CC Resolution 2001-149RESOLUTION NO. 2001-149
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-429
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT
NO. 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-064 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-708
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001- 429
APPLICANT: LATHROP DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 20th
day of November, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental
Assessment 2001-429 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional
Use Permit 2001-064, and Site Development Permit 2001-708, generally located north
of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square Specific Plan, -
more particularly described as:
A. P. N 643-090-016
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 23rd day of October, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-429 for Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No.
3, Conditional Use Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708, generally
located north of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street within the Washington Square
Specific Plan. 4
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 2001-429) and
has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Permit 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 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use Permit
2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708, 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:
Resolution 2001-149
Environmental Assessment 2001-429
Adopted: November 20, 2001
Page 2
1. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-011, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit .2001-708 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either
indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified
by Environmental Assessment 2001-429.
2. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use P
Permit 2001-062 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 do 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.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 will not result in
impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as
development patterns in the' area will not be significantly affected by the
proposed project.
6. The proposed Specific Plan 1987-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-064 and Site Development Permit 2001-708 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.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Resolution 2001-149
Environmental Assessment 2001-429
Adopted: November 20, 2001
Page 3
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
429 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-429 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-429 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City
Council held on this 20th day of November, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOHN J.TENA, ayor"
City of La Quintr, California
Resolution 2001-149
Environmental Assessment 2001-429
Adopted: November 20, 2001
Page 4
ATTEST:
JU E . GREEK, CMC/AA Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(AZT HE E JENSON, C Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 87-01 1, Amendment No. 3, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-064, Site Development Permit 2001-708
2., Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: North side of Avenue 47, west of Adams Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lathrop Development
72-912 Willow Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Amendment to Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit are required to
establish the parameters for the construction of a 25,240 square foot, two story
office, retail and warehousing building on 1.77 acres. Site Development Permit is
required to implement the design and allow construction of the building.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan, Lowes
Hardware Store
South: Vacant lands, Lake La Quinta
West: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan
East: Vacant lands in the Washington Square Specific Plan
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has 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. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
FE
7M
107
07
a
Date
G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annexl3EACkIst.WPD
2
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- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso 1 49-Cklst.WPD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to. trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
in. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan'? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
4
PotentiallN-
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
hN
X
1m
V.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment. Exhibit 5-1)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment.
p. 5-2 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy_ or ordinance'? (La Quinta
Municipal Code: General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan. or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan'? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (General Plan Ea
p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E/
W
V1I.
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains. including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-77 ff.)
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EML Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure. including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EK page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides. lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil. as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR page 4-30 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result. would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip: would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergence evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements'? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 )
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. or
applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157
ff. )
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels'? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157
ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'?
(General Plan Ea page 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels'? (Master Environmental
Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
X
X
X
/:4
K4
M
f9i
X
M
X
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XM. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan: Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.. result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MI
X
FA
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
9
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, pg. 4-24 )
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects'? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments'?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
94
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
10
d) Does the project have environmental effects which,"ill cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or X
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis may be used where. pursuant to the tiering, program EIR_ or other CEQA process. one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analysis used. IdentiAl earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
Environmental Assessment 97-339 was used in this analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated." 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.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Environmental Assessment 1997-3391) and associated addendum.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\EAReso149-Cklst.WPD
11
a�
a�
-c
0
3
a�
a�
0
rA
U
a
O
z
O
z
..
z
w
o
a
..
�
h
a
V
A
�
a
O
�
O
V
�
ti
W
a
v
a
O
�
�
o
0
000Zoa
N
1,
o
cn
cu
o
O
z
�
U
F
a
�
V
A
a
Ox
Vv
a,
a
o
cl
b
o
L7
O
O
U
•�
•�
•�
O
U
F
U
Ucl
z
�
O
o
U
c�
o
U
cz
M�,
�
64
cd
V A U
U
U
V
m
U A
F
a
•°
`�
0
tn
Vcl
64
cd
d
03
4
3
4,
A
w
u
a
03
s
Lrl
/�
0.4
o64
U
a
A
A
A
Ov
OV
OV
U
U
U
b
rA
o
EW
V
EW-+
-
� • o �
-o
UU
cis
o
cd $4
C/5 U
64
o
U'
to
O
U'
(�
U
~
U
0
a�
CIS
�z
m
zz
�
zz
A
z
CIO
Cd
oa
O a�i
UA
UA
z
w
-
cd
z
�
z
O
U
>
O
v�
�
O
o
Cd
r of'?
W
Cd
+.
O
«i
u
En
aw
U
(D
xw
w
xw
>
U
p
o
on
o -Cd
C
a
3 0
C13A
w
��
0.
0
s
J
a)
N
a:+
C
O
0
a�
Q
W
0
0
U