-term market shares of existing specialty/apparel stores in the trade area; and 4. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support re -use of the existing Wal- Mart site with other retail facilities, thereby preventing the creation of long-term blight at the existing site. Per Section 15131(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project's economic impacts are considered significant only if they can be tied to direct physical impacts. For purposes of the economic analysis prepared for this project, The Natelson Company, Inc. (TNCI) has established the following criteria to determine if the project's market impacts would be significant enough to create a lasting physical change in a market area: THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. 050 • Any diversion of sales from existing retail facilities would have to be severe enough to result in business closures; and • The business closures would have to be significant enough in scale (i.e., in terms of the total square footage affected and/or the loss of key "anchor" tenants) to affect the viability of existing shopping centers or districts. As it relates to the planned closure of the existing Wal-Mart store across the street from the proposed project, the potential blighting impact of this move would only be deemed significant if there were no foreseeable market demand to replace the closed store with other "anchor tenant" retail uses. THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. 051. 0 11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. PROJECTED RETAIL SALES VOLUMES OF PROPOSED PROJECT The analysis assumes that the proposed project would generate the following new retail sales in the trade area: Table 11-1 Potential New Retail Sales in Trade Area The Centre at La Quinta Building Square Feet Sales Pe Square Foot Total Sales Volume Anticipated Sales Volumes: General Merchandise —Wal-Mart' -- Kohl's Total/Averse 40,000 86,584 126,584 $300.OQ $230.91 $322.8 $12 000,00 $20,000 00 $32 000 00 Wal-Mart(grocery component) 60,000 $400.0 $24 000 00 Specialty Retail 19,2001 $250.Od $4,800 00 Source: TNCI B. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS This section briefly summarizes the consultant's findings relative to the four major issues evaluated by this study. Issue 1: Potential Impact of Wal-Mart Grocery Sales Magnitude of Potential Impact: For purposes of this analysis Wal-Mart's grocery sales are estimated at approximately $24 million per year. Projected Growth in Grocery Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total demand for grocery sales is projected to grow by $20.2 million between now and the proposed project's opening date in October 2003. We estimate that cumulative growth in grocery demand (over and above 2002 levels) will reach $24 million (the amount needed to fully support Wal-Mart's grocery sales) by February 2004. Thus, while the project may result in some initial diversion of sales from existing stores, ongoing growth of the overall market will fully mitigate this impact within approximately four months of the project's opening. 'The indicated square footage and sales volume for the Wal-Mart general merchandise space includes only the incremental space over and above Wal-Mart's existing La Quinta store (since this incremental space is the only amount the represents a new competitive impact in the market area). THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. 05? Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: Based on the above projections, TNCI does not believe that the Wal-Mart grocery component will have a significant competitive impact on existing food stores in the trade area. As indicated above, incremental demand for food sales (resulting from anticipated population growth) will be sufficient to fully absorb Wal-Mart's grocery sales within about four months of the project's opening. Moreover, any short-term negative impacts to existing supermarkets would be spread over a number of stores and in total would represent only about 2% of existing grocery sales in the trade area. Issue 2: Potential Impact of Kohl's/Wal-Mart General Merchandise Sales Magnitude of Potential Impact: For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that the project would generate approximately $32 million per year in new general merchandise sales. Projected Growth in General Merchandise Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total demand for general merchandise sales is projected to grow by $15.6 million between now and the proposed project's opening date in October 2003. We estimate that cumulative growth in general merchandise demand (over and above 2002 levels) will reach $32 million (the amount needed to fully support the new general merchandise sales) by April 2005. Thus, while the project may result in some initial diversion of sales from existing stores, ongoing growth of the overall market will fully mitigate this impact within approximately 18 months of the project's opening. Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: TNCI does not believe that the project's general merchandise sales will have a significant competitive impact on existing stores in the trade area. As indicated above, incremental demand for general merchandise sales (resulting from anticipated population growth) will be sufficient to fully absorb the project's sales within about 18 months of the project's opening. While this would theoretically suggest that existing general merchandise stores in the five -mile trade area would be temporarily impacted by the proposed project, the reality of current retail shopping patterns in the Coachella Valley is that a significant portion of existing general merchandise demand in the La Quinta/Indio area "leaks" to the concentration of "big box" facilities in Palm Desert. TNCI estimates this current leakage at about $45 million per year. Thus, the short-term (18-month) competitive impact of the proposed project would be spread over a larger geographic area than just the five -mile trade area ' considered in this analysis. As a result, any short-term impacts to individual stores are likely to be relatively small in percentage terms (i.e., less than 5% of current sales volumes). THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. Issue 3: Potential Impact of Specialty Store Sales Magnitude of Potential Impact: It is estimated that the project would generate approximately $4.8 million per year in new "specialty" store sales. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that these stores would fall into the following retail sales categories: Apparel, Home Furnishings, and Specialty. Projected Growth in Specialty Store Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total demand for Apparel, Home Furnishings and Specialty sales is projected to grow by $21.5 million between now and the proposed project's opening date in October 2003. Thus, the new "specialty" store sales associated with the proposed project would be fully supportable within projected incremental demand. Conclusion Regarding SigniPcance of Impact: Given the significant growth in trade area demand and the relatively small amount of specialty store space planned for the proposed project, no competitive impact is projected. Issue 4: Demand for Re -Use of Existing Wal-Mart Site "Candidate" Tenant Types for Re -Use of Existing Wal-Mart Site. The existing La Quinta Wal-Mart store totals approximately 127,000 square feet and serves as the anchor tenant for the eastern portion of the "111 La Quinta Center" (which extends from the northeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111). In TNCI's opinion, the most appropriate candidates for re- use of the existing site would be one or more "big box" retail stores. This conclusion is premised on the following facts: • . The overall Washington/111 vicinity is currently evolving into a de facto "power center" with the existing Wal-Mart and Lowe's stores, the planned Staples store (under construction in the 111 La Quinta Center), and the proposed Kohl's and Wal-Mart "Supercenter"; • The concentration of automobile dealerships in this vicinity (another retail use that tends to draw a regional patronage) further strengthens the rationale for expanded power center type tenants; and • The eastern portion of the Coachella Valley is currently "under -stored" in the big box category. In addition to the stores mentioned above, the only other stores in this category are the Home Depot and Big Kmart stores in Indio. At present, much of the east Valley's resident demand for these types of uses "leaks" to facilities in Palm Desert. Within the big box genre of stores, there are no obvious candidates for single -use facilities that could fill the entire 127,000 square feet currently occupied by Wal-Mart. The only big box stores that are typically in this size range are general merchandise stores (e.g., Target, Costco and Sam's Club) and home improvement stores (e.g., Lowe's and Home Depot). With the development of Kohl's and the Wal-Mart "Supercenter", and the existing Big K-Mart, Lowe's, and Home Depot stores, it is unlikely that there will be near -term demand for either general merchandise or home improvement stores to fill the existing Wal-Mart space. A more likely scenario for re -use of the existing Wal-Mart site would be for the space to be sub- divided (or redeveloped) for use by two or three smaller big box stores. These would complement the existing (and planned) uses in the area and would serve to recapture some portion of the demand that currently leaks to facilities in Palm Desert. THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. 054 u Projected Demand for New Retail Uses Suitable for the Subject Site. The quantitative retail analysis in Appendix A evaluates potential demand for various categories of big box tenants (see Table A-15). Based on this analysis, TNCI believes that the following types of stores would be appropriate candidates for the subject site: Apparel Stores (current demand estimated at 50.000 sauare feet) • Marshalls (size ranges from 24,000 to 50,000 square feet) • TJ Maxx (typical size is 25,000 to 35,000 square feet) • Ross Dress for Less (typical size is 30,000 square feet) Furnishings/Appliance Stores (current demand estimated at 50.000 square feet) • Circuit City (typical size is 33,500 square feet) • Best Buy (typical size is 30,000 to 45,000 square feet) • Bed Bath and Beyond (size ranges from 20,000 to 85,000 square feet) • Linens 'N Things (typical size is 35,000 to 40,000 square feet) Specialty "Big Box" Stores (current demand estimated at 190,000 square feet) • Petco (typical size is 12,000 to 16,000 square feet) • Petsmart (typical size is 26,000 square feet) • Toys 'R' Us (typical size is 50,000 square feet) • Sportmart (size ranges from 13,000 to 40,000 square feet) Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: Given the excellent retail location of the subject site and the overall strength of the La Quinta retail market, TNCI believes that it is highly unlikely that closure of the existing Wal-Mart store would result in long-term physical blight. Since this part of the Coachella Valley is generally underserved with "big box" retail stores (except in the general merchandise and home improvement categories noted previously), TNCI believes there would be significant opportunities to re -use the existing site with big box stores in the apparel, furnishings/appliance and specialty categories. Total demand in these three categories is estimated at approximately 290,000 square feet currently and is projected to grow to approximately 320,000 square feet over the next three years. Given that the amount of anticipated demand represents about 2.5 times the space that would be vacated by Wal-Mart, TNCI believes it is reasonable to conclude that alternative retail uses could be attracted to the vacated site. THE NATELSON COMPANY. INC. _ _. _ 053 E .1 III, LA QUINTA RETAIL TRADE AREA - RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS This section examines potential retail demand associated with the population residing in the market area that would be served by The Centre at La Quinta project. The analysis projects future retail demand of residents in City of La Quinta as well as the resident demand of surrounding communities that would shop at the proposed facility. This analysis covers the time period from January 2002 to April 2005. Market Area Boundaries For purposes of this study, the market area boundaries have been defined in terms of two radii (each is centered on the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111): Primary Market Area (PMA): 0-3 mile; and • Secondary Market Area (SMA): 3-5 mile. For purposes of this report, the entire market area (i.e., Primary and Secondary Market Areas combined) is referred to herein as the La Quinta Retail Trade Area (LQRTA). The smaller three-mile market area represents local resident demand contained within portions of Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta and Palm Desert that will represent the proposed project's core market support. The secondary market area includes the remaining portions of Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta and the majority of the population of Palm Desert. Due to the availability of competitive retail facilities in closer proximity to some SMA residents (especially those in Palm Desert), the total retail demand of this market segment has been discounted to 50 to 60 percent, depending on the retail category. These capture rates of SMA demand take into account the market shares of existing and proposed retail facilities in the Palm Desert area, such as the Desert Gateway project and neighborhood -serving retail centers. (A further explanation of this provided in "Capture Rate Analysis" later in this section.) It should be noted that each of the market areas also includes the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that are located to the north of the Interstate 10 Freeway. It is likely that the project will derive some patronage from outside the defined Trade Area. However, in an attempt to remain analytically conservative, TNCI has excluded this potential market support from the demand analysis. Figure I provides a geographic representation of the market areas. . THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC. U57 • • APPENDIX A: RETAIL DEMAND MODEL (LA QUINTA RETAIL TRADE AREA) 058 • • Table A-1 Population Projections La Quints Retail Trade Area January October April October April Area 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 Primary Markel Area (PMA) ....r �....yn..,r,,,. ,�.,�,-.fs�s•a,►sker.Y sr.;,�q t►' M+;• Reswents �,, a ' GSM eR `# a i'•'�`f� _ :: j�9 ` t. 'ii FTE �;'.���aert,}'�;.;� ��,•.<< �3�� Part -Time Residents ( ) �- Subtotal. PMA $4.566 - 58.412 59.557 60.748 61.939 Secondary Market Area (SMA) Resklents •}"t' �. _ j i. Y`3 yam.-ji )L i"; i '' FTE Pm�.v�At:�??`}� �- 7. _`. i6'► Part -Time Residents ( ) ! .fit ;. a .a.�t d;a, .;3 -pj Subtotal, PMA 80.526 86.201 87,891 89,650 91.405 Total Market Area 135,092 144,613 147.445 150.398 153.347 "Source: ESRIMusriiessU-ioRriiiiion Sj►sT"—i8i5j. IN Table A 2 Per Capita Income Projections La Quints RetaN Trade Area In constant dollars Primary Market Area (PMA): Secondary Market Area (SMA): Annual Increase Factor Area Primary Market Area (PMA) Secondary Market Area (SMA) Source: ESRI sIS: TNCI January 2002 s26,051 $21.832 January 2002 October April October April 2003 2004 2004 2005 $26.966 $27,233 $27.505 $27,777 $22.599 $22.823 $23.051 $23.279 U53 Table A.7 Total Income and Potential Retail Sales Projections La Quints Retail Trade Area In thousands of constant dollars Percent of Income Spent for Retail Goods, PMA Visitor and Business Spending Total, PMA 40.0% Percent of Income Spent for Retail Good, SMA ''� •' Visitor and Business Spending Total. SMA 40. Area January 2002 October April October Aptfl 2003 2004 2004 2005 Total krcomo. _ _ .._ -.--pnirnary MsA�et Ans-51,421.497 Seaondary Market Area S1,T58,0T7 --- St:57b,1ZZ- -41.621:N9 - -= - - ---.• i7:670:877- Total $3.179,573 $1.948,074 $3.523,196 52,005,933 52,068,528 S2.127.425 $3,627,832 i3 .737,4Q1 53,848,428 Potential Retail Sales: Primary Market Area Rink $497.524 S551,293 �7'� =584.807 Businesa/Vieitors $78.756 $81.095 5802.178 Subtotal$71.075 5568.599 $630.049 $648.760 se3,s44 S86.025 $668.351 5888.Z01 Secondary Market Ares Residents $615.327 $681.8m $702,076 $723,285 BusinesslVisitors $87,904 $97,404 5100,297 $744,774 Subtotal $703.231 t779,230 5802.373 $103,326 $106.3ti6 $826.611 $851.170 Total Potential Ratan Saks $1.271.829 $1.409.279 $1.451,133 31,494,962 i1,539.371 Source: TNCI u60 • ---- Table A-4 Distribution of Retail Saps by Retail Category LIM Quirtla Retail Trade Ares Retail Category %Distribution 1/02 %Distribution 10103 %Distribution 4/04 %Distribution 10104 %Distribution 4105 Shopper Goods: Apparel 3.80% 3.80% 3.60% 3.80% 3.80% General Merchandise 14.55% 14.55% 14.55% 14.55% 14.55% Home Furnishings 3.65% 3.65% 3.65% 3.65% 3.65% Shy 12.65% 12.65% 12.65% 12.65% 12.65% Subtotal 34.65% 34.65% 34.65% 34.65% 34.65% Corwwk* ce Goods: Food ( ) 2028% 2028% 2028% 20.28% 20.28% Ealing and Drinkft 9.63% 9.63% 9.63% 9.63% 9.63% Subtotal 29.91% 29.91% 29.91% 29.91% 29.91% Heavy Commercial Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Farts 8.54% 8.54% 8.54% 8.54% 8.54% Auto Dealers and Parts 18.46% 18.46% 18.46% 18.46% 16.46% Service Stations 8."% 8.44% 8.44% 8.44% 8.44% Subtotal 36.44% 35.44% 35.44% 35.44% 35.44% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: TNCI. based on historic trends reported by the State hoard of Equalization for Riverside County. �� 61. Table As Projected Demand for Retail Sales for Primary Market Area by Major Retail Category Le Quints Retslt Trade Area In thousands of constant dollars January October April October April Retail Category 2002 2003 2004 2004 200S Stopper Goods: Apparel $21,604 $23.939 $24,650 325,394 $26,148 General Merchandise S82,743 $91.685 $94.406 S97,258 $100,147 FumiturelApplianoes $20,762 523.005 S23,689 $24,404 $25.129 Specialty $71.937 $79.711 S82.078 $84.557 $87,068 Subtotal $197,045 $218,340 3224.824 S231.613 S238,492 Convenisnot Goads: Food (SupemuarketslLkpwr) $115,299 $127.760 S131,554 $135.526 $139,552 E 9 and Drir4cieg $54.746 S60,663 $62,465 S64,351 $66.262 Subtotal $170.045 $198.423 S194,018 $199.877 $205.814 Heavy Commence/ Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Farm $411.570 $53.819 $55.418 $57.091 558,787 Auto Dealers and Puts $104.935 $116.276 $119,729 $123.345 $127.008 Service Stations $48.003 $53.191 WA.770 S56.424 SS8.100 Subtotal $201.509 S223.286 $229,917 $236,860 $243,895 Total S568.599 $630,049 3648.760 $668.351 5688.201 ' Source: TNCI 06? • • - Table A4 Projected Demand for Retail Ssies for Secondary M~ Area by Major Retail Category La Quints Retail Trade Arcs In thousands of constant dollam Retail CM09M Shopper Goods: Apparel General Merchandise Fumiture/APPliances Specialty Subtotal Convenience Goods: Food (Supermarkets/1.44f Eating and Drinking Subtotal Heavy Commercial Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Form Auto Dealers and Parts Subtotal Total Source: TNCI January October April October April 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 $26,719 $29.607 $30.486 $31.407 $32.340 S102,334 $113,394 $116.761 S120,289 $123,862 $25.677 S28.452 $29,298 $30.193 $31.079 $88,970 $98.595 $101.513 $104.579 $107.686 S243,701 $270.038 $278.058 $286,457 $294.968 $142.599 $158,010 $162,703 $167.618 S172.598 $67.709 $75.027 $77.255 $79,569 $81.953 $210.309 $233,037 $239.958 $247.207 $254,551 S60.071 $66.563 $68.540 $70,610 $72.708 $129.782 $143,806 $148.079 $152.552 $157.054 S59.369 $65.785 $67.739 $69.785 $71.858 $249.221 $276.155 $284.357 $292,947 $301.650 $703.231 $779,230 $802,373 S826.611 $851.170 u63 Table A-7 Potential Capture of Projected Primary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales Expressed in Percentages La Quints Retell Trade Area Retail Category January October2003 April October 2004 April Zoos Shopper Goods: Apparel General Merchandise F+�� WApplie Specialty Com"ierrce 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ,ao.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ,00.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ,00.00% Goods: Food (SupwmwkelL4 iquor) Eating •�D 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100,00% 100.00% Heavy Command Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Fenn Auto Dealers and Parts Service Stations 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00x 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Table Ate! Potential Capture of Projected Secondary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales Expressed In Percentages La Quints Retail Trade Area Retail Category General Merchandise Fumikue/Appliances Specialty Convanfenoe Goods: Food (Supemwiwts/ kpw) Eating and Dri *,ft Heavy Como cid Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Form Auto Dealers and Parts Source: TNCI January October April October � l 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00x 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 6060.00%.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% U64 r] • -- Table A4 Potential Capture of Projected Primary Market Area Demand for Rawl Saks La Quints Rebil Trade Area In thousands of constant dollars January October April October April Retail Category 2002 2003 2004 20" 2005 Shopper Goods: Apparel $21.604 $23.939 S24,650 S26.394 $26,148 Germml Merchandise $82.743 $91.685 S94.408 $97.258 $100.147 FumituxNAppliances $20,762 $23.005 $23.689 S24.404 $25.129 Specialty $71.937 $79.711 S82.078 $84.557 $87.068 Subtotal $197.045 $215.340 $224.824 $231.613 $236.492 Convenience Goods: Food (Supemrarkatsl kp") $115.299 $127.760 $131,554 $135.526 $139.552 Eating and Drinking S54.746 $60.663 $62.465 S64.351 $66.262 Subtotal $170.045 $188,423 $194,018 $199.877 S205.814 Heavy Commenial Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Farm $48.570 $53.819 $55.418 $57.091 S58.787 Auto Dealers and Parts $104.936 $116.276 $119.729 $123.345 $127.006 Service Stations $0.003 S53.191 554.770 $56.424 S68.100 Subtotal S201.509 SZ23.m $229. 117 5236,860 S243.895 Total $568.599 $630,049 $648.760 $668.351 S688.201 Source: TNCI UsJ Table A40 Potential Capture of Projected Secondary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales La Quints Rebll Trade Area In thousands of constant dollars January October April Ober April RebA Category 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 ShcpW Goods: Apparel $16,032 517.764 518,292 $18.844 S119.404 General Merchandise $61.401 568,036 $70.057 $72.173 $74.317 FumiarrelAppNsncas $15,406 $17.071 $17.579 $18.110 $18.648 Specialty $53.392 559,151 $60,908 $62.747 $64.612 Subtotal $146.220 $162.023 $166,835 $171.874 $176.981 Ccnv*tL* a Goods: Food (SuperrnerMts/LkW) $71.300 $79.005 581.352 583.809 586.299 Eating and Drinking M.855 $37,513 538.628 539.794 $40.977 Subtotal $105.154 $116.518 $t t 9,979 $123.603 $127.276 Heavy Commercial Goods: BuildirW Mardware/ Farm 536.042 539.938 $41.124 $42.366 $43,625 Auto Dealers and Parts $77.869 $86,285 588.847 $91.531 $94.251 Service Stations 535.621 $39.471 $40.643 $41.871 $43.115 Subtotal $149,533 $165,693 $170.614 $175.768 5160.990 Total $400,906 $444.434 5457.428 $471.246 $465.247 Source: TNCI «6� Table A•11 Total Potential Capture for ROW Sales for Total Market Area La Quints ReWI Trade Area in thousands of constant dollars January October April October April Retail Category 2002 2003 20" 2004 2005 Shopper Goods. Apparel 537.636 541,703 542,941 544,238 $45.552 General Merchandise $144,143 $159.721 $164,464 $169.432 $174.464 Furniture/Appliances 536,168 $40,077 $41,267 $42.513 $43.776 Specialty $125,318 5138,862 $142,986 $147,304 $151,6W Subtotal 5343.265 5380.362 $391,659 $403,488 $415.473 Convenience Goods: Food (Supwn%arketsll.iquor) 5186.599 5206.765 3212.905 $219.335 $225.651 Eating and Drinking $88.W1 398.176 $101.092 $104.145 $107.239 Subtotal 5275,200 5304.941 5313,996 5323.481 $333.O90 Heavy Commercial Goods: Building/ Hardware/ Farm 584,613 $93.757 $96.541 $99.457 5102.412 Auto Dealers and Parts $192.804 $202,561 $208.576 $214.876 $221.259 Service Stations $83.624 $92.662 $95.414 $98.295 $101.215 Subtotal 5351,041 5388.979 $400,531 5412,628 $424.585 Total SW9,506 $1,074.283 $1.106,188 $1,139.597 $1.173.448 Source: TNCI if67 Ii • Table A42 Potential Distribution of Retail Sales by Type of Retail Location La Quints Retail Trade Area Retail Category Shopper Goods: Apparel General Merchandise FumiturWApphances specialty Convenience Goods: Food (SuperawketsfLiquor) Eating and DmknV Heavy Commercis! Goods: Traditional 'Big Box'/ Neighborhood Other Regional Community Retail ROW Retail' 40% 25% 15% 20% 25% 65% 10% 0% 30% 40% 10% 20% 30% 30% 20% 20% 5% 0% 80% 15% 15% 25% 20% 40% Building/Hwdware/Garden 5% 55% 40% 0% Auto Dealers and Parts 0% 0% 0% 100% service stations 0% 0% 0% 100% Includes goods sold outside of retail centers, such as in freestanding stores, downtown areas, mail order and the Internet. Source: TNCI 068 • • Table A•13 Potential Distribution of Retail Saba by Type of Retail Location La Ouinta Retail Trade Area Traditional -Big Box-/ Neighborhood Retail Category Regional Community Retell Ratan Shopper Goods: Apparel S200 S200 $200 General Merchandise $200 $400 $200 FumitureJApp6snoas s200 s300 S200 Specialty, $200 s200 $200 Convenience Goods: Food (SuperrnsrkoWAjquor) $400 WA S400 Eaft and Drinkag $400 s40p t200 Heavy Commercia/ Goods: BuildinpMardware/Garden S200 $200 $200 Auto Dealers and Parts WA WA WA Service Stations WA WA WA Source: TNCI, based on data from the Urban Land Institute. • • Table A•14 Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -TRADITIONAL REGIONAL RETAIL La Guinta Retell Trade Area Expressed in Square Feet Services Space Factor (as percentage of retail): 10.0% January October April October Apt Retail Category 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 Shopper Goods. Apparel 75,271 83.406 85,883 88.477 91.105 General Merchandise 180.179 199,651 205.580 211.789 218.081 FumilwdApplianoes 54,252 6Q 115 61,901 63.770 65.664 Specialty 187.978 208.293 214.479 220.956 227.520 Subtotal 497.679 551.465 567.643 564.993 602.370 Convenience Goods: Food (Supemnrkels/Liquor) 23.325 25.846 26.613 27,417 28.231 Eating and Drinking 33.225 36.816 37,910 39.054 40.215 Subtotal 56,550 62.662 64.523 66.471 68,446 Heavy Convnercial Goods: BuildirtgMardwarmlGarden 21.153 23,439 24.135 24,864 25.603 Auto Dealers and Parts WA WA WA WA WA Service Stations WA WA WA WA WA Subtotal 21,153 23.439 24.135 24,864 25,603 Services space 57.538 63.757 65.650 67,633 69.642 TOTAL $32.921 701,323 724151 743,ff1 7",060 Source: TNCI 070 . • • --- Table A45 Total Supportable Retail end Services Span -'BIG BOXWOMMUNITY RETAIL Ls Quints Retail Trade Ana Expressed in Square Feet Services Space Factor (as percentage of retally 5.0% January October April October April Retail Category 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 Shopper Goods: Apparel 47.044 52,129 53,677 55.298 56.941 General Merchandise 234.232 259.546 267,255 275.326 283,505 FumituWAppliances 48.224 53,436 55,023 56.685 58.368 Specialty 187,978 208.293 214.479 220,956 227.520 Subtotal 517.478 573.404 590,433 608,265 626,334 Convenience Goods: Food (Supertna"ta/Lkw) WA WA WA WA WA Eating and Drinking 55.376 61,360 63.183 65.091 67.024 Subtotal 55.376 61.360 63.183 65.091 67.024 Heavy Cornrnmial Goods: 6uiidirgMardwsra/Garden 232.685 257,832 265.489 273,507 281.632 Auto Dealers and Parts WA WA WA WA WA Service Stations WA WA WA WA WA Subtotal 232.685 257.832 265.489 273,507 281.632 Services spice 40.277 44,630 45,955 47.343 48.749 TOTAL •45,816 937,225 985,060 994.206 1.023.739 Source: TNCI u'71. • • Table A46 Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL La buinta Retail Trade Area Expressed in Square Feet Services Space Factor (as percentage d retail): 20.0% January October April October April Retail Category 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 Shopper Goods. Apparel 28.227 31.277 32.206 33,179 34.164 General Merchandise 72.072 79.8w 82.232 84.716 87.232 FumituWAppiiances 18.084 20.038 20,634 21,257 21,888 Specialty 125.318 138.862 142.956 147.304 151.680 Subtotal 243,701 270.038 278.058 286.455 294.965 Convenience Goods: Food ( ) 373,197 413.530 425,811 438.671 451.701 Ealing and Drinking 88.601 98.176 101.092 104.145 107.239 Subtotal 461.798 511.706 526.903 542.816 558,940 Heavy Commacia/ Goods: BuildingiHardware/Garden 169.225 187.514 193.083 198,914 204.823 Auto Dealers and Parts N/A NIA NIA NIA Service stations NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Subtotal 169.225 187,514 193.083 198.914 204.823 Servicas Space 43.736 48.463 49.902 51.409 52,936 GRAND TOTAL 918,461 1,017,721 1,047,946 1,079,595 1,111,664 Source: TNCI 072 • Table A-17 Total Supportable Retail and Services Spam -TOTAL RETAIL La Quint Relall Trade Area Expressed to Square Feet Retail Category Apparel Gerwal Mercimmlise FurritwWAppliances Specialty Subtotal Corwwriwwa Goods: Food (Supermarmts/l iquor) Eatirg and Drinking Subtotal Heavy Conrnrwcial Goods: BuidwgMardware/Garden Auto Dealers and Parts Service Stations Services Space GRAND TOTAL Source: TNCI • January October April October April 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 150.542 166.812 171,766 176,953 182.210 486.483 539.058 555.067 571,831 588.818 120.560 133.589 137.557 141.711 145.921 501,273 555,447 571.943 589,217 606.720 1.258.858 1.394.906 1.436,333 1.479,713 1.523.668 396,522 439.375 452.424 466.068 479.933 177,202 196,353 202.164 208.291 214.478 573,724 635.728 654.608 674.378 694.410 423.064 468,785 482.707 497.286 512.058 WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA NIA WA 423.064 468.755 492,707 497.286 512,058 141.551 156.849 161.507 166.385 171,328 2,397,198 2,656.259 2.735,156 2,817, 763 2.901,464 073 • • APPENDIX B TRAFFIC REPORT 04 • • RBAIVCR LA QUINTA AUTO MALL ACCESS EVALUATION (REVISED) City of La Quinta, California John Kain, AICP Carleton Waters, P.E. Bill Lawson, AICP Scott Sato, P.E. 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92606 p: 949.660.1994 • f: 949.660.1911 e:. adminOurbanxroads.com • www.urbanxroads.com 075 • (A2 • February 14, 2002 URBAN 41 Corporate Park Mr. David Alpem Suite 210 IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. 30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92606 Aguora Hills, CA 91301 p: 949.660.1994 f: 949.660.1911 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Subject: La Quinta Auto Mail Access Evaluation (Revised) Dear Mr. Alpem: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRAVEL DEMAND RKJK and Associates, Inc. (RKJK) previously completed a traffic MODELING study for the Centre at La Quinta in 1997, in connection with the preparation of an EIR for the Centre at La Quinta by Impact DATABASE DEVELOPMENT Sciences, Inc. RKJK also completed a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis in 1998 in association with the preparation of a GIS Supplemental EIR for the Centre at LA Quinta by Impact Sciences, TRAFFIC Inc.. ENGINEERING ACOUSTICAL STUDIES PARKING STUDIES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES John Kain, AICP :arleton Waters, P.E. Bill Lawson, AICP Scott Sato, P.E. Urban Crossroads, Inc. recently completed a traffic access evaluation for the Center at La Quinta in September 2001, entitled the La Quinta Auto Mall Access Evaluation for submission to Caltrans and has reviewed the 1997 and 1998 traffic impact analysis completed by RKJK in preparing this letter report. Urban Crossroads, Inc. has now reviewed Stamko Development Company's proposed Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Map applications reflecting the proposed development of two large Box Retail Stores (totaling approximately 314,802 square feet), a stand alone gas station (totaling approximately 115 square feet) and 13 specialty stores (totaling approximately 19,200 square feet) within the commercial retail u7b area (Planning Area 3) of the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan ("the Project"). Based on our review of the proposed land use changes, and the completion of updated trip generation rates, trip distribution patterns, and the proposed internal circulation plan and review of the prior EIR's, Urban Crossroads, Inc. anticipates that there would be no new or more severe traffic impacts caused by the project than those previously disclosed and mitigated in the two prior EIR's for the Centre at La Quinta. With regard to Urban Crossroads Inc.'s recent La Quinta Auto Mall Access Evaluation Report (completed in September 2001), prepared in connection with Stamko Development Company's submission to Caltrans, Urban Crossroad's previously recommended certain improvements for ingress and egress from Highway 111 to the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Stamko Development Company has implemented those recommended improvements in its proposed Site Development Permit submitted to the City. Any additional recommendations specified in this Letter Report, with respect to potential internal circulation issues, are purely optional recommendations, which do not effect the ultimate determination set forth above, i.e., that this proposed project does not result in any new or more severe adverse traffic impacts. INTRODUCTION The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this revised access evaluation for the proposed La Quinta Auto Mall expansion. The proposed project is located south of Highway 111, between La Quinta Drive and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta (see Exhibit A). Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has discussed the project with Caltrans to determine the issues and a methodology to address the proposed access driveways. Several retail developments (totaling approximately 314,802 square feet), 13 specialty stores (totaling approximately 19,200 square feet), and a gas station with 16 fueling positions are the specific land uses proposed for this site. Exhibit B illustrates the site plan. As indicated in Exhibit B two right in/out driveways are proposed along SR 111. 077 2 • EXHIBITA LOCATION MAP u7� La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quints, Califomia - 00585:01 URomc Nth I I END!, %a tJYEN sc'm (K 3 ) GAASy STATION 1 EXISTING AUTO CENTRE 111 I� AT LA GUIN7A (, GAS STATION M La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La California - 00585:04 EXHIBIT 8 SITE PLAN N Gj HyY ` no waw.m.. N" III ENTRY MOKAOT � AY >>T StGN (EAST) urYere �0 frill M GKV / aaO Y R� u73 It is our understanding that a single right -turn in/out access driveway to Highway 111 is currently approved for this site and would-be located approximately 600 feet east of La Quinta Center Drive. Based on the current site plan including both a right turn in and a right turn in/out driveway, the westerly driveway (right turn in only) would be located approximately 370 feet east of La Quinta Center Drive and the easterly driveway (right turn in/out only) would be located approximately 350 feet further to the east. Therefore, to determine the feasibility of an additional driveway, this analysis focuses on comparing "Opening Year" (project buildout) conditions (Year 2003) with a single and dual driveway configuration. EXISTING CONDITIONS Exhibit C identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. Traffic Volumes and Conditions Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on SR 111, west of Dune Palms Road are shown on Exhibit D. ADT volumes are based upon the latest traffic data collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc.. Exhibit D also illustrates AM and PM Peak. Hour intersection traffic volumes for existing conditions (Appendix "A" contains the traffic count worksheets). Adjustments have been made to the traffic data collected in the summer to reflect peak winter conditions. Historical traffic data has been provided by the City of La Quinta (See Appendix "A") for daily volumes along Highway 111 during the winter months. Based on this data, a factor of 1.22 has been applied to the summer volumes to reflect peak winter conditions. The technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to 5 - i►80 • LEGEND: : TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® = ALL WAY STOP -r a STOP SIGN 4 a NUMBER OF LANES D = DIVIDED U a UNDIVIDED EXHIBIT EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANE AND INTERSECTION CONTROL u 8 �. M V La QUINTA AUTO MALL. La Quinta, California - OOS8S:03 � • evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: LOS. "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning' of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. LOS "D" represents high -density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. It$3 0, 0 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY" (SECS.) LEVEL OF SERVICE NORTH- BOUND SOUTH- BOUND EAST- BOUND WEST- BOUND L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM I AM PM rnePalms Rd. (NS) at:SR - 111 (EW) TS 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 27.8 26.9 C C ' When a right turn is designated. the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right taming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L a Left; T s Through: R a Right 2 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traf6x, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS a Traffic Signal U:1UcJobs1005851Excer40058542.xlsj1' 1 085 1n For existing traffic conditions, the study- area intersection is currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service ("C") during the peak hours. Existing HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "B". TRIP GENERATION The anticipated traffic due to the proposed project expansion was determined based on trip rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation manual. Table 2 presents the trip rates used for the proposed retail and restaurant developments. Table 3 summarizes the expected daily and peak hour trip generation. As indicated in Table 3 approximately 17,500 trips per day and 523 AM peak hour and 1,626 PM peak hour trips are expected to occur. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The traffic from the proposed project has been assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the proximity to the regional roadway system and the right in/out access restrictions. Exhibit E illustrates the traffic distribution patterns for a single driveway along Highway 111 for the retail/gas station developments. Similarly, Exhibit F illustrates the traffic distribution patterns for dual driveways along Highway 111. Traffic has been manually assigned to the project driveway(s) for the conditions with a single and dual right turn in/out driveway. Exhibits G and H illustrate the project only traffic volumes that are expected to occur for daily and peak hour conditions for a single and dual access driveway, respectively. FUTURE GROWTH An ambient growth rate has been applied to the existing data to account for future -- through traffic and other projects that are unknown at this time. A growth rate of 8 • E TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE ITE CODE QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Gas Station 844 16 pos 6.26 6.01 7.43 7.13 168.56 Shoppin Center (Walmart/Retail) 820 334.002 tsf 0.60 0.38 2.00 2.17 44.32 ' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997 2 tsf = Thousand Square Feet pos = Vehicle fueling positions U:1UrJobsW05851ExceR[00585-02.xls]T 2 (;�87 12 • 0 TABLE 3 LA QUINTA AUTO MALL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 16 pos 100 96 119 114 2,697 �GasStation ping Center (Walmart/Retail) 334.002 tsf 200 127 668 725 14,803 TOTAL 300 223 787 839 17.500 ' tsf = thousand square feet pos = Vehicle fueling positions U:%UcJobs%0058S%FxceP400585-02.xis]T 3 13 • RETAIL 8 GAS STATION LEGEND: = INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION = OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION • EXHIBIT E WITH ONE DRIVEWAY TRIP DISTRIBUTICRI 083 M La QUINTA AUTO MALL. La Quinta, California - 00S85:12 Via 14 EXHIBIT F RE L & GAS STATION WITTH TWO DRIVEWAYS TRIP DISTRIBUT10h o, o I so f 10 40 N� N� b o SITE o 0 3 N = W Q N Q Z W 2 LA QUINTA CENTER DR. LEGEND: — = INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION -OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION M U9� La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California • 00585:05 UABe 15 • PROJECT PEAK HOUR AND , I . LEGEND: 15/84/9042 = AM PEAK HOUR/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES/ADT EXHIBIT G DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH ONE DRIVEW-Y 0 M 091. La QUINTA AUTO MALL La Quinta, California • 0058S:07 U�tSAf ca..00.c 16 EXHIBIT PROJECgEAK HOUR AND DA,?LY TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH TWO DRIVEWAY; .1. LEGEND: 361/676/9042 - AM/PM/ADT 094 La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:06 V�;B 17 • • percent per year has been calculated from the daily traffic volumes provided by the City of La Quinta. The calculation is provided below: 1999 Daily Traffic Volume on Highway 111 (e/o Washington) = 23,272 2000 Daily Traffic Volume on Highway 111 (e/o Washington) = 25,116 Estimated Annual Growth Rate = 25,116/23,272 = 1.079, or approximately 8 percent TRAFFIC IMPACTS Based on the anticipated trip generation and trip distribution/assignment of the proposed project, traffic has been evaluated at the key roadway and intersection locations. Exhibits I and J illustrate the Opening Year (2003) anticipated traffic volumes for one and two driveways, respectively. These traffic volumes on SR 111, at the project driveways, and at the intersection of Dune Palms Road/ SR 111 include the seasonal growth rate, the ambient growth rate, and the project traffic. DAILY CAPACITY REVIEW Based on discussions with Caltrans staff, Highway 111 is anticipated to be widened to six lanes prior to the opening year of this project (2003). The roadway capacity of a 6 lane urban arterial has been based on Riverside County Integrated Plan Calculations. The evaluation of the additional traffic is summarized below in terms of the daily volume -to -capacity ratio for SR 111, west of Dune Palms Road: Existing Conditions Roadwav Segment Volume Capacity SR 111(4 lanes) 27,138 35,900 Opening Year Conditions With Project With One Driveway Roadwav Segment Volume Capacity SR 111 west of project driveway 40,300 53,900 SR 111 east of project driveway 40,300 53,900 18 V/C Ratio LOS 0.76 C V/C Ratio LOS 0.75 C 0.75 C 093 • OPENING YEAR WITH AND DAILY TRAFFIC LEGEND: 361/676 - AM/PM 48.8 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VEHICLES IN 1000'S) • EXHIBIT PROJECT PEAK HOUR' WITH ONE DRIVEWAY u94 La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California • OOS8S:10 N URBA o� a 19 0 ` EXHIBIT) OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC WITH TWO DRIVEWAYS Q jj � � Ln -as/ss co V w—860/1218 .JI L `-80/37 40/104-J 1 t r 691/1351 w cc 89/31; Ln Ch 40.3 38.6 60/157/1750—� 60/157/1750—� r� G I IW— $ 2 �+ uTran nn SITE LEGEND: 361/676 s AM/PM 48.8 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VEHICLES IN 1000'S) 403 1-1 - u9� M � La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:09 URB� 20 0 Opening Year Conditions With Project With Two Driveways Roadway Segment Volume Capacity V/C Ratio LOS SR 111 west of project driveways 40,300 53,900 0.75 C SR 111 between project driveways 38,600 53,900 0.72 C SR 111 east of project driveways 40,300 53,900 0.75 C The daily traffic analysis presented above indicates that the segments along Highway 111 will remain within the LOS "C" capacity range. Additionally, to evaluate actual peak hour operating characteristics, the downstream intersection of Dune Palms Road has been analyzed. INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The intersection traffic analysis at the intersection of Dune Palms Road and SR 111 for Opening Year (2003) conditions with the proposed project are presented in Table 4. As in indicated in Table 4, this intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS "C") during the peak hours. Therefore, based on the peak hour analysis, it is anticipated that the future infrastructure will accommodate the future peak hour forecasts in this area. ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the daily and peak hour traffic analysis presented above, it can be concluded that the capacity conditions with a single or dual driveway configuration would be similar for project buildout conditions. The proposed distances -between the two project driveways along Highway 111 will be less than the recommended spacing requested by Caltrans (600 feet between intersections). The proximity of the easterly driveway to Dune Palms Road will require traffic leaving this driveway and desiring to turn left at Dune Palms Road to weave across three lanes of traffic to enter the left turn pocket. Therefore, Urban Crossroads, Inc. recommends that a stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend be provided at this u9d 21 TABLE 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC I CONTROL31 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY2 (SECS.) LEVEL OF SERVICE NORTH- BOUND SOUTH- BOUND EAST- BOUND WEST- BOUND L T R L T R L T R L T R I AM7 PM I AM PM Dune Palms Rd. (NS) at: • SR - 111 (EW) I TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 26.0 1 21.6 1 C I C ' When a right turn is designated. the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L s Left; T= Through; R a Right 2 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. TS : Traffic Signal U:XUcJcbs1005851Exceh(00585-02.xls)T 4 097 22 • driveway to ensure that a driver comes to a complete stop prior to entering the flow of traffic on Highway 111. Furthermore, it should be noted that other egress opportunities are available (e.g. the westerly driveway and La Quinta Center Drive) that would provide additional weaving distance. It is recommended that a right turn lane be provided at both driveway locations along Highway 111. In reviewing the inbound traffic to the site for a single versus dual driveway configuration, a significantly longer right turn lane would be required to service the traffic volumes with only a single driveway. The second driveway configuration allows traffic to distribute to another location, thereby decreasing the traffic intensity at a single point. The length of the driveways should be a minimum of 150 feet with a 90- foot transition. INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION Urban Crossroads, Inc. has reviewed the access to the proposed gas station in terms of -potential queuing into La Quinta Drive and the internal drive aisles. Based on the location of the gas station within the pad, it is not anticipated to attract as much pass -by traffic in comparison to a location in closer proximity to Highway 111. Furthermore, vehicles accessing the site will turn right off of the internal drive aisle without experiencing delay due to conflicting traffic (i.e. a left turn movement could experience potential queuing if the opposing flow of traffic occurs at a continuous rate). Based on these considerations, it is not anticipated that vehicles will queue into either the internal drive aisle or onto La Quinta Drive. Although a queuing problem is not anticipated for the proposed gas station, the following recommendations are provided: • A truck turning template illustrating the swept path should be provided to indicate that the tankers will be able to maneuver within the site. 23 098 • • The access to the future development to the north of the gas station should be eliminated or designed to only allow vehicles to exit onto the internal drive aisle. • It is recommended that the southerly drive aisle be directly aligned across from Auto Centre Way South to prevent driver confusion and reduce vehicular conflicts. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the proposed land use changes, and the completion of updated trip generation rates, trip distribution patterns, and the proposed internal circulation plan and review of the prior EIR's, Urban Crossroads, Inc. anticipates that there would be no new or more severe traffic impacts caused by the project than those previously disclosed and mitigated in the two prior EIR's for the Centre at La Quinta. If you have any questions regarding the analysis presented above, please do not hesitate to call at (949) 660-1994. R U S1 Se"M h5suwaLC SS:jt 00585-05 Attachments t-) 9 9 24 C7 • APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 10'3 Locaaon:SR-111 btwn. DurlWa Rd. & La Quint: La Quint Volumes for Wed %J1 08650001 AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB 12:00-12:15 18 12 12:00-12:15 163 229 12:15-12:30 21 14 12:15-12:30 178 203 12:30-12:45 16 11 12:30-12:45 210 193 12:45-1:00 9 64 2 39 103 12:45-1:00 193 744 207 832 1576 1:00-1:15 22 8 1:00-1:15 189 157 1:15-1:30 7 3 1:15-1:30 239 183 1:30-1:45 10 5 1:30-1:45 217 172 1:45-2:00 4 43 6 22 65 1:45-2:00 180 825 181 693 1518 2:00-2:15 6 4 2:00-2:15 168 168 2:15-2:30 6 8 2:15-2:30 224 193 2:30-2:45 0 1 2:30-2:45 206 190 2:45-3:00 6 18 8 21 39 2:45-3:00 244 842 180 731 1573 3:00-3:15 2 5 3:00-3:15 238 196 3:15-3:30 4 0 3:15-3:30 202 212 3:30-3:45 6 6 3:30-3:45 193 156 3:454:00 3 15 2 13 28 3:454:00 182 815 187 751 1566 4:004:15 7 5 4:00-4:15 308 189 4:154:30 9 16 4:15-4:30 288 190 4:30-4:45 8 26 4:30-4:45 274 169 4:45-5:00 17 41 40 87 128 4:45-5:00 196 1066 155 703 1769 5:00-5:15 16 36 5:00-5:15 289 290 5:15-5:30 13 47 5:15-5:30 285 278 5:30-5:45 23 90 5:30-5:45 171 280 5:45-6:00 39 91 118 291 382 5:45-6:00 284 1029 254 1102 2131 6:00-6:15 39 81 6:00-6:15 141 251 6:15-6:30 57 97 6:15-6:30 155 259 6:30-6:45 52 118 6:30-6:45 166 242 6:45-7:00 76 224 139 435 659 6:45-7:00 127 589 240 992 1581 7:00-7:15 123 86 7:00-7:15 161 133 7:15-7:30 96 93 7:15-7:30 142 117 7:30-7:45 95 134 7:30-7:45 161 137 7:45-8:00 140 454 147 460 914 7:45-8:00 123 587 116 503 1090 8:00-8:15 141 104 8:00-8:15 114 110 8:15-8:30 129 115 8:15-8:30 112 92 8:30-8:45 142 129 8:30-8:45 97 106 8:45-9:00 141 553 135 483 1036 8:45-9:00 101 424 108 416 840 9:00-9:15 96 137 9:00-9:15 107 95 9:15-9:30 132 132 9:15-9:30 89 74 9:30-9:45 132 165 9:30-9:45 94 84 9:45-10:00 146 506 160 594 1100 9:45-10:00 56 346 71 324 670 10:00-10:15 146 163 10:00-10:15 75 60 10:15-10:30 169 161 10:15-10:30 57 48 10:30-10:45 138 200 10:30-10:45 49 38 10:45-11:00 186 639 192 716 1355 10:45-11:00 43 224 47 193 417 11:00-11:15 170 188 11:00-11:15 49 35 11:15-11:30 174 187 11:15-11:30 32 22 11:30-11:45 151 191 11:30-11:45 26 26 11:45-12:00 200 695 213 779 1474 11:45-12:00 24 131 16 99 230 Total Vol 3343 3940 7283 7622 7339 14961 Daily Totals 10965 11279 1222441 • • SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS VEHICLE AND .MANUAL COUNTS N-S STREET: DUNE PALMS RD. DATE: 8/22/2001 CITY: LA QUINTP E-W STREET: SR-111 DAY: WEDNESDAY Intersection I.D.: PROJECT# 0864001A NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND RECEIVING: X X X X NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 5 10 7 8 13 3 3 64 11 7 106 5 242 7:15 AM 6 24 4 11 24 4 0 81 15 16 106 8 299 7:30 AM 8 24 6 6 33 4 4 86 18 17 137 9 352 7:45 AM 5 10 11 10 27 4 1 103 19 13 113 10 326 8:00 AM 7 25 5 8 32 2 3 124 14 13 137 4 374 8:15 AM 4 12 4 10 11 3 5 111 12 13 134 9 328 8:30 AM 4 15 5 9 17 3 2 111 8 6 121 11 312 8:45 AM 5 13 6 8 20 2 4 108 11 1 135 6 319 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 44 133 48 70 177 25 22 788 108 86 989 62 2552 AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32 1380 ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED 1C,2 SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS NS STREET: DUNE PALMS RD. DATE: 8/22/2001 CITY: LA QUINTA E-W STREET: SR-1 11 DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECTS 0864001 P NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 17 24 19 16 9 4 2 171 4 10 167 8 451 4:15 PM 8 9 14 6 10 5 5 186 7 6 158 7 421 4:30 PM 6 22 8 4 11 3 0 177 5 5 141 11 393 4:45 PM 7 14 8 12 8 2 7 181 6 5 170 15 435 5:00 PM 2 7 5 7 6 6 6 176 8 8 141 17 389 5:15 PM 2 15 4 5 8 6 5 194 6 5 194 10 454 5:30 PM 5 10 5 7 10 8 11 177 6 3 154 11 407 5:45 PM 4 13 7 4 7 5 6 173 3 5 162 8 397 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 51 114 70 61 69 39 42 1435 45 47 1287 87 3347 PM Peak Hr Begins at 400 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 38 69 49 38 38 14 14 715 22 26 636 41 1700 ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED 103 AIJG -20- 2001 1 iD : �b h hCUPI : r� UKR� rod - r r r • � � » � • � a �� �r.,v a .. � ., i TRAFFIC COUNTS STREET I.D. if SEGMENT COUNT YEAR SEASON Fred Wart F•2 E/O Washington 12.620 1992! Winter Fred Wart F-2 E/O Washington 5.122 1991 Winter Fred Warm F-2 E/O Washington 10,981 1990 Winter arm Fred Waring - F-2 EJO weshingion 7,528 1986 Winter Fred Warm F-2 E/O Washin n 17.498 1929 Winner . 111 M-1 E/O Miles 34 688 2000 Winter ttx. 111 H-1 E/0 Mlles 31.076 1999 Winter Hwy. 111 H-1 W10 Washi ton 31.081 1997 Winter Hwy. 111 H-1 W/0 Washington 31 786 1990 Wintnr H . 111 H-1 W10 Washington 18,100 1888 Wlntor 111 H-2 E10 washingm 25.116 2000 Winter HwV. 111 F4-2 E/O Washington 23.272 1999 Winter KVY. 111 H-2 E/O Washington 25.501 1998 Winter 111 M-2 E/O Wash ton 25.300 1997 Winter Hwy. 111 H4 W/O Jefferson 20,488 1990 Winter :HWY. 111 H-4 W/O Jefferson 18.500 195a Winter Hwy. 111 H-5 E/O Jefferson 24.331 1990 Winter 111 M•5 E/O Jefferson 18.600 1986 Winter Jefferson J-1 N10 Fred Wanng 8.530 1991 Spring Jefferson J-1 N10 Fred Waring 5,500 1990 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/O Fred Waring 15.522 2000 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/0 Fred Waring 13,584 1999 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/0 Fred Waring 11,222 1908 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/O Fred Waring 12,910 1997 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/0 Fred Waring 9.506 1995 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/O Fred Waring 11,002 1994 Winter Jefferson J-2 S/0 Fred Wanng 10.793 1893 Winter Jefferson J-2 510 Fred Waring 8.512 1992 Winter Jefferson J-3 S/O Mlles 10,803 1997 Winter Jefferson J-3 310 Mlles 10.038 1995 Winter Jefferson J-3 S►0 Miles 9,252 1994 Winter Jeff mon J-3 S/O Miles 8 320 1993 Winter Jefferson J-3 S/0 Miles 7,371 1992 winter Jefferson J-3 S/0 Mites 6,354 1991 Winter Jefferson J-3 S/O Miles 7.224 1990 Wlntet Jefferson J-4 N/O . 111 11,187 2000 Winter Jefferson J-4 N10 . 111 9,825 1999 Winter Jefferson J-4 N/0-Flwy. 111 9,262 994 Winter Jefferson J4 WO Flwy. 111 7,371 1992 Winter Jefferson J-5 S/O Hwy. 111 13,682 2000 Winter Jefferson J-5 S/0111 11,854 1999 Winter Jefferson J-5 _Hwy. S/0 Hwy. 111 13,786 1998 Winter Jefferson J-5 S/O Hwy. 111 13,747 1997 Winter Jefferson J-5 S/O Hwy. 111 14,887 1995 Winter Winter Jefferson J-5 S/O Hwy. 111 12,698 1994 1992 S h ng Jefferson J-5 S/O . 111 11,681 5 Jefferson J-5 S/O Hwy. 111 S/0 Ave. 60 12.711 9,959 1991 2000 1999 1 pdng Winter Winter • Jefferson J-7 Jeffer9on J-7 S/O Ave. 50 9,078- 1998 Winter Jefferson J-7 S/0 Ave. 50 S/0 Ave. 50 0 608 8,878 1997 1995 Winter Winter Jefferson J-7 JeNPrson J-7 S/O Ave. 50 9,324 1994 winter Jefferson J-7 S/O Ave. 50 8,85� 1 C� 4 0, Traffic CMM Pmp 2 • • APPENDIX B HCM CALCULATIONS 105 0 0 (-- r -.% - � I !'-.A. �-- MITIGS - Default Scenario Thu Sep 6, 2001 11:59:36 Page 1-1 La Quinta Auto Mall Access Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W) Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. W : 0.348 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y•R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.8 Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32 Growth Adj: '1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.•22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Initial Bse: 29. 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------) Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.88 0.12 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1686 214 1900 3142 468 1900 3401 209 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.19 Cri.t Moves: !!!! Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.73 0.73 0.24 0.84 0.64 Delay/Veh: 24.8 17.4 16.8 25.0 18.0 18.0 24.5 27.7 27.7 25.6 32.4 32.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.8 17.4 16.8 25.0 18.0 18.0 24.5 27.7 27.7 25.6 32.4 32.4 DesignQueue: 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 16 2 2 19 1 Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 107 0 0 Gr� JL-11 - �CCL� MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Sep 6, 2001 12:09:57 Page 1-1 La Quinta Auto Mall Access Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) rataaraaaraaratararrrrrrarrrrrrrraa:rrararrarraarrarrrrraarrrrraara:rrraaraaaaar Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W) aaraaaarrr:rraa:tarsrr::art:arraaraarr::arrr:rrrrrrrrrrrra:rrrraarrarraarr:rrrrr Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.398 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.9 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: C arraraararrrrrrrrarrrrrrrrrrarraraaaarrr:rrrrrr:rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraarraa:rrrrarrr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------------------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- --------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 38 69 49 38 38 14 14 715 22 26 636 41 Growth Adj: 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 Initial Bse: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50 ------------ --- --- ------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.27 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.88 0.12 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1387 513 1900 3502 108 1900 3391 219 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: rrrr r:rr r::r rrrr Green Time: 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 23..0 23.0 10.0 23.0 23.0 Volume/Cap: 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.81 0.81 0.13 0.75 0.75 Delay/Veh: 29.2 21.3 20.9 29.2 21.0 21.0 28.5 28.7 28.7 28.9 26.2 26.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 29.2 21.3 20.9 29.2 21.0 21.0 26.5 28.7 28.7 28.9 26.2 26.2 DesignQueue: 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 27 1 1 24 2 rrrrrrartrrrraarrrrrrrrrrrrrr:rrarrrrarrrrrrrr:rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrarrrarraarrrrrrrr Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 108 MITIGS - Default Scenario Tue Feb 12, 2002 19:22:13 Page 1-1 --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- La Quinta Auto Mall Access Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W) !!!!!!!!lrlr!!!r!!!!!r!!r!!*!!!!!!r!!r!!r!!!!r!!r!!!!!!!!!!rr!!!!r!!!!!ltrl!lrtt Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.351 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.0 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C lrrrrrrrrrr:lrrrrtr!!lrrr!••!rr!*rrrrlrrlrrrrrrrr:rrrr!•rlrrrr•!lrrrrrrrrrrrrl:! Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- ---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32 Growth Adj: 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 Initial Bse: 34 101 37 48 146 18 18 602 89 80 740 45 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 30 22 89 0 0 120 0 Initial Fut: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45 --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1430 470 1900 4595 592 1900 4929 258 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves. t!!! !!.♦ !!!r !!!r Green Time: 10.0 28.3 28.3 14.2 32.5 32.5 10.0 55.5 55.5 10.0 55.5 55.5 Volume/Cap: 0.21 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.38 0.38 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.38 0.38 Delay/Veh: 52.0 37.2 35.8 48.4 36.0 36.0 52.3 20.5 20.5 55.3 21.1 21.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.0 37.2 35.8 48.4 36.0 36.0 52.3 20.5 20.5 55.3 21.1 21.1 DesignQueue: 2 5 2 3 7 2 2 26 3 5 32 2 !!*twt,r�!!*t!*!!!!tt!!t!!!*l�ltrtl,rlwt!!y!*!!!!t!!!!!!!!�►!!*!!!!t*!!!r!!!sr!!!!!! Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE iC3 MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Feb 12, 2002 19:22:58 Page 1-1 La Quinta Auto Mall Access Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) tt*ttwttt*ttrtttrt*ttt►*:tttttt*tttttttt+►ttttttttttttttttttttttttt•tttttttttttttttt Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W) tttttttttttttt.tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt:ttttt:t**t*ttttttttttttttttttttt Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.439 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R o 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.6 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C+ ttttttttwttttttttttttttttrttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt►ttttttttttttttttt Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 38 69 49 38 38 14 14 715 22 26 636 41 Growth Adj: 1.42 1,42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 Initial Bse: 54 98 70 54 54 20 20 1015 31 37 903 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 79 84 336 0 0 315 0 Initial Fut: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58 ------------ I --------------- ---------------1------------------------------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.65 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 2.86 0.14 Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 671 1229 1900 5071 116 1900 4951 236 ------------ I --------------- ---------------11 --------------- ---------------� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: tttt ttt• tttt tttt Green Time: 10.0 20.3 20.3 10.1 20.4 20.4 10.0 67.6 '67.6 10.0 67.6 67.6 Volume/Cap: 0.34 0.31 0.22 0.34 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.47 0.47 0.23 0.44 0.44 Delay/Veh: 53.2 44.2 43.4 53.0 46.0 46.0 63.0 15.7 15.7 52.2 15.3 15.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.2 44.2 43.4 53.0 46.0 46.0 63.0 15.7 15.7 52.2 15.3 15.3 DesignQueue: 3 6 4 3 3 6 6 42 1 2 38 2 tttttttt#1ltttttt+►tttttttt*t**tt*t*ttttt*t*tttttttttttttttttttttttttttt:tttttttttt Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 110