CC Resolution 2002-105RESOLUTION NO. 2002-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM
TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389, FOR AN
AMENDED SUBDIVISION OF 349 LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND
JEFFERSON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389
CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
2nd day of July, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on the adoption of an Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, for Extension #1 of Tentative Tract 29323,
Amended #1; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 1 1 to day of June, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a
recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment 99-389; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 151' day of February, 2000, certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined
under Environmental Assessment 99-389, prepared for Specific Plan 99-040 and
Tentative Tract 29323, as set forth in said Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, said Addendum 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 Initial
Study, and has determined that none of the circumstances set forth in Public
Resources Code 21 166 have been shown to exist; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
certified for EA 99-389, by Resolution No. 2000-12, prepared for SP 99-040 and TTM
29323, for Wade Ellis; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on July 2nd, 2002 upon considering
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the La Quinta
City Council did find the following facts to justify certification of said Addendum:
1 . The Revised Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the Addendum prepared for the Revised Project did not identify
any significant impacts beyond the existing project approval.
Resolution No. 2002-105
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 2
2. The Revised Project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the addendum prepared for this Revised
Project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue.
3. The Revised Project will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development
in the immediate vicinity, as those impacts identified for geologic, water, air
quality, biology, hydrology, noise, utility systems and cultural resources were
addressed as part of prior environmental review, with no significant new
impacts being identified with the Revised Project.
4. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, as the Addendum prepared
for this Revised Project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The proposed Revised Project will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project
contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed
under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan and Tentative Tract
29323. No significant impacts have been identified which Would affect human
health, risk potential or public services.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered the Addendum to
Environmental Assessment 99-389, and both bodies have determined that it
reflects the independent judgement of the City.
8. 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).
9. 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:
Resolution No. 2002-105
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 3
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 affirm the environmental determination of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, thereby certifying the Addendum to EA 99-389 for
Extension #1 of Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council, held on this 2Id day of July, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Mayor Pro Tern Sniff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pena
ABSTAIN: None
STANLEY SNIFF, M or Pro
City of La Quinta, Ca 'fornia
ATTEST:
JU REEK, CMC, y Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
(Seal)
Resolution No. 2002-105
Environmental Assessment 99-389-Addendum
Cornerstone Development
Adopted: July 2, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
d
TH INE JENS ,City Att rney
City of La Quinta, C6fffornia
2.
3.
0
Environmental Checklist Form - EA 2002-446
Project Title: Cornerstone Development
Specific Plan 99-040
Tentative Tract 29323, Amended #1/Extension #1
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Wallace Nesbit
760-777-7069
Project Location: 117 acres on the'Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive
and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cornerstone Development
5005 Calle San Raphael #13-1
Palm Springs, CA 92264
6. General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: RL (Low Density Residential)
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.)
Repeal of the approved Specific Plan design guidelines and development
standards to allow revision of an existing tentative map approval. The tentative
map is being extended, as a new map is not being filed in lieu of amending the
existing map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the prcjezt's surroundings.)
North: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
South: New LDR development (Monticello)
East: Country Club development (City of Indio)
West: Existing LDR development (Bermuda Dunes)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.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.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings
Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Determination 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, 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, and nothing further is required.
Signature
Wallace Nesbit
Printed Name
May 21, 20Q2
Date
Community Dev 101Dment
Department
P: \Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389. wpd
2 -
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 account for 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 analyses are discussed
in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eaddcs\eacklst389. wpd
3 -=
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impac
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General
Plan MEA)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (Site assessment)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? (Site assessment)
d1 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials/site assessment)
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 to non-agricultural use? (LQGP MEA)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map; MEA)
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; MEA)
III. 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, EA 99-389)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1990
PM 10 SIP, EA 99-389)
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/PM 10 SIP)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eack1st389.wpd
4 _
Issues (and £tipporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
ITDaCt Mitinated Imn—t 1...
•
..ra
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Application materials/site analysis)
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Application materials)
X
IV.
V.
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, site
assessment)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA, EIR)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La auinta 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? (MEA, p. 5-2 ff; CVFTL HCP, EA 99-389)
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?
(EA 99-389)
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eack1st389.wpd
5
vl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource (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 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)?
(EA 99-389)
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?
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:
() 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 EIR)
ill Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR )
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan EIR)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
could 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)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property? (General Plan EIR)
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? (MEA,
General Plan EIR)
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Unless Significant No
Mitigated Impact Impac
X
X
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\e6cklst389.wpd
6
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project assessment)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Site/project assessment)
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? (Site/project
assessment)
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? (Not
applicable)
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? (Not applicable)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (MEA, La Quinta General Plan)
h1 Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (EA .99-389; Site assessment)
Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board standards or
waste discharge requirements? (MEA, General Plan)
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)
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitioated Impact 1,.......
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)
X
d) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General
Plan EIR, Project drainage data)
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems to
control? (EIR; Project drainage data)
X
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood plain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (Not applicable)
X
g) Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (General Plan MEA)
X
IL11
X
XI.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project/site
assessment; Aerial data)
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
costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan
Land Use Element)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (MEA, CVFTL HCP)
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? (MEA)
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? (MEA)
NOISE: Would the project result in:
X
X
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? (EIR, EA
99-389)
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
--
••ao
nyaca
impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -
based vibration/noise levels? (EA 99-389)
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (EA 99-389)
X
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?
(Not applicable)
X
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? (Not applicable)
X
W
XIII.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ? (General Plan, Project assessment)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Project assessment)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project
assessment)
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)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
Schools? (General Plan MEA)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Park Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA)
X
X
X
P:\Walfy\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
9
Potentially
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impac
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 facilities would occur or be
accelerated? (Project assessment)
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? (Project
assessment)
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)? (EA 99-389)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Riverside County
CMP; General Plan Circulation Element)
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? (Not applicable)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Project assessment)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project assessment)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project assessment)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project
assessment, EA 96-328)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD)
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? (CVWD).
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
10
c) Require or result in the construction of ne
drainage facilities or expansion of existing
construction of which could cause significant
effects? (CVWD)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
w storm water
facilities, the
environmental
X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Im act Im t
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD)
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
p
pac
X
serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? (CVWD comments)
X
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? (MEA, page 4-28)
X
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce 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)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
Earlier analyses 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 analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
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.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
11
W 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 Checklist Addendum.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\eacklst389.wpd
12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-446:
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #99-389
(CEQA GUIDELINE 15164)
FOR REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
Presented to the Planning Commission for Recommendation
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
June 11, 2002
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389-wpd
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") has prepared this Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15164. This is an Addendum to Environmental
Assessment #99-389, certified on February 15, 2000, by the La Quinta City Council
for Wade Ellis.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document a modification of a portion of the
project, which will be implemented through the following land use approvals:
REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, EXTENSION #1
TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, AMENDED #1
These are collectively referred to as "the Revised Project." All mitigation measures
included in EA 99-389 are incorporated into this document by reference.
The Revised Project consists of a 349 lot single family subdivision proposal on Parcel
± 117 acres, which would replace the existing approval for 379 lots. The current
approval includes a Specific Plan approval to allow reduced lot sizes and other
development standard variations. The City has determined that the Revised Project will
be consistent with the intensity of development and character of the adjacent
residential properties, and will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the City's General Plan, as approved by the City in March 2002.
The Revised Project does not propose any significant change to the land uses as
approved in Specific Plan 99-040. The Specific Plan currently allows for 379 lots (3.24
units/acre). The approvals requested as part of the Revised Project are:
1) Repeal of the existing Specific Plan to allow changes to the site layout, lot siting
and design, and total unit count within the framework of the Zoning Code as
currently existing;
2) An extension of time for the existing tentative map approval;
3) An amendment to the existing approved tentative map, which would revise the
project to the degree that the originally approved Specific Plan is no longer
required.
The City has compared the impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist prepared
for the Revised Project with those impacts analyzed in the adopted EA 99-389 and
finds as follows:
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd
Water - Impacts no greater than
Air Quality - Impacts no
Geology & Soils -
previously analyzed. The Revised
greater than previously
Impacts no greater than
Project will create drainage
analyzed. The Coachella
previously analyzed. The
impacts similar to those identified
Valley has in the past
site is not located in any
for the original proposal under EA
been a non -attainment
Earthquake Fault zones
99-389. As such, the map
area for PM 10
as designated by the
provides for several smaller
(particulate matter of 10
State but is mapped in
retention areas, interconnected
microns or smaller), and
Ground Shaking Zone IV
through a linear facility traversing
is currently in danger of
meaning seismic events
the site northwest to southeast.
losing it's attainment
can cause damage to
status. In order to
building under certain
Biology - Impacts no greater than
control PM 10, the City
occurrences. Impacts
previously analyzed. The
has imposed standards
involving potential
development of the Revised
and requirements on
seismic activity also
Project will result in a similar loss
development to control
relate to possible risk
of habitat for the Coachella
dust. This project will be
associated with upset of
Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
required to comply with
hazardous substances
(CVFTL). However, this site is in
the PM10 Fugitive Dust
(i.e. fuels and auto -
an area approved for mitigation
Control Plan (FDCP)
related chemicals and
under an existing 10A permit,
currently approved for
wastes) and potential for
pursuant to the Federal
the entire project area.
upset/explosion/fire. The
Endangered Species Act. A
project will be required to
focused survey for Giant Sand
adhere to seismic
Treader Cricket must be
reinforcement and other
undertaken.
requirements as called
for by the UBC.
Cultural Resources - Impacts no
Noise - Impacts no
Transportation/Traffic -
greater than previously analyzed.
greater than previously
Impacts slightly less than
The project proponent shall
analyzed. Development of
those previously analyzed.
submit for review and approval ,
the site will create
Development of the
a comprehensive Phase 11
construction noise
Revised Project reduces
archaeological investigation. An
impacts of a short-term
overall unit count from
archaeological monitor shall be
nature. Long term
379 to 349 (8%). A
on site during any grubbing, earth
impacts relate to
corresponding reduction in
moving or excavation activities.
roadway noise. A revised
generated traffic can be
acoustic study will be I
anticipated.
required to address the
effects of such noise on
L_
the Revised Project.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389.wpd
The City finds that consideration of the Revised Project does not call for the
preparation of a subsequent EA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public
Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve:
1) substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EA which would involve new
significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified impacts;
2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken, which would involve new significant effects on the
environment not analyzed in the EA; or
3) new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant
effects on the environment not analyzed in the EA, or substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts.
EA 99-389 has been incorporated with this addendum. A copy of the complete EA
document is attached.
P:\Wally\Casedocs\Current\TT29323\eadocs\adden389. wpd