CC Resolution 2002-030RESOLUTION NO. 2002-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM
TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034,
AMENDMENT #1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-375, ADDENDUM
LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 19' day of February, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, as requested by
Lundin Development Company on the Environmental Analysis for Specific Plan 98-
034, Amendment #1, located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue
50, more particularly described as:
Portions of Section 32, TSS, R7E, SBBM
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment, complies with the
-- requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director
has conducted an Addendum Study to Environmental Assessment 98-375 and has
determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact
on the environrlhent, there would not be a significant effect in this case because
appropriate mitigation measures were made for Environmental Assessment 98-375,
and an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and!
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City
Council did make findings to justify certification of said addendum to the
Environmental Assessment; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, said certification was based on findings
and subject to certain mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council did find the following facts to
justify certification of an Addendum to said Environmental Assessment:
_ 1. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Resolution No. 2002-30
Environmental Assessment 98-375 Addendum
Lundin Development Company
Adopted: February 19, 2002
Page 2
2. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan will not have the potential to
achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the
implementation of mitigation measures.
3. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan will not have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for
proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect human health, safety, and welfare, either
directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures.
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 in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and
Certification of an addendum to Environmental Assessment 98-375 for Specific
Plan 98-034, Amendment #1 provided all mitigation measures are complied
with.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 19th day of February, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
JOH . PEN , NQayor
City o La Quin a, California
Resolution No. 2002-30
Environmental Assessment 98-375 Addendum
Lundin Development Company
Adopted: February 19, 2002
Page 3
ATTEST:
NONE.-
ROOM,�
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. ATH E JENSON ity Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Addendum to EA 98-375
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 98-034, Amendment #1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lundin Development Co.
16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 207
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC)
7. Existing Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
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.)
This Environmental Checklist and associated addendum review a Specific Plan
amendment for 12.5 net acre shopping center at the northwest corner of
Jefferson Street and Avenue 50.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The project site is currently vacant. Lands surrounding the project site are also
generally vacant, with scattered single family residential. The approved Rancho
La Quinta Residential Specific Plan occurs to the north of the proposed site.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
City of Indio - for street encroachment permits
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 1
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.
Land Use and
Planning
X
Transportation/Ci
rculation
X
Public Services
Population and
Housing
X
Biological
Resources
X
Utilities and
Service Systems
X
Geological
Problems
Energy and
Mineral
Aesthetics
Water
Hazards
X
Cultural Resources
EX
Air Quality
X
Noise
Recreation
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.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. AN ADDENDUM TO THE
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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or
potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.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. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be
cross-referenced) .
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,
program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) . Earlier analysis are discussed in
Section XVII 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. See the sample question below. A source
list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to
use different ones.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 3
Sample question:
Issues (and Supporting
Poten
Poten
Less
No
Information Sources):
tiall
tiall
Than
Imp
y
y
Signi
act
Signi
Signi
fican
f ican
f ican
t
t
t
Impac
Impac
Unles
t
t
s
Mitig
ated
Would the proposal result in
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
X
(Attached source list explains
that 1 is the general plan, and 6
is a USGS topo map. This answer
would probably not need further
explanation.)
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan
X
designation or zoning? (General
Plan Land Use Map)
b) Conflict with applicable
X
environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
(General Plan EIR, p . 4-1 ff.)
c) Be incompatible with existing
X
land use in the vicinity?
(General Plan Land Use Map,
General Plan Goal 2-2, page 2-11)
d) Affect agricultural resources
X
or operations (e.g., impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.1-4,
page 4-15)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
X
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (Aerial
Photograph)
II.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the proposal:
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd
a) Cumulatively exceed official
X
regional or local population
projections? (General Plan Land
Use and Zoning Maps)
b) Induce substantial growth in
X
an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or
extension or major
infrastructure) ? (General Plan
Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and
policies 2-3.1.1, 2-3.1.3, page
2-14)
c) Displace existing housing,
X
especially affordable housing?
(Aerial Photograph)
III.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan
X
EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
b) Seismic ground shaking?
X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.,
General Plan, Exhibit EH-1)
c) Seismic ground failure,
X
including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page
4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami or volcanic
X
hazard? (General Plan EIR, page
4-30 ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows?
X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography
X
or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-41)
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-43)
h) Expansive soils? (General
X
Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43)
i) Unique geologic or physical
X
features? (General Plan, page
8-7)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result
in:
a) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate and
X
amount of surface runoff?
(Specific Plan document, Section
2.30)
b) Exposure of people or property
X
to water related hazards such as
flooding? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters
X
or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Specific Plan document Section
2.30, letter from CVWD dated
2/17/99.)
d) Changes in the amount of
X
surface water in any water body?
(Specific Plan document Section
2.30, letter from CVWD dated
2/17/99)
e) Changes in currents, or the
X
course or direction of water
movements?
(General Plan EIR, page 4 -51 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of
X
flow of groundwater? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
h) Impacts to groundwater
X
quality? (General Plan EIR, page
4-57 ff.)
i) Substantial reduction in the
X
amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water
supplies? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-57 ff.)
V.
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality
X
standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality
violation? (General Plan EIR,
page 4-171 ff., Air Quality
Report for TPM 29052, Air Quality
Report for TTM 29053,
Synectecology, 11/5/98)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 6
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
pollutants? (Aerial Photograph,
Air Quality Report for TPM 29052,
Air Quality Report for TTM 29053,
Synectecology, 11/5/98)
c) Alter air movement, moisture,
X
or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (General
Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors?
X
( Specific Plan Project
Description)
VI.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or
X
traffic congestion? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
b) Hazards to safety from design
X
features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Specific Plan Site
Plan and page 17)
c) Inadequate emergency access or
X
access to nearby uses? (Specific
d) Insufficient parking capacity
X
on -site or off -site? (Specific
Plan Site Plan)
e) Hazards or barriers for
X
pedestrians or bicyclists?
( Specific Plan Site Plan)
f) Conflicts with adopted
X
policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Specific Plan Consistency with
General Plan, page 1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air
X
traffic impacts? (General Plan
MEA )
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd
a) Endangered, threatened, or
X
rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? (General Plan EIR,
Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and
page 4 - 71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species
X
(e.g., heritage trees) ? (General
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page
4-69)
c) Locally designated natural
X
communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (General
Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page
4-69)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh,
X
riparian, and vernal pool)?
(General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1,
page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or
X
migration corridors? General
Plan EIR, page 4-71 ff.)
VIII
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
X
conservation plans? (General
Plan MEA, page 5- 2 6 ff.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in
X
a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (General Plan MEA, page
5-26 ff . )
c) Result in the loss of
X
availability of a known mineral
IX.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal
involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion
X
or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation)?
( Specific Plan Project
Description; TTM 29053)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd
b) Possible interference with an
X
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health
X
hazard or potential health
hazard? ( Specific Plan Project
Description; TTM 29053)
d) Exposure of people to existing
X
sources of potential health
hazards? ( Specific Plan Project
Description; TTM 29053)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas
X
with flammable brush, grass, or
X.
NOISE. Would the proposal result
in:
a) Increases in existing noise
X
levels? (Noise Study for the
Construction and Operation of
Commercial Land Uses on Tentative
Parcel Map 29052, Synectecology,
11/5/98; General Plan MEA, page
6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4)
b) Exposure of people to severe
X
noise levels? (General Plan
MEA, page 6-15 ff., Exhibit 6-4)
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the
proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or
altered government services in
any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General
X
Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
b) Police protection? (General
X
Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA,
X
page 4-9)
d) Maintenance of public
X
facilities, including roads?
(General Plan MEA, pages 3-3,
4-7)
e) Other governmental services?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff.)
SACity C1erk\Reso1utions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd
XII.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a
need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
b) Communications systems?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
c) Local or regional water
X
treatment or distribution
facilities? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal?
X
(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
g) Local or regional water
X
supplies? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
XIII
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or
X
scenic highway? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative
X
aesthetic effect? (General Plan
EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare?
X
(Specific Plan Project
Description)
XIV.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological
X
resources? (Paleontologic
Assessment Tentative Parcel Map
#29052 and Tentative Tract
#29053, Paleontologic Resource
Assessment Program, 2/99)
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 10
b) Disturb archaeological
X
resources? (Cultural Resource
Report Tentative Parcel Maps No.
29052 & 29053, 11/14/98;
Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation on Tentative Tract
29053, 4/6/99)
c) Affect historical resources?
X
(Cultural Resource Report
Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052 &
29053, 11/14/98)
d) Have the potential to cause a
X
physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Cultural Resource
Report Tentative Parcel Maps No.
29052 & 29053, 11/14/98;
Archaeological Testing and Site
Evaluation on Tentative Tract
29053, 4/6/99)
e) Restrict existing religious or
X
sacred uses within the potential
impact area? (Cultural Resource
Report Tentative Parcel Maps No.
29052 & 29053, 11/14/98)
Xv.
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for
X
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
(TTM 29053)
b) Affect existing recreational
X
opportunities? (General Plan,
Exhibit PR-1)
XVI.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 11
a) Does the project have the
X
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 to
endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the
X
potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts
X
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
projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have
X
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
XVII
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:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 12
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state
where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from
the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\ea 98-375 chklist addend.wpd 13