CC Resolution 2002-025 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-437 GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-082, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-054,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-066 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-711
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-433
APPLICANT: RLF DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of L~ Quinta, California, did on
the 15th day of January, 2002, the 5t~ day of February, 2002 and 19t~ day of
February, 2002 hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental
Assessment 2001-433 for General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-
054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711
located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 11th day of December, 2001 hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-433 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2001-
082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development
Permit 2001-711 located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street,
more particularly described as follows:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 760-290-005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1 970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-433)
and has determined that although the proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082,
Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development
Permit 2001-711 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
General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054, Conditional Use Permit
2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and,
Resolution No. 2002-25
Environmental Assessment 2001-433
RLF Development
Adopted: February 19, 2002
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 General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 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 by Environmental Assessment 2001-433.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 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. 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 General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 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.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 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 ~rea will not be significantly affected by the
proposed project.
6. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-054,
Conditional Use Permit 2001-066 and Site Development Permit 2001-711 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.
Resolution No. 2002-25
Environmental Assessment 2001-433
RLF Development
Adopted: February 19, 2002
Page 3
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-
433 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
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 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 2001-433 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 1 9th day of February 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: Council Member Adolph
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN' None
ayor
California
Resolution No. 2002-25
Environmental Assessment 2001-433
RLF Development
Adopted: February 19, 2002
Page 4
ATTEST:
City of La Quinta, California
(City Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM'
M. KATHERI~ JENSON, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Environmental CheckliSt Form
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-150
City Council Resolution 2002-25
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-082, Specific Plan 2001-
054, Conditional Use Permit 2001-066, Site Development
Permit 2001-711. Pueblo Plaza Shopping Center.
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 Iorio, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: RLF Development
77043 Iroquois Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
7. Zoning: Neighborhood 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.)
General Plan Amendment to shorten the distance between signalized
intersections on Major. Specific Plan to establish development standards and
design guidelines for the construction of a neighborhood shopping center on
15.15 acres, including supermarket, drug store and seven ancillary pads.
Conditional Use Permit for the location of a service station at the northwest
corner of the property. Site Development Permit for the development plans of
the supermarket, drug store and bank building.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Avenue 52, Low Density Residential
South: Ali-American Canal, Low Density Residential
West: Jefferson Street, Low Density Residential
East: Low Density Residential
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Not applicable
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
1
· ·
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this "
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics H~rds and H~rdous 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.
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 Date/ /
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
G:\WPDOCS~Env Asses\BartletEACklst. WPD '" -
2 -
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts..
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) '~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
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa20~)2-25.wpd
3
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
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)
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) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map) X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in X
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 X
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 X
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Project Description)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
4
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Project Description) 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1)
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 Califorma Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment,
p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 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 Califorma Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Cultural
Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...," Archaeological
Associates, July 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, X
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)? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre Parcel...,"
Archaeological Associates, July 2001)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(Lakebed Delineation Map)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ("Cultural Resources Assessment of a 15 acre
P~cel .... "Archaeological Associates, July 2001)
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25. wpd
5
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 4-35) X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, X
page 6-7)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) X
c) Be located on a geological umt 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 X
collapse? ("Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 7 Lot Residential
Subdivision...,' Sladden Engineering, August 2001)
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 X
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 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)
V[L 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 b~ 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)
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
6
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) X
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) X
vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quali .ty 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 X
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EI~, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or fiver, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or fiver, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner X
which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (General Plan EIK page
4-30 ff.)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capaci .ty
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control?
(General Plan EIR, page 4-30 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? (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 coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
S:\City Clor k\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
7
a) Result in the loss of availabili .ty 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) X
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) X
XL 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? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6- X
4, page 6-17)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-
4, page 6-17)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17) X
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (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 map)
XIL 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? (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:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
8
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) X
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) X
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) X
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) X
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? X
(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) X
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capaci .ty of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to X
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 X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.)
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)
XVL 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)
$:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
9
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)
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 ammal community, X
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? X
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)'? X
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.
No earlier analysis 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:
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
10
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Cultural Resources Assessmem of a 15 Acre Parcel Located Southeast of the Intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52...,
Archaeological Associates, July 2001.
S:\City Clerk\Resolutions\CCCoa2002-25.wpd
11