CC Resolution 2000-103RESOLUTION NO. 2000-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-399 PREPARED FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-047, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-
050, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-680 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29791
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-399
APPLICANT: JDD, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 15th day of August, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-39 prepared for Specific Plan 00-047, Conditional
Use Permit 2000-050, Site Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map
29791, located at the southeastern corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 25th day of July, 2000 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2000-399 prepared for Specific Plan 2000-047,
Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative
Parcel Map 29791, located at the southeastern corner of Highway 1 1 1 and
Washington Street, more particularly described as follows:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:
643-020-002, 643-020-003, 643-020-004, 643-020-005,
643-020-006, & 643-020 -007
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 2000-399)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case
because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and
included in the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 2000-047, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
Resolution No. 2000-103
Environmental Assessment 2000-399
La Quinta Court
Adopted: August 15, 2000
Page 2
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments
of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map 29791 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either
indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigable impacts were identified
by Environmental Assessment 20 00-399.
2. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map 29791 will not have
the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map 29791 do not have
the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental
factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map 29791 will not result
in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when
considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional Use Permit 2000-050, Site
Development Permit 2000-680 and Tentative Parcel Map 29791 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.
6. There is no evidence to show that State mandated school fees will not be
adequate to address impacts to school facilities, in that the Specific Plan, as
proposed, does not affect the current land use as it would be assessed at time
of development, whether or not the project was implemented.
Resolution No. 2000-103
Environmental Assessment 2000-399
La Quinta Court
Adopted: August 15, 2000
Page 3
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2000-399 for the
reasons set forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental
Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Council held on this 15th day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Adolph
ABSTAIN: None
k-
J640J. PEN , Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
U . G R E E , CMC, City, C1 e r k
City of La Quinta, California
(City Sea[)
Resolution No. 2000-103
Environmental Assessment 2000-399
La nuinta Court
Adopted: August 15, 2000
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. KATHERINE JENSUN, Cit ttorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project Title: Specific Plan 2000-047, Conditional use Permit 2000-050,
Parcel Map 29791, Site Development Permit 2000-680
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christine di lorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southeastern corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: JDD, LLC
c/o G. J. Murphy Construction
P. 0. Box 1124
Palm Desert, CA 92261
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial, Non -Residential Overlay
7. Zoning: Regional Commercial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan to establish development standards for a 54,000 retail shopping
center on 5.65 acres. Plans call for four separate buildings. Conditional Use
Permit will allow motorcycle and golf cart sales on the site. Parcel Map will
eliminate previously subdivided parcels which underlie the site. The Site
Development Permit includes the submittal of development plans for the
proposed center.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Regional Commercial/Shopping Center
South: Vacant
East: Simon Motors
West: Washington Street, Shopping Center
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
CITY OF LA QUINTA
For
L�J
FEN
'J
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCResol03.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 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 1 5063(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
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
Issues land Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(General Plan Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application
materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Application materials)
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 on -agricultural use?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use? (Aerial photographs)
II1. 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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
K9
X
X
KI
K9
K9
K4
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
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?
(Specific Plan Project Descr.)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (Specific Plan Project Descr.)
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? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
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 FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either
individually or in combination with the known or probable
impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-67 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic
resources? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
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 FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? (Paleontology Lakebed Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-78 ff.)
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 EIR,
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-39)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(General Plan FEIR, P. 4-34 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan
FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (General Plan FEIR, p. 4-34 ff.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32)
X
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
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? (Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or 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)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K4
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCResol03.WPD
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-
57 ff.)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-57 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Aerial Photo)
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 2-1 1)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural communities conservation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
X
X
K4
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (General Plan EIR, page 4-157 ff.)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use 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, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Aerial Photo)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Aerial
Photo)
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. 1
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)
rA
X
9
KI
K4
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCResol03.WPD
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? X
(Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126
ff.)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Specific Plan and SDP site plan)
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) ? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
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)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
9
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
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.
The General Plan EIR and MEA were used in analysing this
site.
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.
X
X
X
X
X
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\EACKLSTLQCReso103.WPD