CC Resolution 2002-166 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-166
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(EA 2002-459) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011
AMENDMENT NO. 4, PARCEL MAP 30903, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459
APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 17th day
of December, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of
Washington 111, LTD for approval of development plans including the distribution of
land uses and development standards, for commercial and office uses by means of
Specific Plan (SP) 2002-087-011 Amendment No.4, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903), and a Site Development Permit (SDP) 2002-
751, collectively "the Project" generally bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47,
Washington Street and Adams Street, more particularly described as:
A.P.N.'S 643-020-017, 643-020-018, 643-020-022, 643-020-023,
and 643-090-016
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
26th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request
of Washington 111, LTD for approval of development plans including the distribution
of land uses and development standards, for commercial and office uses by means of
Specific Plan (SP) 2002-087-011 Amendment No.4, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
2002-072), Parcel Map (TPM 30903), and a Site Development Permit (SDP) 2002-
751, collectively "the Project" generally bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47,
Washington Street and Adams Street; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on
November 15, 2002 to landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site and to all public
entities entitled to notice under CEQA, which notice also included a notice of the
public hearing date for the City Council on December 17, 2002; and
Resolution No. 2002-166
Environmental Assessment 2002-459
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Intention to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in The Desert Sun newspaper on
December 6, 2002, and further caused the notice to be filed with the Riverside County
Clerk in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, during the comment period, the City received no comment
letters.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted
as the Findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the Project, and that, based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, there
is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there may be significant
adverse environmental effects as a result of the Project. The mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Project
and these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2002-459.
SECTION 4: The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory.
SECTION 5: There is no evidence before the City that the Project will
have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which
the wildlife depends.
Resolution No. 2002-166
Environmental Assessment 2002-459
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 3
SECTION 6: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
SECTION 7: The Project will not result in impacts which are individually
limited, or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
SECTION 8: The Project will not have the environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
SECTION 9: The City Council has fully considered the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon.
SECTION 10: The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
SECTION 11: The location of the documents which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based is the La Quinta City
Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 12: A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project
implementation.
SECTION 13: Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of
proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term
is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 14: The City Council has on the basis of substan'tial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 15: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended
for certification.
Resolution No. 2002-166
Environmental Assessment 2002-459
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 4
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows'
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-459 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached
hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 17th day of December, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Adolph
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None(~1~ ~
DON' ADIOLPH, ~ayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JUN~. GREEK, CMC, Ci~-y~lerk
City of La Quinta, California
(CITY SEAL)
Resolution No. 2002-166
Environmental Assessment 2002-459
Washington 111, LTD
Adopted: December 17, 2002
Page 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
· AT~IERINE JE~ City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment NO. 4, Conditional
Use Permit 2002-072, Site Development Permit 2002-751,
Tentative Parcel Map 30903
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: The south side of Highway 111, between Washington
Street and Adams Street
APN: 643-020-017, 018, 022, 023, 643-090-016
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Washington 111, Ltd.
7825 SE 76th Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040
-- 6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Specific Plan Amendment establishes the design standards and guidelines
for a multi-tenant, multi-building commercial center, including a 125,000 square
foot Target store, retail, office and restaurant pads on 65 acres. The site already
includes the Lowe's Hardware building. Total square footage proposed,
including the existing Lowe's building, is 622,540 square feet.
The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot
health club on the site.
The Parcel Map will divide 50.2 acres of the site (not including the Lowe's
building) into 6 parcels for conveyance and development.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
1
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Regional Commercial
South: Developing community commercial, Lake La Quinta
West: Simon Motors, Regional Commercial.
East: La Quinta Auto Center
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst4 5 9.wpd
2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impactn as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
_ [51
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has ben adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
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,
nothing further is required.
Signature
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rapture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate' into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
4
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan X
Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
(Site topography, Slope Study,Figure 5-4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the X
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application X
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General
Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in X
loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to
project site)
IH. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air X
QUality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?
(SCAQMD CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attahunent under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which X
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD
-- CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose. sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
(Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
p:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459 .wpd
$
I
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection)
IV. BIOLOGICAL REsoURcEs: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse flnpact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or X
regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? ("Biological Resources Assessment..."
Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the Californ/a Department offish and X
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("Biological Resources
Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
lhnited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other act/v/ties X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? ("Biological Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen
Associates, August, 2002)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife spec/es or w/th established resident or X
migratory wildlife corridors, or flnpede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? ("Biological Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen
Associates, August, 2002)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ("Biological X
Resources Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, August, 2002)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, X
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ("Biological Resources
Assessment..." Thomas Olsen Associates, Au~gust, 2002)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic X
Resources, or a local register of histor/c resources.'? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey..." CRM Tech, August 2002)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa upfique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely addinS to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains X
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? ("Archaeological Testing and Mitigation..." CRM Tech,
October 2002)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Master Envh'onmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) X
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~EAChklst459 .wpd
6
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey..."
CR1VI Tcch, August 2002)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
G~ologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a X
known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General X
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4) X
c) Bc located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- X
or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or X
property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ("Phase X
I Environmental Site Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release ofhazardons materials into the environment? ("Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002) X
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X
(Application materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
__ the public or the environment? ("Phase I Environmental Site X
Assessment" Sladden Engineering, August 2002)
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
7
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use X
map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map) X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 fO X
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
· urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map) X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? ("Preliminary Hydrology X
Report" Parduc, Cornwell & Associates, October, 2002)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., X
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. 1II-87 ff.)
c) Substantially alter thc existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or X
off-site? ("Preliminary Hydrology Report" Pardue, Cornwell &
Associates, October, 2002)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner X
which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ("Preliminary
Hydrology Report" Pardue, Cornwell & Associates, October, 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? X
("Preliminary Hydrology Report" Parduc, Cornwell & Associates,
October, 2002)
0 Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit X
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or X
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established c°mmunity? (Pr°ject Descripti°n) I I I X
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
8
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning X
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. X
74 ff.)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in thc loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZo2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental X
Assessment p. ? 1 ff.)
b) Result in the loss. of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovcry site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X
Xl. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or X
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
__ vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels X ~.
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan EIR, p. 111-144 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan X
land use map)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to X
excessive levels? (General Plan land use map)
XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
-- conslmction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application X
Materials)
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~EAChklst459.wpd
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (APplication
Materials)
X/II, PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the consm:ction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) X
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have X
an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application
Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to X
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ("Traffic
Impact Analysis" Urban Crossroads, October, 2002)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for X
designated roads or highways? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban
Crossroads, October, 2002)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location ,that results in substantial safety
risks? (No air traffic involved in project) X
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X
equipment)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban Crossroads, October,
2002)
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~EAChklst459.wpd
lO
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Tentative Parcel Map X
-- 30903)
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Tentative Parcel Map X
30903)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ("Traffic Impact Analysis" Urban
Crossroads, October, 2002)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) X
b) Require or result in the constxuefion of new water or wastewater
treaUnent facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction X
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, p. 58 ff.)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which X
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p.
58 ff.)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing X
commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the 'project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X
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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)? X
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\EAChklst459.wpd
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
XVIH. EARLH~R ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
None
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," descn'be the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or re£med from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Target Store..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, August,
2002.
"Preliminary Hydrology Report for Concept Grading Plan," prepared by Pardue, Comwell & Associates,
October, 2002.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report...," prepared by CRM Tech, August, 2002.
"Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at a Portion of Site CA-RI'V-150," prepared by CRM Tech, October,
2002.
"Biological Resources Assessment & Flat-Tailed homed Lizard Focused Study..." prepared by Thomas Olsen
Associates, August, 2002.
P:~FRED\WashingtonPark~EAChklst459 .wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-459
I. a), b) & c)
The proposed project is located within a General Plan Image Corridor on both
Washington Street and Highway 111. The site is located in the center of the
City's Regional Commercial land use district, and is surrounded by commercial
development. The project proponent is requesting a height of 26 feet for a
building within 150 of the right of way in the Specific Plan application. The
building will not be excessive in height (only 4 feet above the stated maximum).
The Specific Plan has been designed to provide visual relief by staggering
building sites within the frontage on both Washington and Highway 111, and
providing enhanced landscaping and building architecture. The project will
reflect the high quality development which the General Plan encourages on both
Washington and Highway 111. No scenic landmarks occur at or near the site.
I. d) The project will generate light from parking lot lighting. The City's dark sky
ordinance will be applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed project
site. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties,
which will mitigate the potential impacts associated with the project. The
potential impacts associated with light and glare are not expected to be
-- significant.
I1. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
II1. a), b) & c)
The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The SPecific
Plan Amendment, Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Parcel Map will result in the construction of 622,540 square feet of
retail and office space, which will generate 10,904 trips at buildout~. Based on
this trip generation, the proposed project will generate the fOllowing pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PMIO PMIO PMIO
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 450.6 17.33 92.43 -- 1.93 1.93
Daily Threshold*
550 75 1 O0 150
1 "City of La Quinta Target Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by urban Crossroads, October,
2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459 .wpd 1
Based on 10,904 trips/day and average trip length of 8 miles, using EMFAC7G
Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos
at 75 °F, year 2005. ' Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance
in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR.
The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving
emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to
chemical pollution are not expected to be significant.
The proposed project will also result in stationary source air quality emissions,
from the power generated for commercial facilities at natural gas and electric
generating facilities. The potential impacts of the 622,540 square feet of retail
space is estimated in the two tables below.
Emissions Associated with Natural Gas Consumption
for Commercial Development at Project Buildout
(Lbs. per l 0 ' Cu.Ft.)
Estimated Total._Monthly_ Natural G as U sa_g.e: 1,805,366 cf/m onth
Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Reactive
Pollutants Monoxide Oxides Oxides Particulates Organic Gases
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Factor 20 120 negliRible 0.2 5.3
Lbs./fYI onth 36.1 216.6 negligible 0.4 9,6
Based on cf/square foot usage and emissions factors provided in Tables A9-12-A and A9-12=B, 'CEQA Att Qunlity
Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993.
Power Plant Emission Projections
for Commercial Development nt Project Buildout
(Lbs. per 1,000 kwh)
Estimated Total Annual Electric Usage: 8,435,417 kwh/year
Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Reactive
Pollutants Monoxide Oxides Oxides Particulates Organic Gases
8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435
Factor 0.2 1.1'5 0.12 0.04 0.01
Lbs./Year 1,687.1 9,700.7 1,012.3 337.4 84.4
Based on kwh/square foot usage and emissions factors provided in Tables Ag-I 1-A and Table Ag=I I-B, "CEQA Air
Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. Assumes continued
availability of natural gas in power plants and an average contribution from hydro-electric sources. Represents total
pounds emitted per year by all commercial development at buildout.
Based on these estimated impacts, the project will have the following
cumulative air quality impacts. It is important to note that the potential impacts
associated with power plant consumption are likely to occur outside the
Coachella Valley, and will therefore not have a significant impact on the local
or regional air quality.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~Addendum459 .wpd 2
Anticipated Cumulative Daily ~roject-Related g-missions
Associated with Buildout of thc ?roposcd General Plan
(pounds per day)
Total SCAQMD
Stationary Moving Source Anticipated Threshold
Source l~.missions ~.missions Emissions Criteria*
Power Nat. Oas Vehicles Total lbs. Total lbs.
Plants Consumption at 50 mph Per da). Per day
Carbon Monoxide 4.6 1.2 450,6 456.43 550,00
Nitrogen Oxides 26,6 7,22 92.43 126,23 100.00
Sulfur Oxides 2.8 2.77 150,00
Particulates 0,9 0,01 3.86 4,80 150,00
ROCs . 0,2 2.81 17.33 20,37 75.00
* Threshold criteria offered by thc South Coast Air Quality Management Disuict for assistance in determinin~ the
significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quslity Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, April 1993.
The proposed project is expected to exceed thresholds for only nitrogen oxides
at buildout. This excedance will not occur within one air basin, since the power
plant emissions will occur elsewhere. The project site was analysed within the
context of the General Plan EIR in 2002, and falls within the analysis included
in that document. At the time of adoption of the General Plan, the City found
that although air quality impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan
Land Use map was significant, a Statement of Overriding considerations was
adopted, affirming that although the impacts associated with air quality were
significant, the benefit associated with buildout of the General Plan outweighed
the potential impacts. In order to help to reduce impacts associated with
buildout of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented.
1. Any employer on the project site who has 100 or more total employees,
regardless of shift, shall submit to the Community Development
Department for review and approval, a Transportation Demand
Management Plan, which includes incentives for carpooling and use of
transit, such as preferred and shaded parking spaces for van and car
pools, discounted bus passes, and bike racks for employees. The Plan
shall include a description of the employee education program to be
implemented. The Plan shall be implemented immediately upon
occupancy of any building by any employer of 100 employees or more.
II1. c) & d) The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could
impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe
--- n°n-attainment area for PM l0 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller).
The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 65 acres of land,
and the movement of 477,000 cubic yards of dirt on the site. Cut and fill is
P:~=RED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd 3
expected to be balanced. This has the potential to generate the following
amount of fugitive dust.
Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust
Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbsJday)
65 26.4 1716
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,
April 1993.
The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM10.
These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed
project. These include the following control measures.
CONTROL
MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD
BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering,
chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track-out control
BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access
restriction, revegetation
BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical
stabilization, access restriction, revegetation
BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track-out, stabilization of unpaved road
shoulders, clean streets maintenance
The contractors of all buildings on the site will be required to submit a PM10 Management Plan
prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with
PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize
exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles
to avoid on-site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre-watered to a depth of three feet prior
to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-
going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site
that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is
formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~Addendum459.wpd 4
wind erosion. Slope stabilizing landscaping shall be installed immediately upon
completion of grading of said slopes.
g. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction-related
dirt on approach routes to the site.
9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes
or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
10. An air quality monitor shall be on site during all grading and earth moving activities.
The monitor shall be empowered to employ all necessary BCMs to lower the amount
of dust generated on the project site.
11 .' The project proponent shall submit the PM10 Management Plan to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District for review prior to issuance of grading permits.
12. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards included in the
2002 SIP for PM10 in the Coachella Valley.
]TI. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable, odors.
a)-O
A biological resource analysis was prepared for the proposed project~. The survey found that
the project site is suitable habitat for a number of species, but only Palm Springs ground
Squirrel was identified. The project site is also potential habitat for both the Coachella Valley
milk vetch and the Giant sand treader cricket. In addition, 5 acres of mesquite hummocks are
currently located on the site. This plant community can support all the sensitive species
potentially or actually located on the project site. The City has instituted a mitigation
measure for the impacts associated with disturbance of mesquite hummocks, which will
apply to the project site. In addition, the proposed project occurs within the boundaries of the
Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard HCP, and will be subject to the fee requirements
associated with this document. In order to assure that impacts to biological resources are
reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented.
1. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project developer shall enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG and an appropriate non-
profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land for the purpose of
protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the
organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage 10
acres of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area.
2. The project proponent shall pay the required fee under the Coachella Valley fringe-
toed lizard HCP prior to the issuance of grading permits for any portion of the site.
2
"Biological Resources Assessment and Flat-Tailed Homed Lizard Focused Study...," prepared by Thomas
'Olsen Associates, August, 2002.
p:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd 5
v.
Phase I and II cultural resources surveys were completed for the proposed project~. The
Phase I survey identified potentially significant resources on the site, which were.
investigated as part of the testing program. The testing program identified materials which
are being investigated in the laboratory, and curated according to City and professional
standards. The studies made recommendations for mitigation measures which were
confirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, as follows:
1. An archaeologist shall be present on and off site during all grubbing and earth
moving activities. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community
Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities
on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
2. The final report documenting the results of the artifact analysis and overall
interpretation'of the locus shall be submitted to Community Development
Department for approval by the historical Preservation Commission prior to issuance
of the first occupancy permit for the project.
VI. a) i)-iv)
The project site lies in a Zone IV groundshaking zone. The site is not located within an
Alquist Priolo Study Zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to
significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will
be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include
Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. These requirement will ensure that
impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is not in
an area subject to liquefaction or landslides
VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject to
significant soil erosion fi.om wind. The project proponent will be required to implement the
mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard against soil erosion due to wind.
These mitigation measures will lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to
a less than significant level.
vi. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the
project proponent. The project proponent will be required to submit a site-specific
geotechnical study at the time of building permit issuance to assure that all building
techniques employed on the site result in safe structures. These standards will lower the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VII. a)-h)
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project4. The
3
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey...'" and Archaeological Testing and Mitigation at a Portion
of Site CA-R/V-1 $0..." prepared by CRM Tech, August and October, 2002.
4 "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment..." prepared by Sladden Engineering, Augu-~t, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendurn459.wpd 6
investigation found that the site was not affected by use or storage of hazardous substances.
For any commercial use which uses or stores hazardous materials at project buildout, fire
department and health department standards shall apply which are designed to mitigate the
potential impacts associated with such use or storage. The impacts associated with hazardous
materials are expected to be less than significant.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. A
preliminary hydrology study has been prepared for the project site5 The preliminary
hydrology study prepared for the proposed project is still under review by the City Engineer,
and will be modified to conform to the City's standards for on-site retention. In order to
assure that this is the case, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. The project proponent shall secure approval from the City Engineer of the hydrOlogy
study for the project site prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
VIII. b)
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. The
retail development on the project site will be required to implement the City's standard~ rot
water conserving plumbing fixtures and on-site retention, which both aid in reducing the
potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of
the City's water-conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Dr. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be developed for its General Plan designation
of Regional Commercial. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
designations for the project site. The project will not divide an existing community, or
conflict with a land use plan or with a habitat or natural community conservation plan.
X.a) &b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources.
XI. a) The project site is located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels. The
project will develop as retail commercial development, which is not a sensitive receptor. The
closest sensitive receptors are located to the south of the project site, in the Lake La Quinta
project site. The project site plan includes parkway landscaping and parking lot setbacks
which will increase the separation between the commercial land use and the residential units
to the south. The impacts associated with operational noise are not expected to be significant.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and
activities. Existing homes occur to the south of the site. Homes are considered sensitive
receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a short term negative impact.
In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
5
"Preliminary Hydrology Study," prepared by Pardue, Cornweli & Associates, October, 2002.'
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendurn459.wpd 7
1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied
residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
· silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be
located in the northwestern half of the site, as far away from existing homes as
possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of commercial
development. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
Xm, a)
Buildout of thc site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed
project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract.
Buildout of thc proposed project will generate property and sales tax which will offset the
costs of added police and fire services.
The commercial development will be required to pay the state-mandated school fees to
mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offsa the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project or its components will be
rextuired to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or
facilities.
xrv. a)&b)
The construction of commercial development will not impact recreational services. The
generation of property and sales tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that
standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will
mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level.
XV. a)&b)
A traffic impact report was prepared for the proposed project6. The study found that the
proposed Project will generate 14,539 trips per day, but that 25% of these trips will be pass-
by trips which would otherwise occur were the project not constructed. The study further
found that traffic signal warrants exist at Adams and 47th Street, and that modification of the
traffic signal operation at Washington and Highway 111 to provide a right mm overlap phase
6
"City of La Quinta Target Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads,
October, 2002.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark\Addendum459.wpd 8
is required without thc project. With .thc project, several improvements arc required to
mitigate the potential impacts associated with the buildout of the project. These mitigation
measm'es are:
1. Construct Washington Street from Simon Drive to Avenue 47 at its ultimate half-
section width as an augmented major arterial in conjunction with the development.
2. ConstruCt Adams Street fi.om Highway 111 to Avenue 47 at its ultimate half-section
width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with the development.
3. Construct Highway 111 from Simon Drive to Adams Street at its ultimate half-
section width as a special class of major arterial with a fight-of-way requirement of
172 feet established by Caltrans.
4. Construct Avenue 47 from Washington Street to Adams Street at its ultimate half-
section width as a collector in conjunction with development.
5. Project driveways #1 and ~4 shall be restricted to right tums only.
6. Project driveways #5 and #6 shall be full access driveways.
7. Project driveway #2 shall be restricted to fight turn in/right turn out/left turn in.
8. Construct a 150 foot left turn in pocket for driveway #2 on Washington Street.
9. All improvements shall be completed in conformance to exhibit 7-A of the October
2002 Traffic Impact Analysis.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts associated with traffic
generated at the site will be reduced to a less than significant level.
XV. c)-g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create any hazardous
design features. The Specific Plan and site plan include parking requirements generally in
conformance to the City's standards. The site plan provides for a number of emergency
access points. Alternative transportation in the form of bus stops will be implemented
throughout the area based on General Plan policies and programs.
xvI. a)-O
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay
connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future
needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities
at thc site.
P:\FRED\WashingtonPark~Addendum459 .wpd 9