PCRES 2001-097PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-097
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2001-060
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-425
APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 10`h day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment No. 2001-425 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-060,
generally located 534 feet north of Highway 111 and 1,156 feet west of Adams
Street within the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center, more particularly described
as follows:
Assessor's Parcel No.: 643-080-015
CVWD Well Site #5712 (One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center)
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 2001-425)
and has determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a
significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed to supplement EA 89-150 prepared for Specific
Plan 89-014 and certified by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental
Assessment:
1 . The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly,
in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment.
Residential properties are not located abutting this telecommunication facility.
2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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
P:\CAROLYN\EA PCResoVerizon.wpd - 7/11
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-097
Environmental Assessment 2001-425
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
Page 2
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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have
been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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 Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 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.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
425 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of
the City, supplementing EA 89-150 which was certified by the City Council on
April 17, 1990.
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 Planning Commission of the
P:\CAROLYN\EA PCResoVerizon.wpd - 7/11
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-097
Environmental Assessment 2001-425
Verizon Wireless
July 10, 2001
Page 3
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-425 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. Environmental Assessment 2001-425 reflects the independent judgment of the
City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 10th day of July, 2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BUTLER, KIRK, ROBBINS, TYLER AND CHAIRMAN
ABELS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
:1UPIS ABELS, Chairman
of(La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
3Y HEf�", Community Development Director
of La Quinta, California
P:\CAROLYN\EA PCResoVerizon.wpd - 7/11
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-060 and EA 2001-425
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta. CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center, 534 feet north of
Highway 111 and 1,156 feet west of Adams St.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Ave.
Irvine, CA 92618
949-286-7000
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Regional Commercial with
Nonresidential overlay
7. Zoning: CR - Regional Commercial (Nonresidential overlay); Specific Plan
89-014
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.)
Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 60' high
telecommunications monopalm and associated small equipment building
measuring 11'5" wide by 20' long within a Coachella Valley Water District
well site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The proposed project site is immediately surrounded by vacant, graded
commercial properties and immediately south of a Valley -wide stormwater
channel.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
CVWD (lease)
La Quinta Building and Safety Department and Fire Marshal
Imperial Irrigation District
FCC and/or Calif. PUC
P:\G REG\EACkIstV erizonCV W D. W PD
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
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
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 all,It the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because 1 po en t ally significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursu t ap ica le standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, i ding evisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
June 19, 2001
Date
IN
CITY OF LA OUINTA
Printed Name
P:\G REG\EACkIstVerizonCV W D. W PD
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 analyses 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:\GREG\EACkIstVerizonCV WD. W PD
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
1. 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.; EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map); EA 89-150
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)
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)
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)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
1:9
X
X
X
X
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) X
IV. 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? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.
and EA 89-150) Mitigation fees for the CV Fringed -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Program have been paid.
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA
89-150)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA 89-150)
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? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff. and EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
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 and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X
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? (Application
materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
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 FIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150) This site, and
surrounding areas, were excavated and artifacts have been archived
(UCRARU #1023).
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff. and EA 89-150)
VI. 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 FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35, and EA 89-
150)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.,
and EA 89-150)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff. and EA 89-150)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff., and EA 89-150)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
FIR, page 4-30 ff.; and EA 89-150)
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.; and EA 89-150)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
(General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.; and EA 89-150)
e)Flave 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; and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environrnent through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials) X
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 and May 22, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency
Emission Study)
e) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials and May 22, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency
Emission Study)
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 and EA 89-150)
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 emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 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 and EA 89-150)
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; EA 89-150 and CVWD Letter of 5-9-01)
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., and EA
89-150)
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? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13; and EA 89-150)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
M
IN
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? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13; and EA 89-150)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control'? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-13; EA 89-150 and Application
materials)
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; and
EA 89-150)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13; EA 89-150
and CVWD letter)
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 costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11; and
EA 89-150)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5; and EA 89-150)
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; and EA 89-150)
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; and
EA 89-150)
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? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Application Materials)
9
X
►9
X
km
X
G7
FN
X
X
X
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Application Materials)
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? (Application Materials)
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:
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 and EA 89-150)
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)
XIII. 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)
X
X
M
04
X
X
X
X
X
X
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) X
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)? (Application
materials)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application Materials)
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? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application Materials)
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, page 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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
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)?
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
1`1
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.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
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 and General Plan for the City of La Quinta,
1992 (as amended).
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center (Environmental Assessment 89-150); City Council
Resolution 90-27 adopted April 17, 1990
May 22, 2001 Verizon Radio Frequency Emission Study
Public Agency Letters on file with the Community Development Department
II
Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-425
I. a) The proposed monopalm communication antenna is sited away from scenic
arterial roadways and will be concealed by existing on- and off -site trees and
commercial buildings. Two Date Palm trees measuring 25 feet and 35 feet high
flank the monopalm to lessen its visibility from off -site properties. The impacts
to aesthetics will not be significant.
P:\GREG\EAAddendumVerizonWell.WPO