CC Resolution 1999-110d_]s RESOLUTION NO.99-110
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383
APPLICANT: TROLL!WOODPARK DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
7th day of September, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 99-383 prepared for Specific Plan 99-036, located at the northwest corner of
Dune Palms Road and Highway 111; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 24th day of August, 1999 hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 99-3a3 for Specific Plan 99-036, located at the northwest
corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway 111, more particularly described as follows:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 649-020-016,
649-020-015, 649-020-030, 649-020-aDa, 649-020-
011; THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, T5S,
R7E, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"
as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the
Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study EA 99-383) and has
determined that although the proposed Specific Plan could have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the
Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 99-036, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan 99-036 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant
unmitigable impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 99-383.
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sResolutIon 99-110
Environmental Assessment 99-383
Adopted: September 7, 1999
Page 2
2. The proposed Specific Plan will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Specific Plan does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no
significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 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 are similar to that
planned in the proposed subdivision.
5. The proposed Specific Plan will not have 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.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be adequate
to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan, as proposed, does
not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time of development,
whether or not the project was implemented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 99-383 for the reasons set
forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist
and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 7th day of September, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s Resolution 99-110
EnviTonmental Assessment 99-383
Adopted: September?, 1999
Page 3
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOHN ENA, yor
City of La Quinta, California
ATT ST:
AUNDRA L. J HOLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWN C. HONEYWE?L, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lono
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northwest comer of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, and the
north side ofHighway 11 350 feet east of Adams Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Troll-Woodpark Development
Mainiero, Smith and Associates
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Ste. 301
Palm Springs, CA 92262
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial and Commercial Park
7. Zoning: Regional CommerciallNon-Residential Overlay and Commercial Park
8. Description of Project: pescribe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of
the project, and any secondaxy; Support, or off-site features necessary for its iniplementation. Attach additional sheets
if necessary,)
Specific Plan to allow the development of 36 acres of non-contiguous land at the northwest
corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, and on the north side of Highway 111, 350
feet east of Adams Street. The Specific Plan will allow the development of 91,600 square feet
of industrial/office space, 79,300 square feet ofretail space, 119,500 square feet ofoffice
space, a fitness center and a gas station.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The Coachelia Valley Stormwater Channel occurs immediately north. Lands to the west are
vacant, but are planned for a hotel and restaurants, pursuant to the approved Specific Plan 98-
036. Lands to the south, beyond Highway 111 are vacant, but planned for the approved La
Quinta Auto Center. Lands to the east are vacant. An intervening parcel, between the two
holdings included in this Specific Plan, is also vacant.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
California Department of Transportation CalTrans)
S:\Cily Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sEnvironmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning TranspoitationlCirculation Pnblic Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
x Geological Problems Ener? and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
X Water Hazards Gultural Resources
X Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Finds of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant
unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Printed Name For
\?it? CI?k\R??nIijtinns\SP 99-036 EnvCkList.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved e.g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
sit e, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact" to a Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level mitigation measures from
Section XVII, Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 5O63(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVII at the end ofthe
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited
in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
S. \City Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sSample question:
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Le? Than
significant UTile,, Significant No
IMpact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? 1,6) x
Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is
a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need
further explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zt?ing? General
J__I__
Plan Land Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
p.4-i jufn)?sdiction
ado encies with over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinitv?
General Plan Land Use Map, Aerial Photograph, Exhibit 2 of
Specific Plan)
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land to
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations e.g., impacts L
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established x
community including a low-income or minority community)?
Aerial Photograph, Exhibit 2 of Specific Plan)
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? General Plan Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 232ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or x
indirectly e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension or major infrastructure)? General Plan Goal 2-3,
I L
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
Aerial Photograph, Exhibit 2 of Specific Plan)
S:\CW Clerk\Resolulions\SP 99-036 EnvCkLisi.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s Potentidly
Potentially Significant Le,? Than
Issues and Supporting Information SourceN): Significant Unleas Significant No
Jinpact Mitigated Inipad Inipact
ifi. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) x
b) Seismic ground shaking? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 if.) x
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan
x_ L
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? General Plan EIR, page
I L
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? General Plan EIR, page 4-30 if.) I
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
x L
from excavation, grading, or fill? General Plan EIR, page 4-41)
g) Subsidence of the land? General Plan EIR, page 4-43) x
h) Expansive soils? General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43) x
I) Unique geologic or physical features? General Plan, page 8-7) x
W. WATER Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate
x_
and amount of surface runoff? Specific Plan p.21 and Exhibit
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such x
as flooding? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface x
water quality e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Specific Plan document, p.21; letter from CVWD dated June 3,
1999)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
x L
Specific Plan document, p.21; letter from CVWD dated June 3,
1999)
S:\Ctty CIerk\Reso?uiions\SP 99-036 EnvCkLisi. dcc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Source?): Ilupact Mitigat?d Impact Impad
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water I X
movements? I
General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
F.
aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? General Plan EIR, page 4-
55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? General I'x f
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.) L
h) Imp acts to groundwater quality? General Plan EIR, page 4-
IX
57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise f X
available for public water supplies? General Plan EIR, page 4- I
57ff.) L__________
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation? General Plan EIR, page 4-
171 ff.; Endo Engineering, Air Quality Impact Study, June 2,
1999)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Endo Engineering, I
LX
Air Quality Impact Study," June 2,1999) L I
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any r 1
IL II
change in climate? General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.) L___________
d) Create objectionable odors? Endo Engineering, Air Quality IX
I____
Impact Study", June 2, 1999) L___________
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ndo X
Engineering, Traffic Impact Study," May 10,1999)
S:\Cit? Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s b) Hazards to safety from design features e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e.g., farm
equipment)? Endo Engineering, Traffic Imp act Study," May
10, 1999, Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
Polentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated liupact Impact
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
1 1
Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Specific x
Plan, p.32)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Specific x
Plan Site Plan? Exhibit 5)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x L
transportation e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Specific Plan
Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? General Plan MEA) x
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, insec(s, animals, and
birds)? General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page
4-71 fL)
b) Locally designated species e.g., heritage trees)? James
x__
Cornett, Giant Sand Treader Cricket Survey and Habitat
Analysis," July 15, 1999)
c) Locally designated natural communities e.g., oak forest,
Jx
coastal habitat, etc.)? James Cornett, Giant Sand Treader I
Cricket Survey and Habitat Analysis," July 15, 1999)
d) Wetland habitat e.g., marsh, rip arian, and vernal pool)?
I L
General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4?9)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? General Plan
EIR, page 4-71 if.)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? General
j113]x
Plan MEA, page 5-26 if.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkUst.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient x
manner? General Plan MEA, page 5-26 if.)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
Ix. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or Tx
emergency evacuation plan? General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.) L
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
I_[__
hazard? Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
I__[ Im
hazards? Specific Plan Project Description)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, f IX
IL
or trees? Specific Plan Project Description) L
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? Specific Plan Project F f x f
Description, General Plan MEA, page 6-15 if., Exhibit 64) L i
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? General Plan
I__[ Im
MEA, page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4)
M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) x
b) Police protection? General Plan MEA, page 4-3 if.) x
c) Schools? General Plan MEA, page 4-9) x
S:\City CIerk\ResoIuticns\S? 99-03G EnvCkList.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s d) Maintenance of public facih?ties, including roads? General Fl
II
Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) i?I
Potentially
Potentiaii? Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Siglifficant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Inipact Mitigated Inipact Inipact
e) Other governmental senices? General Plan MEA, page 4-14 r T
I______
ff.) L____________ I________
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? General Plan MEA, page 4-26) x
b) Communications systems? General Plan MEA, page 4-29) x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? x
General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
I I
d) Sewer or septic tanks? General Plan MEA, page 4-24) L_______________________ x
e) Storm water drainage? General Plan MEA, page 4-27) x
f) Solid waste disposal? General Plan MEA, page 4-23) x
g) Local or regional water supplies? General Plan MEA, page f
4-20) I x
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? General Plan
I__________
Exhibit dR-S)
b) Have a demonstrable negath'e aesthetic effect? General I I
L______
Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) I II
c) Create light or glare? Specific Plan Project Description) x
xw. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Determination Study, Community Development kebed
a) Disturb paleontological resources? La L___________ Lx
b) Disturb archaeological resources? CRM Tech, x
Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta I
Corporate Center," August 2, 1999)
S:\City CIerk\Reso?utions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Mfect historical resources? CRM Tech, Archaeological
Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Center,"
August 2, 1999)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would I
affect unique ethnic cultural values? CRM Tech, II
w
Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta
Corporate Center," August 2, 1999)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
fx
impact area? CRM Tech, Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Center," August 2, 1999) 1
xv. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or f x
Description) I
other recreational facilities? Specific Plan Project I
b) Mfect existing recreational opportnmties? General Plan,
F__
Dx
Exhibit PR-i)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNifICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of x
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or pre history?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tern, to F f x
z
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? I I
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
r
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause I x
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or I
indirectly?
S:\City Clork\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. dcc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pur?ant 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 aftached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project
S.'\Cty C?erk\ResoIutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sAddendum to Environmental Checldist, EA 99-383
ffi.b)
& c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located
in a Zone IV groundshaking zone, adjacent to an inferred and inactive fault. The City
has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas.
The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure
will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Ill.f) The project falls within an area of soils at risk for erosion. The proposed Specific Plan,
in and of itself, will not cause a hazard. However, construction of the project will have
the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth moving activities. At such
time as any phase of the project is proposed for development, the project proponent
will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval.
The recommendations contained in this study will reduce the potential impact from
erosion of soils to a level of insignificance. All earth moving activities shall be
coordinated to ensure that the mitigation measures contained under section XIV
Cultural Resources) of this addendum shall be properly implemented. The protection
of the archaeological site found in the western portion of the Specific Plan shall be the
primary concern of all grading and compacting efforts.
IV.a) The Specific Plan will not change the absorption rates on the site in and of itself.
Construction of structures and parking lots, however, will reduce the amount of land
available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase
surface runoff. The Specific Plan proposes to control storm flows by directing them to
the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, located immediately north of the project
site. The conditions of approval proposed for the project require the proponent to meet
the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District CVWD), which has
jurisdiction over the Channel. This will reduce the potential hazard associated with
increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
Ivc)
& d) The implementation of the proposed project will result in the discharge of storm flows
into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Such discharge could increase the
potential for pollutants entering the Channel. The project will be required to
implement NPDES standards for any flows to be discharged, which will lower the risk
of pollutants entering the Channel. CVWD has implemented standards for such
facilities, which will be applied to this project. The Channel is an intermittent stream,
which generally carries water only during storm events. The implementation of the
proposed project will not represent a significant increase in water traveling in the
Channel, and is not expected to cause a hazard in this regard. The Channel has been
designed to accommodate such flows, plus a risk factor, to ensure conservative handling
of storm flows. CVWD's requirements to implement the Specific Plan will reduce the
potential impacts to surface water to a less than significant level.
S:\CiW Clerk\Resoluiions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sV. a) An air quality analysis was prepared for buildout of the proposed project'. The air
quality analysis was performed for both construction short term) and operational long
term) emissions from the project site. The analysis utilized the threshold criteria
established for the Valley by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as
required by the Air Quality Management Plan. Threshold criteria will not be exceeded
during the construction ofthe proposed project. The operation of the project, however,
is expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases
and nitric oxide. The report includes the following mitigation measures, both for
construction activities and long term operations, which shall be implemented for the
proposed project:
1. Construction equipment shall be propedy 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. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic interference.
5. Construction of improvements on Highway til or Dune Palms Road shall be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-
traffic lanes.
6. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
7. The project shall submit a PM1O Plan to the City which includes adequate
provisions for fugitive dust and wind erosion control, both during and after
grading operations. The PM1O Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the
issuance of any grading permit on the site.
8. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pr?watered to a depth of three feet
prior to the onset of grading activities.
9. 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.
10. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
ta Quinta Corporate Centre Air Quality Impact Study," Endo Engineering, Jnne 2,1999.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99?O36 EnvCkList.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded
with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
11. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential
for wind erosion.
12. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction-
related dirt on approach routes to the site.
13. Construction roads other than temporary access roads shall be paved as soon
as possible, and once paved shall be cleaned after each work day. All unpaved
roads shall be posted with a 15 mile per hour speed limit.
14. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
15. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title
24 of the California Administrative Code.
16. The project shall provide for non-motorized transportation facilities and shall
implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation
measures.
17. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall
be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at
the time of development.
18. Low pressure sodium vapor lights shall be considered to reduce power plant
emissions.
19. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations.
Even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project could be significant. Improvements in technology which are
likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or the transit route
improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the
analysis. The proposed project falls within the anticipated land use studied in the
General Plan EIR. The City determined at that time that air quality impacts required
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined, as regarded air quality,
that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulative only
when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would
implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. The
implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have a significant
impact on air quality resources.
S:\Cily Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkLiSt.dOG
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]sVI. a) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan2. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic
volumes. The traffic analysis assumed buildout of the proposed project in the year
2010. The traffic analysis assumed that the now Not a Part" site which separates the
two portions of the Plan was to be included, and therefore analysis a more conservative
buildout of the entire site. Impacts from the proposed project are therefore expected
to be lower than those described in the traffic impact analysis. The total estimated
traffic generation is estimated to be 15,570 daily trips, of which 1,085 are expected
during the morning peak hour, and 1,574 during the evening peak hour. The
improvements required with or without project implementation include the
signalization of Dune Palms Road, the construction of dual southbound left turn lanes
at Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 and Adams Street and Highway 111 and dual
westbound left turn lanes at the main project site entrance and Highway 111. The type
of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the
City's General Plan, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that
analysis. The traffic impact analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which
shall be implemented as part of the development of the project site:
1. All internal drives and streets shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer during the Design Review process to ensure compliance with City
standards.
2. Off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of
the La Quinta Municipal Code.
3. All internal street shall be fully constructed to their ultimate cross-sections as
adjacent on-site development occurs.
4. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site in conformance with the
Municipal Code.
5. MI internal street intersections shall provide clear, unobstructed sight distance.
6. All site driveways exiting the project site shall include a STOP sign and clear
unobstructed sight distances.
7. The lane geometrics shown in Figures VI-2 and VI-3 of the traffic impact
analysis shall be installed adjacent to the project site. Phasing of the intersection
improvements shall be in conformance with the conditions of approval provided
by the City Engineer.
8. When warranted, the project proponent shall install a traffic signal at the
intersection of the industnal street and Dune Palms Road.
9. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee
La Quinta Corporate Centre Traffic Impact Sttidy," Endo Engineering, May 10, 1999.
S:\Citv Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList.doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned improvements
associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all project related
roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service LOS D or better) at project
buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the
circulation system.
VH.a) The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Giant Sand
Treader Cricket in the General Plan. A sit?specific biological survey for Giant Sand
Treader Cricket was performed for the proposed site3. The survey found that the site
is not appropriate for cricket habitat. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation
Plan fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. The project proponent will
be required to pay the mandated $100 fee per acre prior to development at the site.
This mitigation measure will reduce impacts to biological resources to a level of
insignificance.
X.a) The Highway til corridor is an impacted noise area. Noise levels along this roadway
exceed the City standard of 60 dRA CNEL level currently. All new development of
sensitive receptors is required to mitigate to the City's standards for noise, as required
in the General Plan Table EH-1). The Specific Plan does not call out any sensitive
receptors as definite land uses for the site. The commercial and industrial land uses
proposed will be required to construct to City standards to attenuate interior noise.
Should a sensitive receptor be proposed, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
1. A us?speeific noise study will be required by the City if a sensitive receptor is
proposed for location within the Specific Plan project area, and within the 60
dBA CNEL noise contour. The study shall include mitigation measures, as
needed, to lower the noise levels to within the City standards in place at the time
the use is proposed.
This mitigation requirement reduces the impact of noise to a level of insignificance.
XIII.a) The proposed project includes a proposal that the City's height and setback standard
be modified on Highway 111 for one building. The standard of 150 feet of setback for
two-story structures along Primary Image Corridors is proposed to be reduced to 50
feet in the eastern portion of the site. The location of a two-story building adjacent to
Highway 111 can impact the aesthetic values of this important corridor, designated as
a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The location of a two-story building at
a distance of 50 feet from the property line is also not compatible with the Highway 111
design theme, which stresses uninterrupted vistas Architectural Standards, Guideline
3), and intimate" space Architectural Standards, Guideline #5). The following
Giant Sand Treader Cricket Su?ey and Habitat Analysis," James Cornett, July 15, 1999.
S:\Ci1? Clerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02
d_]s mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the impact of the structure to an
acceptable level:
1. The site plan shall be r?designed to ensure that the proposed two-story portion
of the 53,000 s.f. Building located at the southwestern corner of the eastern
parcel is a minimum of 150 feet from the property line.
XIIJ.c) No residential land uses occur or are likely to occur adjacent to the project site. The
City has implemented, through its Site Development Permit and building permit
processes, standards which require lighting to be contained, and at a low level, to
preserve the dark night sky. These standards will be implemented for this project,
thereby reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
XIV.b), c)
4
& d) A site specific cultural resource study has been completed for the proposed project
The study found two potentially significant sites within the project boundary. Site CA-
Rw-6190 was found not to constitute a significant resource, and no further action is
required on this site. Site CA-RIV-2936, however, was found to be significant. Two
potential mitigation measures were offered: to either fully excavate the site, or to cover
the site and protect it from further disturbance. Excavation of the site is the
mitigation measure recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission also see
Staff Report and Minutes, Historic Preservation Commission, August 19,1999). The
following mitigation measures shall therefore be implemented:
1. A data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the
scientifically consequential information from or about the historic resource,
shall be prepared and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission prior
to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the
California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological
sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the
provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.
2. Archaeological monitoring of the entire site 36 acres) shall occur for all earth
moving activities, including grubbing, grading, etc.
3. The final Cultural Resources report shall be submitted and approved prior to
occupancy of the first building within the Specific Plan area.
Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre," CRM Tech, Augast 2, 1999
S:\City CIerk\Resolutions\SP 99-036 EnvCkList. doc
BIB]
11-19-1999-U01
11:40:48AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CCRES-U02
99-U02
110-U02