CC Resolution 2001-100 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'FY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM
TO PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-406
APPLICANT: SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 6th day of February 2001, consider and approve the application of Santa Rosa
Plaza, LLC to develop a 145-room hotel and perimeter improvements on a portion of
a 14.3 acre site by adopting the following four resolutions: (1) Resolution No. 2001-
08, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 2000-406 prepared for Specific Plan 2000-050, Village
Use Permit 2000-005 and Tentative Parcel Map 29909; (2) Resolution No. 2001-09,
approving design guidelines and development standards for development of a hotel,
casitas and commercial retail/office space on 14.3 acres; (3) Resolution No. 2001-10,
approving Village Use Permit 2000-005 to allow development of a 145-room hotel and
perimeter improvements; and (4) Resolution No. 2001-11, approving Tentative Parcel
Map 29909 to allow the subdivision of 14.3 acres into nine numbered lots and two
lettered lots (collectively, the "Previously Approved Project"); and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit entitled Conserve Our Vi#age Env/ronment v. City
of la Ouinta, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 021655 (the "COVE
Lawsuit"), was filed subsequently by petitioners COVE and Kimberly Bird challenging
the City's actions in certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Previously
Approved Project; and
WHEREAS, prior to any determination by the Superior Court on the merits
of the COVE Lawsuit, Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC and the petitioners reached a settlement,
whereby the COVE Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for the project
applicant agreeing to certain design modifications of the Previously Approved Project,
limiting the maximum height of the main hotel building to four stories and fifty-five
feet, rather than the previously approved six stories and seventy-eight feet; and
WHEREAS, to implement the settlement agreement in the COVE Lawsuit,
the project applicant filed a proposed modification of Village Use Permit 2000-005
with the City's Community Development Director, as required by Municipal Code
Section 9.200.090. This modification maintains the same number of hotel rooms as
previously approved, but reduces the maximum height of the hotel to four stories and
to fifty to fifty-five feet for architectural towers/pediments, and to forty-eight feet for
the ridgeline (the "Revised Project"); and
Resolution No. 2001-100
Environmental Assessment 2000-406-Addendum
Santa Rosa Plaza
Adopted: August 7, 2001
Page 2
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, and in light of the prior
litigation concerning the Previously Approved Project, the City's Community
Development Director elected to refer the application to the original decision-making
authority, the City Council, as provided for in Municipal Code Section 9.200.090; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum/Initial Study to examine
the potential environmental effects of the proposed modification to Village Use Permit
2000-005 and to evaluate whether the Revised Project could have any new or more
severe potential adverse environment effects beyond what was considered in the
previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Previously Approved Project;
and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines, and "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: (1) the City has prepared an
Addendum/Initial Study and determined that the Revised Project will not have any new
or substantially more severe adverse environmental effects than the Previously
Approved Project; (2) none of the circumstances permitting or warranting a subsequent
environmental impact report or new mitigated negative declaration are present; and (3)
the previously certified Negative Declaration for the Previously Approved Project, when
considered with the Addendum/Initial Study, is adequate to fully address all potentially
adverse environmental effects of the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of
all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of said Addendum/Initial Study:
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Previously Approved Project was
approved and certified by the City Council on February 6, 2001. The COVE
lawsuit challenging the City's certification of that Mitigated Negative Declaration
was dismissed with prejudice on April 18, 2001.
2. The applicant's proposed modification to the Village Use Permit 2000-005 does
not constitute a substantial change which will require major revisions of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects, that were previously disclosed and mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
Resolution No. 2001-100
Environmental Assessment 2000-406-Addendum
Santa Rosa Plaza
Adopted: August 7, 2001
Page 3
3. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Revised Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects, that were previously
disclosed and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
4. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could
not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, has become available which shows
any of the bases for requiring a Subsequent EIR or New Mitigated Negative
Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 1 51 62(a)(3).
5. Based upon these findings and the Addendum/Initial Study, the City has
determined that no SEIR or new Mitigated Negative Declaration is required or
appropriate under Public Resources Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is
sufficient to make the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration apply
to the Revised Project.
6. These factual findings are based upon the previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the Addendum/Initial Study, the submission of the
applicant, including but not limited to the revised line of sight analysis/report
and the updated letter of the applicant's engineer on the project, and the
records and files of the City's Planning Department.
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 in considering and adopting the Addendum to the previously
certified Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. That it does hereby adopt this Addendum to the previously certified Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and as stated in the Addendum/Initial Study on file in the Community
Development Department.
Resolution No. 2001-100
Environmental Assessment 2000-406-Addendum
Santa Rosa Plaza
Adopted: August 7, 2001
Page 4
3. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5, the City
Council finds and declares that: (1) an initial study was conducted to evaluate
the potential for adverse environmental impacts; (2) considering the record as
a whole, there is no evidence before the City Council that the proposed
modification to Village Use Permit 2000-005 will have potential for an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends; and (3)
the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption, if
any, of adverse effect contained in Title 14, California Code of Regulations
Section 735.5(d). Pursuant to Section 735.5(c)(1), the City Council further
finds that the name and address of the project proponent is Santa Rosa Plaza,
LLC, P.O. Box 1503, La Quinta, CA 92253-1503; the project site is located in
the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, and is bounded by Calle Tampico on
the south, Avenida Bermudas on the west, and Desert Club on the east. The
Village Use Permit which is the subject of the modification authorizes the
development of a 145-room hotel and perimeter improvements on a portion of
a 14.3 acre site. The modification reduces the height limitation on the hotel
structure as set forth above.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 7~ day of August 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES' Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pe~a
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
J
City of La Quinta, California
Resolution No. 2001-100
Environmental Assessment 2000-406-Addendum
Santa Rosa Plaza
Adopted: August 7, 2001
Page 5
ATTEST:
JUN~K, CMC, City~er~ '
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RIN ON, City Att
City of La Quinta, California
SANTA ROSA PLAZA ADDENDUM/INITIAL STUDY
June 27, 2001
Prepared by:
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 1
1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS ADDENDUM/INITIAL STUDY 2
1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4
1.5 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE 5
1.6 CONTACT PERSONS 6
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7
2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING 7
2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 7
3.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM COMPARING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS PROJECT AND OF
PROPOSED PROJECT 8
4.0 ADDENDUM FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 20
-i-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Addendum/Initial Study is an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for environmental assessment 2000-406,
prepared for Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005 and tentative parcel
map 29909 (referred to herein as the "Previously Approved Project"), which were
approved by the City Council on February 6, 2001. This Addendum/Initial Study and the
prior certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all other technical studies
and environmental documents incorporated therein by reference, serve as the
environmental review of the proposed project, a modification to Village Use Permit
2000-05 (the "Proposed Project"), now pending before the City.
In summary, the applicant, Santa Rosa Plaza LLC ("Santa Rosa"), proposes a
modification to the City's previous approval of a six story hotel building, by reducing the
height of that structure to a maximum of 4 stories/55 feet. The applicant's modified plan
proposes to maintain the same number of rooms previously approved, 145 rooms for the
main hotel building, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected
hotel rooms on part of the chip and putt course (the "Revised Hotel Design"). The
applicant has proposed this modification to its Village Use Permit in order to implement
the express terms of the settlement agreement recently reached between the applicant and
an association known as Conserve Our Village Environment ("COVE"), which had
previously filed an action in the Riverside County Superior Court, challenging the City's
prior approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La
Quinta is the lead agency for this Addendum/Initial Study, and is charged with the
responsibility of deciding whether to approve the applicant's proposed modification to
the previously approved Village Use Permit. As part of this decision-making process, the
City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects, if any, that
could result from the City's approval of the Revised Hotel Design.
The applicant has made this submission pursuant to City Ordinance Section 9.200.090,
for modifications of previously approved Village Use Permits, in order to implement the
terms of the settlement agreement described above. Section 9.200.090 provides for the
submission of such modifications to the City's Community Development Director, for his
review and approval and/or referral to the original decision making authority, here the
City Council.
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
On February 6, 2001, the City Council of the City of La Quinta adopted Resolution No.
2001-08 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Previously Approved
Project. On February 7, 2001, the City of La Quinta Community Development
Department prepared a Notice of Determination with respect to the City Council's
certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that Notice of Determination was
filed with the Riverside County Clerk on February 13,2001, and posted on that same
date.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed the environmental impacts of the City's
approval of a Specific Plan to establish development standards for 217 hotel rooms (145
-1-
of which were approved for the main atrium hotel building), and 49,160 square feet of
retail and office commercial space. The Mitigated Negative Declaration further
addressed the City's approval of a Village Use Permit for the 145 room main hotel
structure (the "Previously Approved Hotel Design"), and the City's approval of a parcel
map creating a total of eleven lots for each of the buildings within the Previously
Approved Project site. In connection with its certification of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the City Council determined that although the Previously Approved Project
could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a
significant effect in that case because the appropriate mitigation measures were made a
part of the environmental assessment and included in the conditions of approval for
Specific Plan 2000-050.
In an action entitled Conserve Our Village Environment v. City of La Quinta, Riverside
County Superior Court Case No. INC 021658 (the "COVE Lawsuit"), petitioners COVE
and Kimberly Bird, challenged the City's certification of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Previously Approved Project. Prior to any determination by the
Superior Court on the merits of that action, the project applicant, Santa Rosa, reached a
settlement with the petitioners, whereby the petitioners' complaint was dismissed with
prejudice in exchanged for Santa Rosa agreeing to certain specific design modifications
of the Previously Approved Hotel Design, specifically a reduction in its maximum height
from 6 stories and 78 feet, to a maximum of 4 stories and 55 feet.
With the dismissal with prejudice of the COVE lawsuit, and the expiration of the
applicable statutes of limitation for any further challenge to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the City of La Quinta's
determinations with respect thereto, are now presumed to be adequate, complete and
correct, and not subject to further legal challenge. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15164(b), the City may elect to prepare an addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, under the circumstances present here, in connection with its consideration of
the applicant's proposed modifications to the Previously Approved Hotel Design.
1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS ADDENDUM/INITIAL STUD Y
This Addendum/Initial Study has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the previously
certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Checklist Form presented in Section 3.0 of
this document). Based on this analysis and the information contained therein, there is
substantial evidence to support the City's determination that the applicant's proposed
modification to the Previously Approved Hotel Design (i.e., the reduction in the
maximum height of the hotel structure from 6 stories and 78 feet, to 4 stories and 55 feet),
does not require major revisions to the previously certified Mitigated Negative
Declaration. A comparison of the Previously Approved Project with the Proposed Project
clearly demonstrates that the applicant's proposed modification does not cause any new
significant environmental impacts nor does it increase the severity of any environmental
impacts previously disclosed and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Pursuant to CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum/Initial Study is
limited to examining the environmental effects associated with the changes between the
Previously Approved Project and the Proposed Project now pending before the City.
This focus is appropriate and permissible under CEQA due to the fact that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration has already addressed the environmental impacts of development of
the Previously Approved Project, and the City of La Quinta certified that Mitigated
Negative Declaration as being adequate and meeting the provisions of CEQA on
February 6, 2001.
-2-
Pursuant to CEQA, and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta is
conducting this Addendum/Initial Study in order to determine whether, as a result of any
differences in environmental impacts between the Previously Approved Project and the
Proposed Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information of substantial
importance, a new Mitigated Negative Declaration or Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) must be prepared in connection with the Proposed Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 of CEQA, and CEQA Guideline
Section 15164, an addendum may be prepared for the proposed project if the City
determines, based on substantial evidence, that none of the following circumstances (set
forth in Guideline Section 15162) are present:
1. Substantial changes are proposed to the project that require major revisions of the
previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or preparation of a SEIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the project has been undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration or preparation of a SEIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified, shows any of the
following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than those identified and mitigated in the previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to
adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives are considered different from those
analyzed in the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,
but the project proponent declines to adopt mitigation measures or
alternatives.
This Addendum/Initial Study also reviews the changes, if any, to existing conditions that
may have occurred since the Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the City
Council in February 6, 2001. It also reviews, to the extent any exists, any new
information of substantial importance that was not known, and could not have been
known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the City certified the
Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 6, 2001. It further examines, whether, as a
result of. any changes or any new information, a new Mitigated Negative Declaration, or
SEIR, must be prepared in order to comply with the requirements of CEQA. This
examination focuses on the analyzes required by Section 21166 of CEQA, and CEQA
-3-
Guideline Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164, and their applicability to the Proposed
Project. The focus of this examination is on whether the previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration, as updated by this Addendum/Initial Study, adequately addresses
the !mpacts of the Proposed Project.
Since existing environmental conditions have not changed considerably since the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the City on February 6, 2001, this
Addendum/Initial Study focuses on the proposed modifications to the Previously
Approved Project.
This Addendmn/Initial Study relies on the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form,
as suggested in State CEQA Guideline Section 15063. Section 3.0 of this document
contains that Checklist Form and explains the basis for each response to the questions on
the form.
1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Addendum/Initial Study uses an Environmental Checklist Form (the Form) to
compare the anticipated environmental effects, if any, of the Proposed Project with those
disclosed and mitigated in the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
determines whether any of the conditions described above in CEQA Guideline Section
15162(a) require preparation of a SEIR or new Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Form is used to review the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project for
each of the following areas:
-4-
· Aesthetics
· Agricultural Resources
· Air Quality
· Biological Resources
· Cultural Resources
· Geology/Soils
· Hazards and Hazardous Materials
· Hydrology/Water Quality
· Land Use/Planning
· Mineral Resources
· Noise
· Population/Housing
· Public Services
· Recreation
· Transportation/Traffic
· Utilities/Service Systems
· Mandatory Findings of Significance (including accumulative impacts)
The Form is found in Section 3.0 of this Addendum/Initial Study. It contains a series of
questions about the Proposed Project for each of the areas identified above, followed by
an explanation. The Form provides the information, analysis and substantial evidence
upon which the City of La Quinta may make its determination that no SEIR or new
Mitigated Negative Declaration is required for the proposed Project.
1.5 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORA TED B Y REFERENCE
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to
incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents
outlined below in this section are hereby incorporated by this reference, and the pertinent
material is summarized throughout this Addendum/Initial Study. All documents
incorporated by this reference are available for review at the City of La Quinta
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
92253.
· The Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan and Village Use Permit 2000-005. The
Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan, and Village Use Permit 2000-005, provides a summary of the
Previously Approved Project, specifies appropriate land uses, intensity of use, and development
standards which are consistent with City of La Quinta General Plan goals, objectives and policies.
· The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2000-
406, for the Santa Rosa Plaza Specific Plan and Related Entitlements. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration previously certified by the City Council on February 6, 200 l, addresses
potential environmental impacts of the Previously Approved Project, and determines in each
instance whether any potential environmental impact is either not significant or, if potentially
significant, is mitigated to the level of insignificance by the mitigation measures and conditions of
approval imposed upon the Previously Approved Project.
· The Applicant's Submission of a Request for Modification. The applicant
has submitted a request for a modification to its previously approved Village Use Permit, pursuant
to City Ordinance § 9.200.090. In connection with that application, the applicant has submitted a
revised line of sight analysis/report assessing the proposed Project's beneficial affects on scenic
views, and an updated letter from the applicant's engineer, confirming that the proposed
modification to the Previously Approved Hotel Design does not alter the traffic circulation plan or
the previously approved parking plan.
-5-
1.6 CONTA CT PERSONS
The lead agency for the Addendum/Initial Study for the Proposed Project is the City of
La Quinta. Inquiries concerning this Addendum/Initial Study should be made to Jerry
Herman, Community Development Director, City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico,
La Quinta, CA 92253.
-6-
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING
The Previously Approved Project site (the "Site") is located in the Coachella Valley,
within the incorporated City of La Quinta as shown on Figure 1 to this Addendum/Initial
Study. The Site is bounded by Calle Tampico on the south, Desert Club Drive on the
east, Avenida Bermudas on the west, and the Whitewater Channel/Duna La Quinta Golf
Course on the north. The Site is shown on Figure 2 to this Addendum/Initial Study. The
Site consists of Assessor' s Parcel 770-020-001 and 770-020-002 (14.3 gross acres).
2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARYACTIONS
The applicant has submitted a request for modification to the previously approved Village
Use Permit Number 2000-005, pursuant to City Ordinance '§ 9.200.090, requesting that
the City's Community Development Director approve a modification to the Previously
Approved Hotel Design, that would reduce its maximum height from 6 stories and 78
feet, to 4 stories and 55 feet. This application is made in order to implement the terms of
the settlement agreement previously described in this Addenduna/Initial Study. Pursuant
to City Ordinance § 9.200.090, the Community Development Director has the authority
to consider such an application for a modification to a previously approved Village Use
Permit, and may: (1) grant it; (2) deny it; or (3) determine that the proposed modification
is significant and refer it for decision to the original final decision-making body, here the
City Council.
-7-
3.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
COMPARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS PROJECT
AND OF PROPOSED PROJECT
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL STUDY
1. INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970 as amended, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
Guidelines), and the City of Gardena Environmental Guidelines.
Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the lead agency, in this case the City of La Quinta, with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby
enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; ·
3. Assist the preparation ofa EIR, if one is required, by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,
b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
c. Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of a project's
environmental effects.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant
effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
According to Section 15063(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the lead agency determines that there is substantial evidence that
any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do one of the following:
1. Prepare an EIR,
2. Use a previously prepared EIR which the lead agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand, or
3. Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately
examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be
analyzed in a later EIR, negative declaration or addendum.
-8-
2. PROJECT INFORMATION
Case No(s)./Project Title: Application For MOdification To Village Use Permit 2000-005, pursuant to
City Ordinance Section 9.200.090
General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
Existing Zoning: Village Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant land
County Assessor's Information: Map Book No. Page Parcel 770-020-001 and
770-020-002
List of other agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financial approval, participating agreemenO
Coachella Valley Water District
Site Description: (Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, historical or scenic aspects.)
The 14.3 acre site is vacant land located on the north side of Calle Tampico between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive
in the downtown area and has a General Plan land use designation of Village Commercial. The project site is generally fiat, with
natural vegetation, and has a gradual slope down to the north. The property has a few elevated mounds which are as high as five
feet. The southern portion has been cleared and is currently being used as parking for an adjacent restaurant. The frontage
along Calle Tampico has been improved with curb, gutter and a meandering sidewalk. The frontage along Desert Club Drive
has also been improved with sidewalk, curb and gutter. The Whitewater Storm Water Channel/Duna La Quinta golf course
border the northern boundary of the site.
Surrounding Properties: (Describe the surrounding properties and the effect the proposed project will have on the area.)
North: LaQuinta Evacuation Channel
South: Three retail commercial lots are developed at the southwestern corner, including a convenience store and restaurant.
Calle Tampico, and vacant Village Commercial Land, also occur to the south.
East: Desert Club, vacant Village Commercial Land, and Medium Density Residential land built out with a school facility.
West: Avenida Bermudas, and vacant Village Commercial and Medium High Density Residential land.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC
P.O. Box 1503
Palm Desert, California 92261
Project Description: (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.)
On February 6, 2001 the City Council approved Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005, and Parcel Map 29909.
The Village Use Permit related exclusively to the hotel building portion of the project. The applicant now seeks approval of a
modification to that Village Use Permit only, relating exclusively to the hotel portion of the Previously Approved Project. The
proposed modification would reduce the maximum height of the hotel building from the previously approved 6 stories/78 feet, to
a maximum height of 4 stories/55 feet. The total number of hotel rooms for the hotel building (145) would remain the same, by
reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip and putt course. This modification,
to reduce the height of the hotel, would not change the traffic circulation plan or parking plan previously submitted and
approved by the City. A detailed depiction of the Revised Hotel Design was submitted with the application for modification of
the Village Use Permit, and is incorporated herein by this reference.
-9-
3. DETERMINATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the analysis on the following
pages.
~ Land Use and Planning [--] Transportation/Circulation [-"] Public Services
['--] Population and Housing [--] Biological Resources [--'] Utilities and Service Systems
[~ Geophysical ~] Energy and Mineral Resources [--] Aesthetics
[--] Water [~] Hazards [~] Cultural Resources
[~] Air Quality ~ Noise ~'] Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination.
The basis of this initial evaluation:
The proposed project, as compared to the previously approved project, COULD NOT have a significant effect on X
the environment, and therefore an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared to address the modification to the hotel buiiding's design.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant I~
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is ~
required.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been I-'-!
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the following pages, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant [-'-I
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
COMMENTS:
This proposed modification, reducing the maximum height of the hotel building, is the type of project revision which is most
appropriately addressed by an addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guideline 15164).
As explained in more detail below on the checklist form, the proposed modification to the hotel design causes no new or more
severe impacts than those previously disclosed and mitigated in the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration. With
respect to any potential aesthetic or view impacts, the proposed modification actually results in less impacts vis a vis the
previously approved project, by reducing the maximum height of the hotel building from 78 feet to 55 feet.
The determinations with respect to potential impacts below are based on a comparison of the Proposed Project with the
Previously Approved Project, to determine whether the proposed modification to the hotel building might result in any new or
more severe impacts than those previously disclosed and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, certified by the City
Council on February 6, 2001.
Jerry D. Herman, Community Development D~rector, City pt' La Quinta
DATE: June 27, 2001
-10-
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanation of Evaluations:
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 following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis), or as here where the determination of Impact Is narrowly based on a comparison of the
previously approved project with the new revised project, reducing the height of the hotel building.
2. All answers must take account of the whole of the action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Significant Unless Significant
proposal: Impact Mitigated lmpact No Impact
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ['-] [~ ~'] X
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [-"] ~ [~]
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ~] [~ [~ X
c. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts ~ [~ [~ X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
d. Disrupt or divide the. physical arrangement of an [--] [~1 [~] X
established community (including a Iow income or
minority community)?
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories~55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconflguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. There are no proposed modifications which would change or affect the traffic circulation plan or
parking plan previously approved by the City on February 6, 2001. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any
new or more severe impacts with respect to Land Use And Planning.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-11-
Potentially
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Significant Less than
proposal: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Cumulatively exceed official or local population
projections? ~] ['~ ['-] X
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or I~l [--I [~l x
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [-'-] ['~ [--} X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more impacts with respect to Population
and Housing.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant
result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
·
a. Fault rupture? ~ ['-] [-'] X
b. Seismic ground shaking? ~ [-~ [~] X
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ~] ~ [~ X
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [~] ~] ~ X
e. Landslides or mudflows? [-'"] ~] [-'-] X
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil [~] [~] [~] X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence ofthe land? [~] [~] [~] X
h. Expansive soils? ~ ['~ ~ X
i. Unique geologic or physical features? [~ [~ ~ X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts with respect to
Geologic Problems.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-12-
Potentially
VI; TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Potentially Significant Less than
Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ['"'] [~ ~ X
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves ~ I-'-I ~ X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ['-'] ~ [-'] X
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ["-] ~] ~ X
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ~] ['"] ['-] X
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [~ ~] [~]
g. Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? I~] [~] [--] X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. No change is proposed by the applicant with respect to the previously approved traffic circulation plan
or parking plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts with respect to
transportation/circulation impacts.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic
Potentially
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant
Would the proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats I'~ I--'1 I-'-I X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ~] ~ [~ X
c. Locally-designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)? ~] [--] ['"]
d. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? [~] [~] [~ X
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [---] [--] [~ X
-14-
Potentially
~ - Potentially Significant Less than
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate [~ [-] X [~]
and amount of surface runoff?.
b. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards [--} ~ X [--]
such as flooding?
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of [--] [--] [--] X
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water I---] ]---1 [---I X
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water [-"} [-] X [--]
movements?
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through 1--1 [---I [~} X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [--] [~ [~ X
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [--] ~'] [--"] X
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ['--I I--! I--I X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Documentation:
The Revised Hotel Design by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the
chip and putt course. The applicant has submitted updated data and analysis from its engineer demonstrating that the
Revised Hotel Design will not significantly alter storm water retention capacity.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an [-'-I [--'[ ~ X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [~ [~] [-"] X
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ["-I ~ ~ X
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors? [--] [--'] [-'-] X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts with respect to air
quality.
Further Study Required:
-.
No further analysis is required regarding this topic..
-13-
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. No additional vacant lands or natural vegetation is disturbed by the proposed modification to the
previously approved hotel building. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts
with respect to Biological Resources.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant
Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [~] [--] [-'-] X
b. Use non-renewable resources ina wasteful and inefficient I-'-I I~1 ~ X
manner?
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts with respect to Energy
and Mineral Resources.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
IX. I-IAZARDSo Would the proposal involve: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous [--] [--] [--1 X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ~ [-'-I I--] X
emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health I--'] ~ ~ X
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health I"-'l I~l I-'-I X
hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, [-'-I ['--I ~ X
grass, or trees?
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have any new or more severe impacts with respect to any of
the hazards identified above In items IX (a) through (e).
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-15-
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated impact No Impact
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ~ [~ ['-] X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ~ ~] ~'] X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Nothing in the proposed modification would increase existing noise levels or expose people to more
severe noise levels.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Woulc~ the proposal have an Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government Significant Unless Significant
services in any of the following areas: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Fire protection? ["--] ~ ~'] X
b. Police protection? ~ [~] ~'] X
D ID [5] x
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [~ ~-~ [-"] X
e. Other governmental services? l-'-] [~ [~] X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing Its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the proposed modification would not cause any new or more severe impacts to public
services.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-16-
__ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Significant Unless Significant
substantial alterations to the following utilities:: Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Power or natural gas? ~] ~] ['-'] X
b. Communications systems? ["] ['"] [~] X
c. Local or regional water treatment? ~ O ~] X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ["'] [~] [-~ x
e. Stormwater drainage? [--] ['--] X [~
f. Solid waste disposal? ~] ~] [--I X
Documentation:
The Revised Hotel Design by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the
chip and putt course. That new wing will be located on part of the chip and put golf course, which is also an onsite
retention area for storm water. The applicant has submitted updated data and analysis from its engineer demonstrating
that the Revised Hotel Design will not significantly alter storm water retention capacity.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
XlII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
__ a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [~ ~] ~-] X
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [-] [~ ~ X
c. Create light or glare? [~ [~] [--] X
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on pan of the chip
and putt course. Therefore, the proposed modification reducing the previously approved maximum height of the hotel
will have a beneficial impact with respect to any purported adverse impacts on scenic vistas from the nearby residential
area. The applicant has submitted a revised line of sight analysis/report demonstrating the beneficial affects of the
proposed reduction in the maximum height of the Previously Approved Hotel Design.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-17-
Potentially
Potentially Significant l.~ss than
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Disturb paleontological resources? [--] [~] X [~]
b. Disturb archaeological resources? ~'] ~] X [~
c. Affect historical resources? [-"'i [l~ X [~
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which [~! I'-'"l ~ X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the [--] ["-] [-"] X
potential impact area?
Documentation:
The proposed modification to the Previously Approved Hotel Design will by reconfiguring the hotel building to
accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip and putt course. Based on the information currently available
to the City, the City does not anticipate that this addition to the hotel building's footprint will disturb any cultural
resources beneath the surface. Nevertheless, to the extent that this additional building area disturbs any cultural
resources, the existing mitigation measures specified in the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration shall apply to such
construction activity and will mitigate any such potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks [--I ~ ~ X
or other facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? I--] ~ X [~
Documentation:
The proposed modification to the previously approved hotel building will not increase the number of hotel rooms and,
therefore, does not create any additional demands for recreational facilities at the hotel. The Revised Hotel Design will
result in a slight modification to the layout of the chip and put golf course adjacent to the hotel, but this modification will
not create any adverse impact on the quality or use of that recreational amenity by hotel guests.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Significant Unless Significant
SIGNIFICANCE. Impact Mitigated impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to significantly [~l [~1 I'---I X
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,
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, [~] I---I I-'-I X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
-18-
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually X
limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively O ['~ ['"']
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will I~l I~l I~l X
cause significant adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Documentation:
The Proposed Project is a modification to the Village Use Permit previously approved for the hotel building, reducing its
maximum height from 6 stories/78 feet to 4 stories/55 feet. The Revised Hotel Design maintains the same number of
hotel rooms, 145 rooms, by reconfiguring the hotel building to accommodate the affected hotel rooms on part of the chip
and putt course. Nothing in the proposed modification would implicate or trigger a finding of mandatory significance for
any of the categories outlined in sections XVI (a) through (d) above.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
-19-
4.0 ADDENDUM FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Previously Approved Project was
approved and certified by the City Council on February 6, 2001. The COVE
lawsuit challenging the City's certification of that Mitigated Negative Declaration
was dismissed with prejudice on April 18, 2001.
2. The applicant's proposed modification to the Previously Approved Hotel Design
does not constitute a substantial change which will require major revisions of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects, that were previously mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
3. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects, that were previously
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
4. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could
not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, has become available which shows
any of the bases for requiring a Subsequent EIR or New Mitigated Negative
Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
5. Based upon these findings and the Environmental Checklist Form in § 3.0, the
City has determined that no SEIR or new Mitigated Negative Declaration is
required or appropriate under Public Resources Code § 21166, and that an
Addendum is sufficient to make the previously certified Mitigated Negative
Declaration apply to the Proposed Project.
6. These factual findings are based upon the previously certified Mitigated Negative
Declaration, this Addendum/Initial Study, the submission of the applicant,
including but not limited to the revised line of sight analysis/report and the
updated letter of the applicant's engineer on the Proposed Project, and the records
and files of the City's Planning Department.
-20-