PCRES 2002-093PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-093
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A REVISED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2001-411 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN
2001-051 AMENDMENT #1 AND VILLAGE USE PERMIT
2001-007 AMENDMENT #1
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-411, REVISED
APPLICANT: CAMEO HOMES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 3rd and 24`h days of September, 2002, and 8`h day of October, 2002, hold
duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-411
(Revised) for Specific Plan 2001-051 Amendment #1 and Village Use Permit 2001-007
Amendment #1 ("Proposed Project") located at the northeastern corner of Eisenhower
Drive and Calle Tampico, more particularly described as follows:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 773-022-014 and 773-022-032
Parcels 1-4 of Parcel Map 29886; Portion N'/z of Section 1, T6S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on
the 6'h day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider certification
of Environmental Assessment 2001-411 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan
Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043), and on a 5-0 vote,
adopted Resolution 2001-16, requiring compliance with mitigation measures during
on -site construction work; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 271h day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-411 for Vista Montana (i.e., General Plan
Amendment 2001-075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043) located at the northeastern
corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico, and unanimously recommended
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
Environmental Assessment 2001-411 under Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
017; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment (EA) has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970," as amended (City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Community
Development Department has prepared a Revised Environmental Assessment for EA
2001-411, determining that although the proposed Project could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures are being required consistent with the prior
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-093
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: October 8, 2002
Page 2
assessment as certified by the City Council on March 6, 2001, by adoption of
Resolution 2001-16; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Revised Environmental
Assessment was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office on August 8,
2002, for Vista Montana by the Community Development Department. On September
26, 2002, the Community Development Department mailed a copy of the completed
Environmental Assessment to the Departments of Fish and Game and U.S. Wildlife
Service for their review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun Newspaper on August 22, 2002, for the September
3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public
Notice Procedure) of the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to
all property owners within 500 feet of the site by the Community Development
Department on August 13, 2002. To date, no comments have been received from
adjacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2002, the Community Development Department
mailed case file materials to all affected agencies for their review and comment. All
written comments are on file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has prepared traffic and hydrology studies for
the new project to supplement earlier studies that were evaluated by the City Council
on March 6, 2001; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, as
follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct and are adopted as the
findings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission finds that the revised Environmental
Assessment was prepared and processed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and the
City's implementation procedures, and that mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the Proposed Project and
that these measures mitigate any potential significant effect to a point where clearly
no significant environmental effects will occur as a result of this Project.
SECTION 3: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions to the Environmental Assessment, due to the involvement
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-093
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: October 8, 2002
Page 3
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the
previously identified significant effects.
SECTION 4: No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and
could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Environmental Assessment was adopted, has become available which shows any of
the bases described in CEQA Guidelines § 151621aj13►, for requiring an Environmental
Impact Report.
SECTION 5: Based on these findings and the EA Addendum, the City has determined
that no Environmental Impact Report is required or appropriate under Public Resources
Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is sufficient to make the prior Environmental
Assessment apply to the Proposed Project.
SECTION 6: The Proposed Project 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.
SECTION 7: The Proposed Project 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.
SECTION 8: 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, as the site has been used for farming activities since the late 1940's
and the site's date palm grove was removed in 1999.
SECTION 9: The Proposed Project 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.
SECTION 10: The Proposed Project 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.
SECTION 11: The Proposed Project will not have the 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.
SECTION 12: The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed revised
Environmental Assessment, underlying Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
comments received thereon.
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-093
EA 2001-411 Revised for Vista Montana, Cameo Homes
Adopted: October 8, 2002
Page 4
SECTION 13: The EA Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the Planning Commission.
SECTION 14: The location of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Planning Commission decision is based, is the La Quinta
City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California 92253, and the custodian of those records is Jerry Herman, Community
Development Director.
SECTION 15: Based upon the Environmental Assessment and the entire record of
proceedings, the Proposed Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as
that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2.
SECTION 16: The Planning Commission has on the basis of substantial evidence,
rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of
Regulations 753.5(d).
SECTION 17: The revisions to EA 2001-41 1 are hereby recommended to the City
Council for certification.
SECTION 18: The Community Development Director shall cause to be filed with the
County Clerk a "Notice of Determination" pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15075(a)
once reviewed by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 8t' day of October, 2002, by the vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Abels
ABSTAIN: None
RI H BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
J ERRYIH ERMAN, 'Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan 2001-051, Amendment No. 1, Village Use
Permit 2001-007, Amendment No. 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: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cameo Homes
20 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Village 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.)
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment changes the proposed land uses for a
Specific Plan approved by the City in 2001. The site is a total of 32 net acres.
The previous approval allowed 227 residential units on the westerly 22 acres,
20,000 square feet of retail commercial space on 1.68 acres, 20,600 square
feet of office commercial space on 2.57 acres, and a distribution center and
employee parking lot for the La Quinta Resort on 5.79 acres. Since approval of
the Specific Plan, a portion of the employee parking lot (94 of the possible 630
allowed spaces) and a 17,891 square foot office building have been
constructed.
The applicant proposes to amend the Specific Plan to reduce the residential site
to 10.3 acres, with a total of 200 units (on the northwestern portion of the
site); to allow for a future school site on the southwestern 12 acres; to delete
the 1.68 acre retail commercial site on Calle Tampico; to allow 15,000 square
feet of retail commercial land uses on 1.7 acres on the western end of the
property; and to maintain the distribution center and parking lot approval on the
5.79 acre parcel on the northeastern portion of the site. The approved and
constructed office building site is currently built out.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
The Village Use Permit would allow the construction of 200 apartments on 10.3
acres, and the parking areas on the 1.7 acre commercial site. The apartment
complex also includes parking, a common recreation building, one swimming
pool and two tennis courts.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: La Quinta Evacuation Channel, golf course at Duna La Quinta
South: Calle Tampico, generally vacant Village Commercial lands
East: Vacant Village Commercial lands, recently approved for hotel and
commercial development
West: Eisenhower Drive, golf course
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
None
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 C hk list (Revised). wpd
2
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 and 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 (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.
C
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 iurtiier Is equnec.
❑
Signature Date
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
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
FAGreg T\CameoEA411 Chklist(Revised).wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit 3.6)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Site topography, TTM 3 065 1)
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? (General
Plan FIR p. III-21 ff.)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner)
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 nonagricultural use? (No ag. Land in proximity to
project site)
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 (includine releasing emissions which
cxceea quamaalive thrcSlwiL,s ;Ui ozone precursors' 1 (SC:A NiL
CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChkhstlRevisedl.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
M
n
04
X
a
X
IV
V
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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?((LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report, 1/17/01)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (LSA, letter
report, 1/17/01)
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? (LSA, letter report,
1/17/01)
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? ("Historical/
Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," CRM Tech,
1 /8/2001)
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)?("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing
Report," CRM Tech, 1/8/2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(tvioster E-nvnonmemt l Asscssment Exhibit
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey and
Testing Report," CRM Tech, 1 /8/2001)
MMM
X
M
X
M
M
i7
M
X
X
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
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? (MEA Exhibit 6.2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ("Geotechnical Investigation..."
Sladden Engineering, July 2002)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.2)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General
Plan Exhibit 8.4)
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, Exhibit 111-17)
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, Exhibit 111-17)
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? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit
III-17)
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application materials)
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? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff.)
P:\G(eg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevised). wpd
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIII.
IX.
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? (General
Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
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)
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? ("Preliminary Hydrology
and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002)
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 p. 111-87 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? ("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS
Consulting, July 2002)
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? ("Preliminary
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting, July 2002)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
("Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," MDS Consulting,
July 2002)
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 Exhibit
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description)
GI
/7
13
0
X
KA
KI
KI
X
0
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 Chkhsv Revisedl.wpd
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? (General Plan p. 18 ff.)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
74 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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 p. 71 ff.)
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? ("Noise Impact Analysis,"
LSA, 1/16/01)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration. or groundbome noise levels? (Residential project -- no
ground borne vibration)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
("Noise Impact Analysis," LSA, 1/16/01)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan
land use map)
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 land use map)
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
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 X
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials)
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411Chk1istlRevisedl.wpd
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, p. 57)
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57)
Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.)
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 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 capacityof 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)? ("Traffic
Impact Analysis," Endo Engineering, 1/16/01 & 7/18/02)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?("Traffic Impact Analysis," Endo
Engineering, 1/]6101 &7/18/02)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a chan'2e in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (No air traffic involved in project)
P:\Greg T\Cameo EA411Chklist(Revised).wpd
10
10
X
X
X
X
X
F1
►M
X
!I
102
0
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (VUP site plan)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (VUP site plan)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (VUP site plan)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (VUP site plan)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p.
58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
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, p. 58 ff.)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
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
cunndativeh considerable? ("Cunwlali,cly considerable" means Ihn!.
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)?
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 ChklistlRevisedl.wpd
X
X
GI
X
t;7
X
X
►0
04
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will 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. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review.
The original technical studies and Initial Study, prepared and adopted in 2001 for Specific Plan 2001-051, were used in
this 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.
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 2002.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002.
General Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey and Testing Report," prepared by CRM Tech, January 8, 2001,
"Vista Montana Village Use Permit Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, January 16, 2001.
"La Quinta Village Apartments.... Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Endo Engineering, July, 2002.
Letter Report regarding biological resources prepared by LSA, January 17, 2001.
"Vista 1viomana Developn;enL Nuise i„ipact Analysis,` prepareu by LS January 16, 200i.
"Preliminary Hydrology Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, July, 2002.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 ChkhstlRevisedl.wpd
12
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-411 - Cameo Homes (Revised)
a) & c)
The intersection of Eisenhower and Calle Tampico is designated for Primary
Gateway Treatment, and the intersection of Calle Tampico and Avenida
Bermudas is designated a Secondary Gateway Treatment. This designation
requires that special landscaping, building heights and building setbacks be
incorporated into project design. The previously approved Specific Plan
exceeded the building height limitation, and a mitigation measure had been
required. The Specific Plan Amendment has modified the building height for the
residential component to conform to these limitations. No mitigation measure
is needed to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
I. b) The project site is currently vacant. No significant outcroppings or other
aesthetic features occur on the site.
I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not
generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the
area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for
outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and
contained within the project site. These standards will mitigate the potential
impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level.
II. a)-c)
The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to
Williamson Act contracts.
III. a) The previously approved project would have resulted in 227 residential units,
20,000 square feet of retail commercial development, 20,600 of commercial
office development, a 40,000 square foot distribution center, and an employee
parking lot. The traffic study prepared for the proposed project estimated that
the project at buildout would generate 4,370 trips'. The table below illustrates
the vehicular emissions which would have been generated by the project trips
at buildout.
Running Exhaust Emissions - Approved Specific Plan
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brake Tires
45 mph 215.12 9.65 38.59 --
• •. • •.
Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001.
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 Add (Revised). wpd 1
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 4,370 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic
light autos at 75eF. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for
assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The revised project would result in 200 apartment units, a future school site on
12 acres, 12,000 square feet of retail commercial land uses on 1 .7 acres, and
to a 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630 parking spaces for
employees. The approved and constructed office building site is currently built
out. These land uses have the potential to generate 7,312 daily tripS2. These
trips could generate the following level of pollutants.
Running Exhaust Emissions - Proposed Amended Specific Plan
(pounds/day)
PM110 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
45 mph 359.9 16.14 64.5 -- 1.61 1.61
5 7
Daily
Threshold 550 75 100 150
*
Based on 7,312 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using
EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes
catalytic light autos at 75eF. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD
for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
Although the revised project will result in increased emissions, the revised
project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions,
as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in
determining the need for an EIR. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical
pollution are not expected to be significant.
III. b) The proposed project will not result in any stationary source air quality
violations, because residential and commercial land uses are proposed, which
will not generate stationary source emissions.
2 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001 ("Vista Montana Traffic
Impact Analysis"), and July 2002 ("La Quinta Village Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis".
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 Add (Revised). wpd 2
Ill. c) & d)
The construction of the revised project will have the potential to generate dust,
which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a
severe non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or
smaller). The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of
PM10. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the
proposed project. The contractors for all projects on the site will be required to
submit a PM10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity,
and to submit the Plan to both the City and SCAQMD. In addition, the potential
impacts associated with PM10 can be mitigated by the measures below.
1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion. Parkway landscaping shall be installed with
the first phase of development. Any portion of the site which is graded
and not immediately built upon shall be stabilized with either chemical
stabilizers or natural ground cover, subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
5. All grading activities shall be suspenueo uumig first ano secono stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 Add (Revised). w pd 3
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the implementation
of the Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan 2002, the impacts from
particulate matter to air quality from buildout will not be significant.
III. e) The construction of homes and retail commercial development will not result in
objectionable odors, because the permitted land uses within each of the
planning areas do no generate such odors.
IV) a)-f)
A biological survey was conducted for the original project'. The survey found
that the site provides poor habitat due to previous disturbances on the site.
Although common species were found at the time of the survey, no threatened
species are expected to occur on the site. No mitigation measures are
necessary. Since the revised project will be substantially similar to the original
project in terms of types of construction, the impacts of the revised project are
also expected to be less than significant.
V. a), b) c) & d)
A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject
property'. The survey and testing found that no resources occur on the site.
The report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be _
encountered during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential
impact, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site.
VI. a) i►, ii) & iv)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as
with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the
event of a major earthquake. In order to mitigate and protect the City from this
hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated
construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the
preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the
submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that
Leper repo,, prepared by LSA. January, 200:.
a Historical/ArchaeologicalResources Survey and Testing Report, prepared by CRM Tech,
January,2001.
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 Add (Revised).wpd 4
impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. This
mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The project site is not located adjacent to a hillside, and will not be subject to
landslides.
VI. b) The site is not located in a blowsand hazard area. As discussed above, the soils
on the proposed site are loose silty sand. Sandy soils must be properly
compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The City's
standards for site preparation shall be adhered to, as required by the City
Engineer. In order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1 . Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed
site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City
Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include
recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being
constructed.
VI. c)-e)
The soils on the site are not expansive, and support the development proposed.
The soils on the site may be subject to caving during excavation, but this
potential impact will be mitigated by the geologist in the above -required
geotechnical analysis. The potential impacts associated with geology are less
than significant.
VII. a)-h)
Residential and commercial land uses will not generate any unregulated
hazardous material. The site is not located within an airport land use plan. The
site is not located within a wildland fire area. Emergency response will be
implemented in accordance with the City's Emergency Response Plan, in
cooperation with the County of Riverside.
VIII. a), c),d) & e)
The proposed project will be required to retain the 100 year, 24 hour storm on -
site. This requirement includes the installation of "water cleaning" devices when
necessary to ensure that no contaminants are introduced into the storm water
system. This requirement will reduce the potential for violation of a water
quality standard to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided
by the Coachella Valley Watei District, which extracts groundwater irom a
number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project will be required to
retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into
the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's
PAGreg T\CameoEA411 Add (Revised). wpd 5
standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project
will be required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving
landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that
landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. c)-e)
The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots,
will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain
event. The project site is located in an AO Flood Zone. The project will,be
required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on -
site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm.
The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the
City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level.
VIII. f) & g)
The proposed project is located in an AO flood zone. The City Engineer will
require that all structures on the site are constructed above the potential flood
level in this zone. This standard will serve to mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
IX. a)-c)
The project site is currently vacant, and will be integrated into an existing
country club development. The project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning designations for the project site. No impacts to land use and planning
will result from construction of 200 single family homes.
X.a) & b)
The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain
resources.
XI. a) & c)
A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. Noise impacts
exceeding the City's standards will occur during construction activities. At
buildout, however, the proposed project will meet the City's current exterior
noise standard for sensitive receptors. Construction mitigation measures are
offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from noise
are reduced to less than significant levels.
1 . All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Coue.
5 Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, January, 2001.
P:\Greg T\Came0EA411Addl Revised). wpd 6
2. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northern portion of
the site.
XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment
and activities. Existing homes occur to the north, west and south of the site.
Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the
site could have a negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts,
the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any
occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and.air intake silencers.
2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors)
shall be located as far away from existing homes as possible.
3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
XI. d) & e)
The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
XII. a)-c)
The revised project will be constructed on currently vacant land, and will
provide a mix of residential and commercial development. The site has the
potential to employ some of the residents within either the commercial retail
area, or at the school. No impacts to population and housing are expected.
XIII. a)
Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services.
The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department,
under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and
sales tax which will help offset the costs of added police and fire services.
All homes within the proposed project boundary will be required to pay the
state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools.
To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, each project within the
tract map area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program.
Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal
services or lacih oU b.
P:\Greg T\Cameo EA411Add(Revised).wpd 7
XIV. a) & b)
The buildout of the revised project will result in an increase in population which
will have a need for recreational facilities. The project site will include a
clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts for residents' recreation. The generation of
property tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for
parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will
mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level.
XV. a) & b)
Traffic analysis were prepared for the proposed project and the revised projects.
The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at acceptable
levels of service, with or without the proposed project; that minor alterations
to lane geometries will be required to accommodate the project, and are listed
below under mitigation measures. Both analysis found that signalization would
not be necessary at Eisenhower and Calle Tampico with implementation of
either the original or the revised project. The study for the revised project,
however, did not include any of the uses currently constructed on the site, and
potential expansion of these uses, as permitted in the Specific Plan. Specifically,
the study did not include the office building currently on the southeastern corner
of the site, or the potential 40,000 square foot distribution center and 630
parking spaces allowed on the east side of the site. By combining the two
studies, it was determined that the revised project will generate 7,312 daily
trips, while the original project would have generated 4,370 daily trips. Because
of the increase in trips, and the high concentration of these trips during the
morning peak hour, when the future school will also have a significant impact,
it is likely that the intersection delay at Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will
increase to an unacceptable level. Since this assumes buildout of the 630
parking spaces (only 94 such spaces are currently built), which have the highest
potential impact to AM peak traffic, should the parking not be constructed, the
traffic signal may not be needed immediately. In order to assure that the
impacts to traffic and circulation from buildout of the revised project are not
significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
1. Prior to any additional site plan or Village Use Permit on this site, the
applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
all of the components of the Specific Plan land area have been
considered in a traffic signal analysis. That analysis shall also include
recommendations on thresholds for the construction of the traffic signal
at the corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive.
77aIf] c Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, January, 2001 and La Quinta Village
Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2002.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 8
The July 2002 traffic study also included mitigation measures to, assure that
impacts of the project were less than significant. The following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico will be fully improved to their
General Plan half -widths adjacent to the project site.
2. All project exits will be STOP sign controlled.
3. The project proponent will contribute his fair share to the signalization of
Eisenhower and Calle Tampico.
4. The project proponent shall provide lane geometries as depicted in Figure
VI-2 of the Traffic Analysis, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program.
The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential
impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level.
XV. d)
The project proposes a right -in, right -out access onto Calle Tampico, between
Avenida Bermudas and the primary site access. The distance between these
drives may not be sufficient to allow for safe ingress and egress. In order to
ensure that this potential impact is mitigated, the following mitigation measure
shall be implemented:
XV. f)
1. The City shall monitor development proposals for the school site, and
shall participate in the public comment process to assure that driveways
accessing the school are at safe distances.
The commercial retail component of both the original and the revised project
include the potential for restaurant land uses. The parking on the retail portion
of the site, however, has been calculated for general retail use, which is much
less stringent than restaurant use. Should large portions of the retail square
footage be dedicated to restaurant use, the site would have insufficient parking.
In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
1 . Restaurant use within the Commercial Retail component of the proposed
project sriali be limited to 5,000 square ieet gross iioor ores.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 9
XV. c), e►, g)
The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the project does not
create any hazardous design features. The map provides for an emergency
access point in addition to project access. Alternative transportation in the form
of trails and public transportation will be implemented based on General Plan
policies and programs.
XVI. a)-f)
Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required
to pay connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed
to incorporate future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential
impacts associated with utilities at the site.
P:\Greg T\CameoEA411 Add(Revised).wpd 10
N
M
O
N
N
O
M
b
O
N
N
0
M
7
0
0
N
N
C
U
O
•�
t
cz �
o
U
0
a
0
v,
U� Q c
r.�
V
o
x
W
U
~
W
F
C
A
W
mW
z
ax
Pr U
W
UU
U U
U
°
bGq
to
to
C
a
•E
w
C7
O
O
O
O
w0
U 00
z
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
c
ttl
.O
U
V
•=
U
U
•=
.L. n.
.
O
O
O bA
Y
o
y,
Y
a
o �
•� G
G
E
z
a`x
EE
a
Q
C
Q
A
iG
C
O
O
bq
•b0
W
Oq a
U
U
nq
GO
b0
�
U Q U
U
U
U
m
U Q m
z
=_
O
�
� •3
F
P.
ac
0 y
� W
•a
E
:3
'o
a N
Q
Q
�
L
W
h
Y
itl c
�
1•r
ro
e
�
ro
�
V
N
ro
O
� �
a
W
F
a
a
u 0.�1
zQ
w U
UU
a
W
W
v. T
•°
ttl O U
v
tb
c
Z
1h�•11
o
F
y
m
c
Q
�
Wz
� �
o
Z
zZ
Q
E n.
U I")
c
°
o
°°
a
Ha
�
5 Vj
�i
Q
a
a
a
U U
Q 'in
W
W
F
F
a
a
a
a
U
�
u 0
ZZ
6�
au
au
UV
UU
Q
c
(►ayJ
a a
N
�70
w
0
U
m
V •G
C7
O O O
F
D
1�1
F
VI N V1
c c c
�
o 0 0
g c .^
ou en ou
E 5
oz
oz
n p
F
En
E E
zz
zz
ro ro
0o
N
oo
96
cn
Q Q Q
W
•t2
W
nbD to t2
^
z
z
o
0
H
cn
0
H
o
U
Fa
Cn
Fa
y
to
iC,
I-Y
td
�
w
un
y0 h N W
.�
o
E
�
��
z
w •v � w w
cn
x
U a�
a
§
_
\)
(/
E§
2
/
_
2
\@(
(
M
§
°
#]!
/
[
[
§
ƒ
/
/
E
/
�
-
E
-
`
k
}.\
\
\m
\
00
{t
ƒ)
\\
_
2E\
\E
3f
%E
�/
)
/
/
®
/
/
//
/
4
®
\
\
®
/
&2
&t
(
a
3
a /
/
s ;
w
w
a
_
§ �
»
2
w
s
e E
§ E
e
e
u
2
u/
u/
4
[
-
�)
(
\
\
\ \
\
%
§
�w
&
}
l
\
-
=
w
�i5�
.E
)
/
} /
2